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

[Silhouette]

Legal gay marriage is the law of the land and will remain so long after you are gone. Let that sink in.........

New York vs. Ferber (1982) is the law of the land, creating legal dominance of children's physical and psychological wellness over adult civil rights. And that will remain so and be reaffirmed so within our lifetimes. Let that sink in...

(1982) Fail

So you're saying that any USSC case that has been determined prior to today's date is "old fashioned and doesn't apply today"? That covers a LOT of legal ground there...

Might also want to look into "Doctrine of Infants" when you get a chance. Pretty solid old law there too. Going to rewrite that too are you?

 

[Syriusly]

Why can't we tax gay marriage in the same way we tax people who don't buy health insurance. It may seem like penalizing gay marriage but the supreme court has already said that such taxes are not penalties. We can actually use the same precedent established in Obamacare to justify this. Imagine if this kind of case made its way to the supreme court. They either hold it up and say we can tax the shit out of gay couples or strike it down and undo their earlier precedent validating the constitutionality of Obamacare. Wouldn't that be diabolical?

Go for it- just another example of how Conservatives love taxes

 

[WorldWatcher]

Another theory about why Silly starts so many of these threads.

CWA (Concerned Women of America) asserted years ago that if gay marriage became legal, women would divorce their husbands in droves in order to marry each other. Silly is still waiting but they don't seem to be rushing in droves to marry her.

Sure they are. Here is proof.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Legal gay marriage is the law of the land and will remain so long after you are gone. Let that sink in.........

New York vs. Ferber (1982) is the law of the land, creating legal dominance of children's physical and psychological wellness over adult civil rights. And that will remain so and be reaffirmed so within our lifetimes. Let that sink in...

(1982) Fail

So you're saying that any USSC case that has been determined prior to today's date is "old fashioned and doesn't apply today"? That covers a LOT of legal ground there...

Why do you think that anyone has to follow Ferber?

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you think that anyone has to follow Ferber?

I could just as easily ask you why you think anyone has to follow Obergefell. Since they are both USSC Decisions, each is equally binding as the other. And since they are in direct conflict with each other, states may raise the question and ask for (or force) a clarifying Hearing on which one is the dominant law.

 

[Skylar]

Liberals basically believe if those in power tell them it is OK then it is OK.

More specifically, there's no logical reason to deny same sex couples marriage. And several logic reasons to allow it. Its the same conclusion that the USSC reached. And virtually every appeals court to hear cases on the topic.

 

[Montrovant]

And don't forget Fawcett v. Smethurst which says an onerous contract which hurts or tortures children in evident or subtle ways cannot be legal:
So where the LGBT cult cries "gay marriage remedies single parenthood!" ; we find that it does not. And in fact it erases any hope of a child having both a mother and father: THE reason marriage was created a thousand years ago.

You are citing a British case.....and doing it incorrectly. That case is discussing contracts in which minors are signatories. It says that contracts which would be binding on minors, in other words contracts of which minors are signatories and have rights/responsibilities within the contract, are voided if the terms are onerous. It is a way for minors to be relieved of obligation to follow a contract, not a way to void contracts which are not directly related to minors.

Incorrectly citing a British case in a discussion of US marriage law. You are unique, Sil.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Legal gay marriage is the law of the land and will remain so long after you are gone. Let that sink in.........

New York vs. Ferber (1982) is the law of the land, creating legal dominance of children's physical and psychological wellness over adult civil rights. And that will remain so and be reaffirmed so within our lifetimes. Let that sink in...

(1982) Fail

So you're saying that any USSC case that has been determined prior to today's date is "old fashioned and doesn't apply today"? That covers a LOT of legal ground there...

Might also want to look into "Doctrine of Infants" when you get a chance. Pretty solid old law there too. Going to rewrite that too are you?

There was a supreme court case you are forgetting about dumb ass.

 

[SwimExpert]

And don't forget Fawcett v. Smethurst which says an onerous contract which hurts or tortures children in evident or subtle ways cannot be legal:
So where the LGBT cult cries "gay marriage remedies single parenthood!" ; we find that it does not. And in fact it erases any hope of a child having both a mother and father: THE reason marriage was created a thousand years ago.

