A Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad"

[Montrovant]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states. Like driver's licenses, they should be valid everywhere. It would otherwise be very complicated to say somebody is married in one state but not in another.


But such a compromise, while it would solve the issue, would not be acceptable to the homo brigade who screeches for the right to be married everywhere. They don't want equitable compromise, they want unmitigated victory.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If you can get married in one state and have it recognized by all the others?

Sounds like what is currently happening.

Sorry, but gay marriage is going to soon be legal in all 50 states.

Kinda like what is going to happen with marijuana.

 

[Inevitable]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion given that

Given that the Supreme Court has allowed gay marriages to proceed in 38 states so far.

And why should people's free exercise of religion and personal practice
RELY on the Supreme Court in Washington "giving permission"???

Do you see the problem here?

Do Atheists need permission? Or Christians?
So whenever an Atheist has a conflict with a Christian,
we need to run to Court -- wah wah wah -- and tell on each other
and get some third party to intervene because we can't resolve issues on our own?

Is THAT what America has come to now?

If there was a Reality Show with all this drama going on,
I don't think I could bear to watch this...

Yes that is what America has come to and always been. We wouldn't have to run to federal courts if we weren't under the tyranny of the majority.

Those with power enforce it. The power should never be in government hands.

I think the mistake was alerting states to define marriage.

 

[Inevitable]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states. Like driver's licenses, they should be valid everywhere. It would otherwise be very complicated to say somebody is married in one state but not in another.


But such a compromise, while it would solve the issue, would not be acceptable to the homo brigade who screeches for the right to be married everywhere. They don't want equitable compromise, they want unmitigated victory.

I absolutely would accept that. And even encourage states that preform such marriages to do so by proxy. Thus you could legally get married in Texas by somebody with the power vested in them by say, Massachusetts.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states. Like driver's licenses, they should be valid everywhere. It would otherwise be very complicated to say somebody is married in one state but not in another.


But such a compromise, while it would solve the issue, would not be acceptable to the homo brigade who screeches for the right to be married everywhere. They don't want equitable compromise, they want unmitigated victory.

I absolutely would accept that. And even encourage states that preform such marriages to do so by proxy. Thus you could legally get married in Texas by somebody with the power vested in them by say, Massachusetts.

Then you are at variance with the LGBT orcs who aren't seeking any compromise that makes everyone happy. In fact, most likely, you wouldn't even need to travel further than Colorado to get married and then live in Texas. My own state of Idaho was really stupid, our law being overturned because we refused to recognize gay marriages performed in other states...it's like we were looking for trouble. I hope the Supreme Court gives a complete decision that returns the issue to the states where it belongs, but disallows states to withhold recognition to marriages legally performed in other states. That would be the best solution.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes that is what America has come to and always been. We wouldn't have to run to federal courts if we weren't under the tyranny of the majority.

Those with power enforce it. The power should never be in government hands.

I think the mistake was alerting states to define marriage.

And children wouldn't have to run to states for protection from the tyranny of those who can vote and organize in a militant ligitious machine so they can merely have a mother and father in marriage.

The redaction of the word marriage is an assault on the word. You are tyranically trying to hijack it so that you can play your brand new experiment forcing boys to not have fathers and girls to not have mothers....and...to institutionalize the daily message to any child in that redacted marriage to regard the missing adult gender as "disposable, unimportant, a mere breeder, unlovable..".

That is a RADICAL change to society. So the tyranny is coming from your camp pal. And fight back we will, to not allow the redaction of the word and vital physical structure known as "marriage" without the permission of the majority in the sovereign states.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes that is what America has come to and always been. We wouldn't have to run to federal courts if we weren't under the tyranny of the majority.

Those with power enforce it. The power should never be in government hands.

I think the mistake was alerting states to define marriage.

And children wouldn't have to run to states for protection from the tyranny of those who can vote and organize in a militant ligitious machine so they can merely have a mother and father in marriage.

