New GOP Edge: Did 5 Dem/Indp Justices Ratify Child-Deprivation Using Fake "Gay Gene" Premise?

Silhouette

Gold Member
Jul 15, 2013
25,815
1,938
265
Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:
Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...
 
Last edited:
Part II: Children Are/Aren't Implicitly Involved In A Marriage Contract: (An argument of LGBT convenience depending on the day and the weather apparently..)

As many here know, I've put forward argument as to how gay marriage is illegal because it violates the Infancy Doctrine. The Infancy Doctrine (ID) was created in the 15th Century as ironclad prohibition of adults from taking advantage of minors in situations involving contracts. It has been under attack in recent times in the US out of convenience to adults who want to take advantage of minors. (irony). So here is what a treatise on the ID has to say about it's applicability in modern day law:

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf The Infancy Doctrine In Modern Days
******
"...These recent trends in markets as well as in contract practice and law leave minors more exposed to potentially harmful or unfair terms. The infancy doctrine is their only viable protection.
Thus, this is a particularly appropriate time to shine a light on the infancy doctrine--to determine what it includes and whether it needs adjustments. Although the infancy doctrine is well-established in American jurisprudence, even well-established legal doctrines should be periodically reexamined to determine if they still serve their intended purpose or have become a barrier to justice...

...A. The Rule:
The infancy doctrine protects persons under the legally designated age of adulthood from both "crafty adults" and their own bad judgment. The doctrine is based on the presumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract...
.. The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor...


********

Crafty Adults = Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg & Kennedy.... (see post #1 herein & crafty use of language to deprive children contractually of either a father or mother for life without their having unique representation..)

For other discussions enumerated in depth, with helpful informative links about children involved in gay marriage and gay adoptions see these thread OPs: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer & Another 2017 LGBT Court Case, & Specifically Gay Adoption Of Unwanted Kids: A Poll

So those who would argue we not look at the ID when considering how children are affected by the marriage contract which they implicitly have a share in, are those who would argue that children ought not to be protected from adults in contracts. And those are precisely the types of adults the ID was created for. So they are in essence arguing for the extinguishing of the core intent of the ID.

Their next argument has been "well children simply are in no way shape or form a requirement of the marriage license/contract!!" That is a strawman argument since profits aren't present at the onset of any new business contract, and may never arrive, yet they are anticipated and most certainly are part of the implicit expectations and terms of that contract. So new businesses aren't "required" to produce profit-proof on day 1, that would be absurd. Neither are marriage "required" to produce children on day one...or ever if they cannot or won't conceive. But we don't design the entire concept of a business or marriage contract to negate the expected statistical return of such an endeavor.

That argument being put to rest, the next you will hear is "The Court doesn't recognize children as intrinsic to the marriage contract!" Obergefell not only recognizes children as implicit parties even as a "third basis" (emphasis for their total decision in Obergefell), they said that marriage was vital to their best development:

*******
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

....__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

********
Bearing all that in mind, the revision of the marriage contract terms to include homosexuality includes a revision that deprives children implicitly intrinsic to the marriage contract of either a vital father or mother for life. Did you know that child endangerment laws require you to act even upon suspicion of danger to a child, not even needing proof? And did you know that failure to act is punishable in a court of law? And did you know that judges and Justices are not exempt from that law and if they fail to protect or abet abuse or neglect or banishment of children from a vital necessity, that they can be removed from the bench? Now you know how our system of checks and balances keeps even rogue judges from becoming demi-gods as they were in Obergefell. Because Obergefell for the first time in human history enshrines the dethroning of importance of fathers to boys and mothers to girls in contract and family law.

Wow, didn't think of it that way, did you? Now you do. Here's what the ID says about depriving children of necessities:
****
2. Necessaries

"....Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well."

****

There are two problems with that passage with respect to Obergefell: 1. There is a preponderance of psychological and statistical data that supports that fathers are a necessity to boys. And the same mother to girls. and 2. Obergefell HAD NO UNIQUE REPRESENTATION AT THE HEARING FOR CHILDREN. Given that Obergefell essentially eliminated two vital necessities to boys and girls with the sweep of five pens, that civil hearing was EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE for children in general to be affected into time unknown. Given that, the Court was REQUIRED to have separate counsel at the Hearing involving the children IT SAID ITSELF IN ITS OPINION THAT WERE/ARE INTRINSIC TO MARRIAGE.

So, on those points alone Obergefell's fabulous-five Justices were in gross error...and guilty of child endangerment via deprivation of key elements necessary to their "best interests" (their own quote).
 