You are citing a British case.....and doing it incorrectly. That case is discussing contracts in which minors are signatories. It says that contracts which would be binding on minors, in other words contracts of which minors are signatories and have rights/responsibilities within the contract, are voided if the terms are onerous. It is a way for minors to be relieved of obligation to follow a contract, not a way to void contracts which are not directly related to minors.

Incorrectly citing a British case in a discussion of US marriage law. You are unique, Sil.

You realize that she doesn't care, right? Everything you just said....here's what she heard: 'gay be evil.'

 

[Skylar]

How much do you want to bet Feber gets added to ever growing list of legal batshit in Sil's sig line? lol

I look forward to Silhouette's alternate history fan fiction on Feber..

New York vs Ferber (google it and read it for yourself) was a case where a man wanted to sell or rent child porn videos and the state clamped down on him. He cried "my civil rights to free speech!".. and there was much deliberation over that back and forth. First he won, then he didn't, appeals and finally USSC Hearing. The Highest Court in our land affirmed that even when adults have a clear and concise constitutional civil right; if it is exercised to the physical or psychological harm to children, that right is not dominant to children's protection.

Lets see.......the Ferber case never mentions marriage, never finds that same sex marriage damages children, never found children are married to their parents, never found that the marriage of children is a 'minor contract' for their children, never even used the word 'marriage', in any context.

You hallucinated all of that. The Ferber case has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Which might explain why it was never cited by any court in relation to same sex marriage.

Single parenthood is better than gay marriage because gay marriage completely removes the hope of a mother or father to children involved...FOR LIFE... Single parents meanwhile may remarry. Removing hope from a child of an onerous situation never ending is psychological cruelty.

That is what happened. That is the Law as we currently sit. Gay marriage in Obergefell reversed NY v Ferber when the Court said "It's OK for adults to institutionally strip children of either a mother or father for life"...ignoring the mastadon in the living room which is that marriage was created over a thousand years ago precisely to remedy any child's life that found them lacking the need of both a mother and father....

So, even if gays were saintly, pure, chaste and wonderful (though we've seen the opposite going on in their parades across the nation), their contemporary wishes of wanting to be part of the marriage contract together cannot subvert children's need of marriage to remedy "being fatherless or motherless". So, gay marriage is illegal according to NY vs Ferber. If a child can be predicted to come to harm from an adult exercise of a "civil right" (newly created and added to the constitution for just some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others, outside the Legislature's powers), that civil right can not be exercised in that particular instance.

Sorry. And if you disagree, look up NY v Ferber yourselves..but here's a snippet:

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982) https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (page 30)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right...

Alas, the Supreme Court found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And that recognizing same sex marriage helps children. A total of 4 times. Thus, per the standards you've cited in Ferber, the Supreme Court were correct in recognizing same sex marriage to prevent harm to children and to benefit children.

Remember, you disagree with the *findings* of the Supreme Court. Insisting that you know better. You don't.

And don't forget Fawcett v. Smethurst which says an onerous contract which hurts or tortures children in evident or subtle ways cannot be legal:

Incapacity Law | Contract and Capacity Law A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Three huge problems with your pseudo-legal nonsense. First, Fawcett v. Smethurst is about contracts in which children are subject to legal liabilities. IE, specific legal obligations as signatories to a contract. No child is subject to any legal obligation or liability when their parents are married.

So even hypothetically, your claims are meaningless gibberish.

Second, no court no law recognizes marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children. No law nor court recognizes children being married to their parents. You made all that shit up. And your imagination and personal fiction have no relevance to the law. Rendering your claims yet again, meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Third, the Supreme Court specifically found that the right to marry is not predicated on children or the ability to have them.

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Killing your argument a third time. Your only recourse is to ignore the Supreme Court. And ignoring them, insist that every court and law in the nation is simiarly obligated to do so.

Alas, the world does not disappear just because you close your eyes. And the Supreme Court explicitly contradicting your claims and destroying your argument doesn't magically disappear just because you pretend it doesn't exist.

So where the LGBT cult cries "gay marriage remedies single parenthood!" ; we find that it does not. And in fact it erases any hope of a child having both a mother and father: THE reason marriage was created a thousand years ago.