The redaction of the word marriage is an assault on the word. You are tyranically trying to hijack it so that you can play your brand new experiment forcing boys to not have fathers and girls to not have mothers....and...to institutionalize the daily message to any child in that redacted marriage to regard the missing adult gender as "disposable, unimportant, a mere breeder, unlovable..".

That is a RADICAL change to society. So the tyranny is coming from your camp pal. And fight back we will, to not allow the redaction of the word and vital physical structure known as "marriage" without the permission of the majority in the sovereign states.

First, you have an odd definition of the word redaction.

Second, I don't know who you think you are quoting here, but as far as I'm aware you are only quoting yourself. I have seen no one else describe same sex marriage as giving the message to children that a particular gender is "disposable, unimportant, a mere breeder, unlovable.." Since you commonly present your own (usually erroneous) conclusions as though they are facts or as though they are quotes from someone else, I'm not surprised. It's still dishonest, though.

 

[Inevitable]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states. Like driver's licenses, they should be valid everywhere. It would otherwise be very complicated to say somebody is married in one state but not in another.


But such a compromise, while it would solve the issue, would not be acceptable to the homo brigade who screeches for the right to be married everywhere. They don't want equitable compromise, they want unmitigated victory.

I absolutely would accept that. And even encourage states that preform such marriages to do so by proxy. Thus you could legally get married in Texas by somebody with the power vested in them by say, Massachusetts.

Then you are at variance with the LGBT orcs who aren't seeking any compromise that makes everyone happy. In fact, most likely, you wouldn't even need to travel further than Colorado to get married and then live in Texas. My own state of Idaho was really stupid, our law being overturned because we refused to recognize gay marriages performed in other states...it's like we were looking for trouble. I hope the Supreme Court gives a complete decision that returns the issue to the states where it belongs, but disallows states to withhold recognition to marriages legally performed in other states. That would be the best solution.

We should be willing to compromise.

I often said the only thing the supreme court should do is overturn Doma. It has a clause that allows states not to recognize marriages from other states. I'd be thrilled if they just dumped that and allowed the states to vote on it themselves.

If that sets me apart from other lgbts than you know I'm reasonable and I thank you.

 

[Inevitable]

Yes that is what America has come to and always been. We wouldn't have to run to federal courts if we weren't under the tyranny of the majority.

Those with power enforce it. The power should never be in government hands.

I think the mistake was alerting states to define marriage.

And children wouldn't have to run to states for protection from the tyranny of those who can vote and organize in a militant ligitious machine so they can merely have a mother and father in marriage.

The redaction of the word marriage is an assault on the word. You are tyranically trying to hijack it so that you can play your brand new experiment forcing boys to not have fathers and girls to not have mothers....and...to institutionalize the daily message to any child in that redacted marriage to regard the missing adult gender as "disposable, unimportant, a mere breeder, unlovable..".

That is a RADICAL change to society. So the tyranny is coming from your camp pal. And fight back we will, to not allow the redaction of the word and vital physical structure known as "marriage" without the permission of the majority in the sovereign states.

Well that's a two way street. An unjustifiable propriety claim on a word and an institution is just as wrong.

Further gay people have always been able to have children. Forbidding them from marrying their sane sex partners doesn't stop them from having children.

You are stripping children's away. Their right to have a stable family should their parents be homosexual. The children aren't at fault for that, but they incur your wrath.

 

[Skylar]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The Court is addressing both questions in April. On the first question, I'm reasonably sure that the court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage. I'd say....90% or so. On the second question, there is really only one answer: reciprocity. The constitution is really clear on this one. And there doesn't seem to be any support even among the most conservative members of the Supreme Court for overturning the well worn constitutional principle of reciprocity.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The Court is addressing both questions in April. On the first question, I'm reasonably sure that the court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage. I'd say....90% or so. On the second question, there is really only one answer: reciprocity. The constitution is really clear on this one. And there doesn't seem to be any support even among the most conservative members of the Supreme Court for overturning the well worn constitutional principle of reciprocity.