Last edited:
So boiling this down, will we allow the "decision" of 2015 to stand by just 5 rogue in-pocket left-flexing "Justices", on behalf of the 300 million, when such a decision boils down further to their legislating-from-the-bench fathers and mothers into social-irrelevance on behalf of the 300 million without their consent? And legislating-from-the-bench that the Infancy Doctrine no longer applies to necessaries for children? That includes psychological necessaries too folks... Are fathers "psychologically unnecessary" to boys? Are mothers "psychologically unnecessary" to girls? Five democrat-left leaning Justices have declared they are unnecessary on your behalf.

Is this really going to help the democrat platform in 2018 and beyond? "Hey Joe blue collar dem & independent voters, did you know fathers and mothers (in other words, you) are not important to sons and daughters anymore, courtesy of the democrat party?" :popcorn:

Should you thank them with obedient silence, nonchalance or complacency? Or should you urge a revisiting of Obergefell's judicial coup on democracy with the outfall/intent of depriving children using a brand new contract?
 
Last edited:
Another argument we've seen online with respect to the Infancy Doctrine is that "it no longer is relevant" (says the predatory adult and/or ignorant attorney/judge/Justice). An example cited from the review of the Doctrine addresses specifically adults taking advantage of minors online. But it applies to any situation where an adult finds taking advantage of a minor acceptable as a convenience to himself:

*****
Page 70 of actual text Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

In addition, the present risk from the infancy doctrine is generally low because most minors, parents, and even attorneys are not well informed about the availability of the infancy doctrine int the first place. Moreover, when it is raised, online businesses may be very effective in making minors believe they have no realistic remedy; vulnerability to that kind of persuasion is an example of what the infancy doctrine intends to address. ...smart attorneys for major online service providers would advise their clients to privately settle rather than pursue a lawsuit (or publicity) that may draw attention to the existence of the infancy doctrine and set further adverse precedent. Thus, the infancy doctrine remains underused. Public policy may actually support a program to educate minors about the doctrine and encourage its use, and to educate adults on the doctrine and the policies it represents

****

Educating about the ID and how it was violated numerous times by Obergefell's Hearing and Conclusions is to the end that I endeavor here.
 
Last edited:
Children Having Zero Unique Representation At Obergefell's Extraordinary Circumstances (The relegation of fathers & mothers from marriage to non-relevant) Contract-Revision Hearing:

Infancy Doctrine actual page 72:

*****
Decreasing Contractual Protections
Few people dispute that protecting minors from more-experienced adults is a worthy goal. In fact, contract law has developed doctrines such as duress and unconscionably to ovoid overreaching contracts altogether....recent judicial trends show that these doctrines do not afford the necessary degree of protection to minors that the infancy law provides...The new norm of nonnegotiable contracts threatened the policy considerations of the assent doctrine; with some commentators arguing that there could be no real consent without the ability to negotiate any changes, especially when one party was in a position of significantly less power...
*****

I would argue that having zero representation for children's unique interest in a broad-reaching and extraordinary proposal of contract revision that includes their no longer enjoying both a father and mother from marriage, indeed a legal banishment of those vital components to them, is most definitely a "position of significantly less power" for them...and all the more reason the Infancy Doctrine should be invoked to protect them from the harms of Obergefell.


It was an unconscionable act of the Court to so brutally and fundamentally revise the terms and benefits to children of that old contract, ripped from the states' oversight, using just five unapologetically-open advocates for the LGBT position of revision...by not inviting the mandatory unique representation children needed & deserved at that Hearing in the Spring of 2015.
 
How Selling Out Women To Transgender Bullies Helped Elect Donald Trump
Selling Out Women To Transgender Bullies Helped Elect Donald Trump


in May 2016, right in the thick of the campaign season, Democrats betrayed women in favor of transsexuals. A joint Justice and Education department directive threatened to pull federal aid from school districts that would not allow transsexual access to bathrooms and locker rooms of their chosen gender. Twenty-three states immediately filed a lawsuit challenging that directive......Though many were afraid of being called “transphobic” if they objected to intact males colonizing all remaining female space—in this era of deconstructing “rape culture,” ironically enough—there were signs that this was a bridge too far. Way too far. Even for self-identified liberals.

So we have the dems selling out women in 2016 for their deviant sex cult cohorts. But what was underplayed was the selling out of women again in the form of Obergefell saying women are no longer important as mothers to daughters (or sons). That they can be replaced by men in that role. This is why they're having lesbians and not gay men sue in Michigan to force adoption agencies to give up kids into homes where with two gay men, "mother" is abolished officially enshrined in law. Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

When you back up and really look at the thing...it really does seem like that LGBT cult is completely chauvinistic or dismissive towards women in general.
 
Last edited:
I guess some ^^ LGBT/democrat posters think it's funny that women don't have private space or potent status as mothers anymore. It's like these people won't stop until women are completely irrelevant.
 
Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:
Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.
 
So boiling this down, will we allow the "decision" of 2015 to stand by just 5 rogue in-pocket left-flexing "Justices",

What it boils down to is that you are pissed off that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states- and you start thread after thread after thread with lunatic theories as to why it cannot possibly be.

Hey- I still can't believe Trump got elected but I don't start a thread a day giving lunatic theories about how he isn't really our President.

What you object to is that in all 50 states gay couples can marry- and that the children they raise will no longer be harmed by the marriage bans.
 
I guess some ^^ LGBT/democrat posters think it's funny that women don't have private space or potent status as mothers anymore. It's like these people won't stop until women are completely irrelevant.

Silhouette is spamming her own thread.

I find that funny.
 
Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:
Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.
Let it go....better if no one posts on her silly threads.
 
Were the quotes from Obergefell or the quotes from the Infancy Doctrine more silly?
 
Let it go....better if no one posts on her silly threads.

What you meant to say was "better if the thread gets lost on a back page than anyone reading it". It's OK. I know. Because you guys were working furiously today on the other similar threads trying to get me over there instead of here.

You definitely don't want people reading page one here.
 
As for child endangerment or in this case child deprivation...all citizens are required to act if they even just suspect it. Uniquely these protective laws don't require proof. And they apply to judges who can be removed from the bench if they fail to adhere. There are penalties for regular people for failure to act too.
 
Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Are you hoping that nobody likes word salad Syriusly? I see you're taking your friend's advice and not calling attention to what you are claiming doesn't matter because "it's nonsense"....curious, that. Seems if you wanted to paint me out as a loon, you'd be bumping this thread five times a day and writing all your belittling comments that are in good contradiction to the "nonsense"?

curious...
 
Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:
Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

Laughing.....nope.

As for the existence of the 'gay gene', you're a geneticist now? Remember, Sil.....you have no clue what you're talking about. Not only the law, not on genetics. So what possible value do your assurances on either the law or genetics have? Its like asking a blind person to pontificate on the color orange.
 
Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Are you hoping that nobody likes word salad Syriusly? I see you're taking your friend's advice and not calling attention to what you are claiming doesn't matter because "it's nonsense"....curious, that. Seems if you wanted to paint me out as a loon, you'd be bumping this thread five times a day and writing all your belittling comments that are in good contradiction to the "nonsense"?

curious...

Your latest round of pseudo-legal ramblings are as irrelevant as your *last* 3 years worth of pseudo-legal ramblings. You have literally 40 threads with collective thousands of pages of this obsessive-compulsive babble about the 'law'......that consist of nothing more than you ignoring the Supreme Court and imagining that YOU are the law.

Um, no, Sil. You're not. You're legally irrelevant. The Supreme Court, however....is not. Their findings are authoritative. Yours are irrelevant.
 
Were the quotes from Obergefell or the quotes from the Infancy Doctrine more silly?

Laughing.....the *actual* infancy doctrine, which is employment contract law for child actors? Or your bizarro, imaginary version of the 'infancy doctrine' which makes children married to their parents?

Because they aren't the same thing. There's a reason why your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure: you simply have no idea how the law works or what you're talking about.
 
As for the existence of the 'gay gene', you're a geneticist now? Remember, Sil.....you have no clue what you're talking about. Not only the law, not on genetics. So what possible value do your assurances on either the law or genetics have? Its like asking a blind person to pontificate on the color orange.

You don't know how to follow links, do you? Did you notice that after I said the gay gene was bullshit I gave two links: One to Johns Hopkins, the other to a site with dozens of links to dozens of studies disproving the "gay gene" crapola? Don't know how to move your cursor over the links and click?
 
As for the existence of the 'gay gene', you're a geneticist now? Remember, Sil.....you have no clue what you're talking about. Not only the law, not on genetics. So what possible value do your assurances on either the law or genetics have? Its like asking a blind person to pontificate on the color orange.

You don't know how to follow links, do you? Did you notice that after I said the gay gene was bullshit I gave two links: One to Johns Hopkins, the other to a site with dozens of links to dozens of studies disproving the "gay gene" crapola? Don't know how to move your cursor over the links and click?

Sil, your links don't say what you do. Remember when you told us about the 'implied beneficiaries' outlined in the Infancy Doctrine and included a link.........to a page that never used the terms 'implied', 'beneficiary' or 'implied beneficary'?

You have no idea what you're talking about. No marriage, in the history of our nation, has ever been voided because of the 'infancy doctrine'. Its *employment contract law*. It has nothing to do with marriage. As demonstrated by the perfect record of failure of your latest in literally *dozens* of threads and thousands of pages of pseudo-legal gibberish.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top