"Onerous" defined: (dictionary dot com)

The terms were 'onerous liability'. You intentionally omitted the liability part for a very specific reason: Children are subject to no liability whatsoever when their parents get married. Making an 'onerous' one physically impossible.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

Children come in both genders needing specific role models of same to properly adjust to the adult world in which they find...both genders operating the joint...

Troublesome, causing hardship: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

The Prince Trust Study never so much as mentions mothers and fathers. Nor does it measure the effects of any kind of parenting. Which, of course, you know. But really hope we don't.

The only person citing the study in reference to same sex marriage......is you. And you're nobody.

There's a reason why you're *always* wrong in predicting legal outcomes, Sil. Its because you keep citing your imagination rather than the law.

 

[Skylar]

Legal gay marriage is the law of the land and will remain so long after you are gone. Let that sink in.........

New York vs. Ferber (1982) is the law of the land, creating legal dominance of children's physical and psychological wellness over adult civil rights. And that will remain so and be reaffirmed so within our lifetimes. Let that sink in...

(1982) Fail

So you're saying that any USSC case that has been determined prior to today's date is "old fashioned and doesn't apply today"? That covers a LOT of legal ground there...

Might also want to look into "Doctrine of Infants" when you get a chance. Pretty solid old law there too. Going to rewrite that too are you?

There was a supreme court case you are forgetting about dumb ass.

Oh, Several. The Supreme Court explicitly contradicts Sil 4 times. Finding that denying same sex marriage hurts children.....once in the Windsor ruling and again in the Obergefell ruling. Finding that recognizing same sex marriage helps children, once in the Obergefell ruling. And finding that the right to marriage isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them, once in Obergefell.

So Sil straight up ignores the Supreme Court and then pretends that because she ignored it, the court's ruling magically disappears.

Alas, reality doesn't pretend with her.

 

[Skylar]

Legal gay marriage is the law of the land and will remain so long after you are gone. Let that sink in.........

New York vs. Ferber (1982) is the law of the land, creating legal dominance of children's physical and psychological wellness over adult civil rights. And that will remain so and be reaffirmed so within our lifetimes. Let that sink in...

(1982) Fail

So you're saying that any USSC case that has been determined prior to today's date is "old fashioned and doesn't apply today"? That covers a LOT of legal ground there...

More accurately, Ferber has nothing to say about same sex marriage or its effects on children. With the Supreme Court's findings that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts hundreds of thousands of children.

Thus, Obergefell and Windsor were perfectly in line your claims about Ferber.

While your demands that we hurt hundreds of thousands of children by denying same sex marriage would be a violation of Ferber by your own standards. And Windsor. And Obergefell.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

More accurately, Ferber has nothing to say about same sex marriage or its effects on children. With the Supreme Court's findings that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts hundreds of thousands of children.....Thus, Obergefell and Windsor were perfectly in line your claims about Ferber.....While your demands that we hurt hundreds of thousands of children by denying same sex marriage would be a violation of Ferber by your own standards. And Windsor. And Obergefell.

No thank you.

You say children are being helped by gay marriage (Obergefell). I say the exact opposite. Suffice to say our little disagreement was "solved" by a couple of your pocket Justices practicing armchair child psychology instead of inviting in an array of opposing professional opinions on the matter so they could walk between the two and come up with a sane, logical and lucid Opinion with regards to what causes harm or what helps children. I offer the many many problems with Obergefell and how gay marriage in fact harms not just all children in general, but SPECIFICALLY the ones now game to be trapped within these non-married unions:

*********

It was never "settled" over 100 years ago that the Judicial Branch of government should look past the qualifier for "new class" and ignore that it derives from a repugnant sexual behavior instead of a static state of being like gender or race, or which country one is from. The only category left for the Judicial to have considered Obergefell was "religion". Since the LGBT cult flatly denies it is a cult, and has quite successfully dressed up their lie in the cloak of "born that way" without a shred of evidence to support that outrageous claim (prison gays, Anne Heche), "religion" didn't fit either. So the Judicial made up out of thin air a new category for the 14th: "Just some of our favorite repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors-as-identities, but not other deviant sex behaviors (polygamy)". This is 1. forbidden by the checks and balances. The Judicial Branch cannot add new things to the Constitution. 2. Discriminatory (not allowed in the 14th) to other deviant sex behaviors like polygamy and 3. All derived from a patently false premise of "just these deviant sex behaviors are innate while others aren't"...