I think you're wrong. The Supreme Court is filled with 9 human beings who don't just look at the mechanics of law and precedent, but also on the effect of their rulings. They will seek a compromise, and the best compromise that gives both sides something, but not everything, is to rule as I suggested, that gay marriage is a state issue, but anyone married is married on all 50 states. I'd actually be quite happy with this ruling and I think most gays, who are not rabid foaming at the mouth LGBT types, will too. Destination weddings are already all the rage these days, and if you live in Utah, having your friends and family drive over to Colorado to get married isn't really such a big deal. The problem is, you people want absolute victory and absolute submission to your agenda.

It's why many people think you're assholes.

 

[Skylar]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The Court is addressing both questions in April. On the first question, I'm reasonably sure that the court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage. I'd say....90% or so. On the second question, there is really only one answer: reciprocity. The constitution is really clear on this one. And there doesn't seem to be any support even among the most conservative members of the Supreme Court for overturning the well worn constitutional principle of reciprocity.

I think you're wrong. The Supreme Court is filled with 9 human beings who don't just look at the mechanics of law and precedent, but also on the effect of their rulings.

Neither I nor Justice Scalia think so. Read his dissent in Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'. Read his and Thomas' recent tantrum when the stay for Alabama was denied. You can almost hear the conniption if you read it aloud.

Worse for your interpretation, the Supreme Court has preserved every lower court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans. Every single one, without exception.

Worse still, the Supreme Court has denied stays for every State attempt to defend gay marriage bans. Every single one, without exception.

With the USSC allowing gay marriages to be performed in 37 of 50 States. If the USSC were to overturn the rulings that stopped the bans, that means that tens of thousands of same sex marriages across the country would be invalidated. All those folks filing as married would have to refile their taxes. Subsequent divorce settlements would be invalidated. Health insurance coverage cut for partners and children alike, by the 10s of thousands.

It would be legal chaos. There's very little chance the court would do this. I don't think its even going to be close. I think its plausible to see a 7-2 split on this one. As every denial of stay has had the exact same split.

 

[Skylar]

The problem is, you people want absolute victory and absolute submission to your agenda.

It's why many people think you're assholes.

There's nothing 'assholish' about wanting equal rights. Nor in demanding them.

 

[Montrovant]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The Court is addressing both questions in April. On the first question, I'm reasonably sure that the court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage. I'd say....90% or so. On the second question, there is really only one answer: reciprocity. The constitution is really clear on this one. And there doesn't seem to be any support even among the most conservative members of the Supreme Court for overturning the well worn constitutional principle of reciprocity.

I think you're wrong. The Supreme Court is filled with 9 human beings who don't just look at the mechanics of law and precedent, but also on the effect of their rulings. They will seek a compromise, and the best compromise that gives both sides something, but not everything, is to rule as I suggested, that gay marriage is a state issue, but anyone married is married on all 50 states. I'd actually be quite happy with this ruling and I think most gays, who are not rabid foaming at the mouth LGBT types, will too. Destination weddings are already all the rage these days, and if you live in Utah, having your friends and family drive over to Colorado to get married isn't really such a big deal. The problem is, you people want absolute victory and absolute submission to your agenda.

It's why many people think you're assholes.

I think it depends entirely on the individuals involved as to whether having your friends and family drive to another state to get married is a big deal.

Certainly each justice is a human being. They may well consider the effects of their ruling when they form it. However, I hope they would not ignore what they believe the constitution says on the issue in order to try and create a more palatable compromise. In other words, if a justice truly believes that same sex marriage bans are in violation of constitutional protections (or vice versa), I want them to say vote that way regardless of whether it is the 'best' compromise.

 

[Montrovant]

OK, fair enough. There are two questions pending before the Court:

1. Your question "How does denying marriage to parents of same sex parents help their children?"

And

2. My question: "How does insitutionalizing an experimental-marriage by federal force upon the states help untold numbers of children the future who will be structurally-deprived; boys of fathers and girls of mothers, being used this way as psychological lab rats?"

