Specific Legal Mandates Why Gay Marriage Is Illegal Everywhere in the United States

[Syriusly]

Marriage is not a contractual obligation to infants. The obligations that parents have to their children under the law exist whether or not those parents are married.

Using tax incentives, states encourage marriage to bond mothers and fathers in a permanent way (an incentive program). No incentive program is 100% successful, but it is better than sentencing children to life without the possibility of having either a mother or father. (gay marriage). Even single parents present the hope of one day providing the missing parent.

Why do states incentivize it with tax breaks? So that adults can shack up and escape paying taxes; all for stripping children even of the hope of the missing parent in their lives? No, the states incentivize mother/father marriage because they get something in return. They get boys with fathers and girls with mothers so that these poor souls don't grow up to be statistically "lost" in their formative years and turn to drugs, depression, suicide, indigency and prison as result.. PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

None of what you just posted makes marriage a contractual obligation to infants. Nor does it address the fact that the legal obligations of parents to their children exist whether or not those parents are married; nor does it address the fact that tax incentives for children exist whether or not the parents are married; nor does repeating your lies about the Prince's Trust survey make them any more true than in the past.

And Silhouette ignores that those were the arguments made by States before- the arguments that lost in court- over and over.

 

[Silhouette]

And Silhouette ignores that those were the arguments made by States before- the arguments that lost in court- over and over.

Yes, but the bias of the judges in the federal appeals system...bias or ignorance...drew commentary from the conservative Justices in SCOTUS of "judicial activism". It's not every day a Justice eats their own. And the steamroller, rubber-stamp and extremely political seedy nature of all y'all's victories drew those comments out of very tight lips otherwise.

What I'm saying is "ignorance is not an excuse". That judges all along the way refused to consider the Infants Doctrine or necessities and contract law where infants are concerned or New York vs Ferber, where it was Found that even if an adult has a clear and potent constitutionally-supported right, if that right causes physical or psychological harm to a child, it is subdominant and moot. So, new challenges to your string of victories will discuss childrens' intrinsic rights vs adults. That was never done. It was never discussed "is it right to legally cut children off for life from the hope of either a mother or father?" That will be done. Probably by catholic adoption agencies..

NY vs Ferber and the Infants Doctrine gives that case big teeth. It's not every day the Court finds that adults cannot exercise a constitutional right. The reasons must be compelling. And in the case of children's well being, the most dominant of all Law in the US, the Decision was clear.

 

[Syriusly]

[
NY vs Ferber and the Infants Doctrine gives that case big teeth..

No- that you think that a prior Supreme Court ruling on a completely different issue would over-rule a more recent Supreme Court ruling just shows how delusional you are when it comes to the law.