Obergefell isn't worth the paper it's written on for all these reasons BESIDES that Kagan and Ginsburg presided over it in violation of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, and the court was essentially sitting on a proposed radical revision to the marriage contract without all implicit parties to that contract having representation at the Hearing.

And if that was all bad enough, it gets worse. In finding for gay marriage mandate, the Court completely destroyed the meaning and thousands-years-old purpose of creating the contract in the first place: to remedy the ills brought upon children of not having both a mother and father as mentors in their daily lives (kids come in both boys and girls folks). The Court created in Obergefell a brand new legal prison for which children may never escape. Even single parents would be better for kids in that they at least offer the hope of escape from that prison of the missing parent when they finally married. With "gay marriage" it is one and the same as a psychological prison of which there is no escape. And if you want to see how the prisoners regard that, read the link of the amicus brief in my signature of young adults raised in otherwise "perfectly happy" gay homes. And, if you want to read up on all the statistical woes awaiting kids who grow up without an intimately-concerned daily mentor in their lives of their same gender (a girl, a mother, a boy, a father), read how this causes elevated levels of depression, drug abuse, indigency and suicidal thoughts coming from a feeling of not mattering (since your gender was never represented in the daily adult functioning world you grew up in) PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Look for Obergefell to be heading to the paper shredder the minute the semi-sane people get back in control. Your little child abusing cult is going to get horse-whipped back into the "religious" category of the 14th. And from there, you can try to convince the people to give y'all "rights"..

As it stands now, no matter what "Constitutional rights" you claim or what nefarious process you claim was legitimate in giving them to you, they will not protect you when it comes to New York vs Ferber. The conclusion there being that a rock solid adult constitutional right becomes subdominant if it threatens to harm children physically or psychologically.. The fact that your pocket-Justices gave that entire conversation a pass isn't going to save them when the question and challenge comes back to them on behalf of how they need to consider how gay marriage will affect children.

And I suspect a catholic adoption agency will be the group with standing to bring that question...Be ready for it. It is coming. I dare two of your boys to walk up to a catholic adoption agency and demand what they always seem to: and adoptable little orphaned BOY..

 

[Skylar]

More accurately, Ferber has nothing to say about same sex marriage or its effects on children. With the Supreme Court's findings that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts hundreds of thousands of children.....Thus, Obergefell and Windsor were perfectly in line your claims about Ferber.....While your demands that we hurt hundreds of thousands of children by denying same sex marriage would be a violation of Ferber by your own standards. And Windsor. And Obergefell.

No thank you.

You say children are being helped by gay marriage (Obergefell). I say the exact opposite.

No, the COURT says that children benefit from same sex marriage. The COURT says that children are harmed by denying same sex marriage. The COURT says that the right to marriage isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them.

Which, of course, you already know. But pretend you don't:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

With the Supreme Court reiterrating the harm denying same sex marriage causes children in the Obergefell ruling.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

And finally, the Supreme Court found that same sex marriage benefits children:

By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests.

And affirm again that same sex marriage benefits children, recognizing gays and lesbians as creating loving, supportive families:

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

And of course, the Supreme Court already affirmed that the right to married is predicated on neither children nor the ability to have them.

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

You're insisting that because you disagree with the FINDINGS of the court, that the Court's ruling is 'void', 'illegal', and a 'mistrial'.

Laughing.....nope! Alas, you're nobody. And the validity of no court ruling is predicated on you agreeing with it.

 

[Silhouette]

And what professional studies or witnesses did the Justices cite to pass such final and binding Opinions upon 'what's best for children'? Lemme guess...the APA-sponsored studies alone? Remember that the APA promotes gay and lesbian agendas. The Court was mandated to find opposing professional opinions. The Court CANNOT claim that the unanimous professional position on depriving a boy of a father or girl of a mother FOR LIFE (not as in single parents even) is "good for them". The five Justices cherry-picked only studies that supported making gay marriage legal...by any means necessary. All they had to do was google "gay marriage bad for children" before rendering their Opinion and they would've found the Prince's Trust 2010 survey eventually, and all the other studies on boys raised without fathers and the woes they face in adulthood as a result. This was never done.