Neither of those questions are the ones before the court. The questions the SCOTUS listed in it's orders are: The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Your #1 & #2 condensed is "Should the fed mandate gay marriage across the 50 states".

That is factually the gist of what the parties are asking the Court to do. "Cut to the chase". "Long story short". "In a nutshell".

So....

There is more to consider than a teensy weensy little group whining to the Court that their virulent militant litigation machine came up against a brick wall at the state level to force its weird and frankly cult-like ways upon the People and the Governed without their consent.

There is the consideration of what such a neo-experiment in redacting the word marriage will actually MEAN to the Governed whose consent has been ripped away. And the consideration of how important ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters as a federally-blessed institution will mean to ALL children into TIME UNFORESEEN...cast thusly by just 5 people in DC.

Such an important redaction to the physical structure of society requires the consent of the governed, because this is about behaviors, not race.

And don't even get me started on WHICH behaviors would get the blessing and which wouldn't, and how the Court would be faced with sorting that out in the extreme near-future if this experiment with gays gets a federal blessing. To my knowledge, the Constitution has never provided for minority behavior groups "as a protected class", when the majority finds their play-acting "mom and dad" to kids as an unacceptable and damaging ruse.

Actually, while the first question could be summed up as should same sex marriage be mandated across the country, the second is only if same sex marriage must be recognized across the country when it is performed legally in another state. Those are different things. One would force all states/territories to allow same sex marriage, the other would allow states/territories to retain bans on same sex marriage but force them to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere in the country.

Would you agree that, even without marriage, same sex couples are having/adopting children? If they are, can you explain how allowing same sex marriage would be "ripping away fathers from sons and mothers from daughters"?

The constitution provides for belief groups as a protected class, why not sexual orientation?

I do believe states have the right to exclude gay marriage in its definition of marriage, but I don't believe they have the right not to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The Court is addressing both questions in April. On the first question, I'm reasonably sure that the court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage. I'd say....90% or so. On the second question, there is really only one answer: reciprocity. The constitution is really clear on this one. And there doesn't seem to be any support even among the most conservative members of the Supreme Court for overturning the well worn constitutional principle of reciprocity.

I often wondered why DOMA was allowed to stand for that very reason.

 

[Silhouette]

The Court is addressing both questions in April. On the first question, I'm reasonably sure that the court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage. I'd say....90% or so. On the second question, there is really only one answer: reciprocity. The constitution is really clear on this one. And there doesn't seem to be any support even among the most conservative members of the Supreme Court for overturning the well worn constitutional principle of reciprocity.

So you believe there is a 90% chance (a virtual certainty) that the Court will institutionalize sons without fathers and daughters without mothers "as married" across all 50 states in defiance of their majorities? You believe the fed will bless the redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" without consent of the governed? Just 5 people carving a deep and new rut in the bedrock of society into time unknown?

If that's true, every single Justice who casts a vote that way should be impeached. Children are way too important to use as lab rats in this brand spanking new and foolhardy experiment. It will also be a brand spanking new experiment with democracy, in that regulating behaviors and priveleges by the majority will cease to exist. Everyone is equal in marriage-equality after all..

 

[Montrovant]

The Court is addressing both questions in April. On the first question, I'm reasonably sure that the court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage. I'd say....90% or so. On the second question, there is really only one answer: reciprocity. The constitution is really clear on this one. And there doesn't seem to be any support even among the most conservative members of the Supreme Court for overturning the well worn constitutional principle of reciprocity.

So you believe there is a 90% chance (a virtual certainty) that the Court will institutionalize sons without fathers and daughters without mothers "as married" across all 50 states in defiance of their majorities? You believe the fed will bless the redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" without consent of the governed? Just 5 people carving a deep and new rut in the bedrock of society into time unknown?

If that's true, every single Justice who casts a vote that way should be impeached. Children are way too important to use as lab rats in this brand spanking new and foolhardy experiment. It will also be a brand spanking new experiment with democracy, in that regulating behaviors and priveleges by the majority will cease to exist. Everyone is equal in marriage-equality after all..