Obergefell was a Kangaroo Hearing in which the result was predetermined, using at least two Justices who flaunted their decision months before the Hearing and a Whitehouse lit up not even one full day, mere hours, after the Opinion was issued to runners on the Courthouse steps, with rainbow lights all over the front phasod...in a huge middle finger to the majority of Americans who "polled' their opinions in their respective states by opposing gay marriage, and worst of all, the middle finger to children "this is your new lot so DEAL WITH IT!"

Hitler would be proud.

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell isn't worth the paper it's written on for all these reasons BESIDES that Kagan and Ginsburg presided over it in violation of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, and the court was essentially sitting on a proposed radical revision to the marriage contract without all implicit parties to that contract having representation at the Hearing.

And with your last batch of pseudo-legal gibberish disproven by the actual ruling of the court......you start on your conspiracy theories again. But you're hampered by the same crippling limitation that always impedes your pseudo-legal gibberish: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Caperton was about an ELECTED judge that received campaign contributions from a party to a case the judge was adjudicating.

Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither received any campaign contrutions from any party in the Obergefell ruling. Nor did they receive any financial compensation from *anyone* regarding the ruling.

Killing your 'Caperton' gibberish. Your arguments are all the same: you offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the courts and the law is bound to whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you make up.

Laughing.....nope! You're still nobody. And your imagination is gloriously irrelevant to the law or any court ruling. You can tell.....by same sex marriages being performed in 50 of 50 States.

 

[Skylar]

And what professional studies or witnesses did the Justices cite to pass such final and binding Opinions upon 'what's best for children'?

The court cites their sources. You merely refuse to read the Obergefell ruling. And then because you won't look at the sources in the ruling, you insist there are none.

Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because Silly closes her eyes.

Lemme guess...the APA-sponsored studies alone? Remember that the APA promotes gay and lesbian agendas.

And look. Another batshit Silly conspiracy theory.

Shocker.

The Court was mandated to find opposing professional opinions. The Court CANNOT claim that the unanimous professional position on depriving a boy of a father or girl of a mother FOR LIFE (not as in single parents even) is "good for them". The five Justices cherry-picked only studies that supported making gay marriage legal...by any means necessary. All they had to do was google "gay marriage bad for children" before rendering their Opinion and they would've found the Prince's Trust 2010 survey eventually, and all the other studies on boys raised without fathers and the woes they face in adulthood as a result. This was never done.

The Justices found that your claims are wrong. That children are harmed by the denial of same sex marriage. And that children benefit from same sex marriage.

You merely disagree. And who gives a shit? You're nobody. The pseudo-legal gibberish you tell yourself has no relevance to the law, the courts, or any court ruling.

Your entire argument has predictably devolved into you giving us excuses for why you IGNORE the Supreme Court. And why the Supreme Court is bound to your personal opinion.

Nope. Not it isn't. You can't get around that.

Obergefell was a Kangaroo Hearing in which the result was predetermined, using at least two Justices who flaunted their decision months before the Hearing and a Whitehouse lit up not even one full day, mere hours, after the Opinion was issued to runners on the Courthouse steps, with rainbow lights all over the front phasod...in a huge middle finger to the majority of Americans who "polled' their opinions in their respective states by opposing gay marriage, and worst of all, the middle finger to children "this is your new lot so DEAL WITH IT!"

Hitler would be proud.

Oh, Silly!

Hitler? Really? Disagreeing with you isn't 'Hitler'. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[mdk]

Hitler would be proud.

You really are off your nut, aren't you?

 

[Syriusly]

Hitler would be proud.

Why do you want Hitler to be proud of you?

yes- your posts are eerily similar to Goebbels but why do you seek Hitler's approval?

 

[Silhouette]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me, using ad hominem liberally in defense of points you know you can't defend...and putting words into my mouth...and practicing no small amount of just blatant gaslighting. At some point your audience is going to realize where the evil is lodged firmly in this debate between us. Even people with no religion can sense evil when it presents itself so audaciously.

Do carry on.. I like not having to work that hard.