Considering children are in no way a requirement of marriage, I'm pretty sure he was saying nothing of the sort. Instead, he seems to be saying he thinks the USSC will rule that the 14th amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. All the rest is your own ranting.

This will not be a 'brand spanking new experiment with democracy'. The USSC has ruled on controversial issues in the past, sometimes in opposition to the majority. The court is not obligated to follow the will of the majority, but rather the constitution. They may be incorrect in their interpretation of that document, but simply having a majority of people feel a certain way on a subject is not reason to ignore constitutional protections.

You act as though the Supreme Court has never gone against the will of the majority in this country.

 

[Skylar]

The Court is addressing both questions in April. On the first question, I'm reasonably sure that the court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage. I'd say....90% or so. On the second question, there is really only one answer: reciprocity. The constitution is really clear on this one. And there doesn't seem to be any support even among the most conservative members of the Supreme Court for overturning the well worn constitutional principle of reciprocity.

So you believe there is a 90% chance (a virtual certainty) that the Court will institutionalize sons without fathers and daughters without mothers "as married" across all 50 states in defiance of their majorities?

I'm about 90% sure they are going to recognize that same sex marriage as constitutionally protected. All your babble about 'fathers and daughters' is irrelevant. As denying marriage to a same sex couples has no effect on the gender of parents that their children have. If you deny a lesbian couple marriage, their children don't magically have opposite sex parents as a result. The only result is that these children don't have married parents.

Which doesn't help these children in any way. And causes them immediate legal harm, as has been found by Justice Kennedy and the Windsor court.

You can't even tell us how denying marriage to same sex parents helps their children. And the courts have already told how you denying marriage to same sex parents harms their children. Your proposals do nothing but hurt children. And don't benefit them in any way.

Which the courts seem to have long since recognized. As their denial of stay for every state trying to protect same sex marriage bans demonstrates. As does their preservation of every lower court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans.

Without exception. Ignore as you will. Its not like closing your eyes is going to change the court's ruling on the matter.

If that's true, every single Justice who casts a vote that way should be impeached. Children are way too important to use as lab rats in this brand spanking new and foolhardy experiment. It will also be a brand spanking new experiment with democracy, in that regulating behaviors and priveleges by the majority will cease to exist. Everyone is equal in marriage-equality after all..

Nope. First, disagreeing with you isn't grounds for impeachment. As you're clueless. Second, your proposal has nothing to do with the welfare of children. And I'll prove it with this simple 11 word question:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

You've never been able to answer that question. And you never will. As denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't help children in any way. It only hurts the children of same sex parents. Which you know....but really hope we don't.

 

[Skylar]

This will not be a 'brand spanking new experiment with democracy'. The USSC has ruled on controversial issues in the past, sometimes in opposition to the majority. The court is not obligated to follow the will of the majority, but rather the constitution. They may be incorrect in their interpretation of that document, but simply having a majority of people feel a certain way on a subject is not reason to ignore constitutional protections.

Of course not. Its just more of Silo's trademark pseudo-legal hysterics.

When the USSC overturned interracial marriage bans in 1967, these bans enjoyed absurd approval ratings...something in the low 80s. It wasn't until the mid 90s when a majority of the country though interracial marriage should be legal. The courts don't abide the will of the majority on the issue of rights. They abide the constitution and its protections. To do otherwise is the tyranny of the majority. The courts have made the same call protecting rights against the tyranny of the majority for generations.

Notice, whenever Sil is talking about the Windsor ruling the one factor he almost ALWAYS omits...is any mention of constitutional guarantees. This despite the court's explicit finding that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. And every federal court ruling that overturned same sex marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

In the mind of Sil and many conservatives, the States shouldn't be bound by the rights of individuals. The State through simple majority vote should be able to strip anyone of any constitutional right per this fixed mindset. Alas, that's not how our system of laws work. Nor was intended to work since the passage of the 14th amendment.