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

[Silhouette]

Considering children are in no way a requirement of marriage...

Children are the only reason states get involved in marriage. States make a calculated anticipation that any marriage will involve children at some point; whether natural, adopted, fostered or grandparented. The state cannot force children in marriages; but statistically, the state knows they will arrive. That's why they get involved in the institution. There is no other justification from a state's point of view to lose money incentivizing marriage.

The state doesn't give a flying **** who shacks up. But if you want to preside as joined parents raising children, you'd better be not an incest pair, not polygamists, of age etc. You must be a man/woman father/mother to those kids. Only a handful of very foolish states have opted to try the brand new experimental homes of fatherless sons and motherless daughters as a subsidized institution.

 

[Skylar]

Considering children are in no way a requirement of marriage...

Children are the only reason states get involved in marriage.

Says you. Your assumptions don't reflect any laws, nor the purposes of those laws.

Worse, your 'solution' of denying same sex marriage has nothing to do with your supposed 'problem' of same sex parenting. If you deny marriage to same sex parents, their children don't magically have opposite sex parents.

All you do is guarantee that these children never have married parents. Which the courts have long since recognized harms these children. And even you have never been able to tell us of any benefit to these children in denying marriage to their same sex parents.

So by your own logic, your proposal does nothing but hurt children. And doesn't benefit them in any way.

Why would we ever do this?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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.

"such a compromise' would not 'solve' the issue, because the bigot brigated, who screeches for denying gays all rights, would be too butt hurt and would whine and whine about 'states' rights- they don't want an equitable compromise, they want unmitigated discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Considering children are in no way a requirement of marriage...

Children are the only reason states get involved in marriage. n.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.


Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

......
We disagree with petitioners that Zablocki does not apply to prison inmates. It is settled that a prison inmate "retains those [constitutional] rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." Pell v. Procunier, supra, at 822. The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements[482 U.S. 78, 96] are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

 

[Syriusly]

Considering children are in no way a requirement of marriage...

Children are the only reason states get involved in marriage.

Says you. Your assumptions don't reflect any laws, nor the purposes of those laws.

Worse, your 'solution' of denying same sex marriage has nothing to do with your supposed 'problem' of same sex parenting. If you deny marriage to same sex parents, their children don't magically have opposite sex parents.

All you do is guarantee that these children never have married parents. Which the courts have long since recognized harms these children. And even you have never been able to tell us of any benefit to these children in denying marriage to their same sex parents.

So by your own logic, your proposal does nothing but hurt children. And doesn't benefit them in any way.

Why would we ever do this?

I cannot come up with any rational explanation of Sill's position other than:
a) She hates homosexuals so much that she is willing to make children raised by homosexuals suffer, in order to harm homosexuals or
b) She hates children of homosexuals and wants harm to come to them.

I can't think of any other explanations that would account for her advocating preventing those parents from marrying.

 

[Montrovant]

Considering children are in no way a requirement of marriage...

Children are the only reason states get involved in marriage. States make a calculated anticipation that any marriage will involve children at some point; whether natural, adopted, fostered or grandparented. The state cannot force children in marriages; but statistically, the state knows they will arrive. That's why they get involved in the institution. There is no other justification from a state's point of view to lose money incentivizing marriage.

The state doesn't give a flying **** who shacks up. But if you want to preside as joined parents raising children, you'd better be not an incest pair, not polygamists, of age etc. You must be a man/woman father/mother to those kids. Only a handful of very foolish states have opted to try the brand new experimental homes of fatherless sons and motherless daughters as a subsidized institution.

You keep saying this, but it goes against observable facts. There is no reason states could not withhold benefits to married couples until such time as they have children. There is no reason states could not remove benefits once a couple is beyond child rearing age. The ease with which divorce is obtained is not, despite your protests to the contrary, based only on possible benefit to children. You may think 'there is no other justification from a state's point of view' other than children, but the states appear to feel otherwise.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno..............we are the UNITED States of America.

What goes in one state should go for all. Too bad that the governor of OK didn't see it that way when gay couples who had been married in another state were stationed in her state and she denied them the benefits of married couples.

I know what they are............I was a Personnelman in the U.S. Navy for over 20 years.

If you get married in a state that allows marriages between members of the same gender, you should be married in all 50 states.

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

The military is going to help with that.

 

[Silhouette]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

Nothing 'happened' to civil rights.

What has happened is your ignorance of the law.

 

[Montrovant]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

If a 13 year old is legally married in New Hampshire, I am pretty sure that marriage will be recognized in the rest of the country. As long as the 13 year old is involved in a heterosexual marriage, anyway.

 

[Skylar]

All 13-year-olds should be able to marry in all 50 states. They can in New Hampshire. What ever happened to civil rights?

Sigh......you don't have the slightest clue what reciprocity is, do you? It requires that any contract formed in one state must be recognized and honored by another.

Thus, every state must recognize the marriage of a 13 year old that gets married in New Hampshire if said 13 year old is in their state. That's reciprocity.

Its shocking how much of your argument rests in the fact that you simply don't understand the what is being discussed.

 

[Silhouette]

I know what leaving the base structure up to the various states means. It means that state can set age limits, number of spouses, blood relation and require that spouses be the two complimentary genders. They can do this, and they do do this, because of the children involved in marriage:

1. Too young of parents means immature parents = detriment to kids.

2. Too many wives for one husband = division of the husband's resources as a father = detriment to kids.

3. Too closely related by blood = birth defects = detriment to kids.

4. Deprivation of a mother or a father = detriment to kids.

 

[Skylar]

I know what leaving the base structure up to the various states means. It means that state can set age limits, number of spouses, blood relation and require that spouses be the two complimentary genders. They can do this, and they do do this, because of the children involved in marriage:

1. Too young of parents means immature parents = detriment to kids.

2. Too many wives for one husband = division of the husband's resources as a father = detriment to kids.

3. Too closely related by blood = birth defects = detriment to kids.

4. Deprivation of a mother or a father = detriment to kids.

And how does denying marriage same sex parents help their children?

Because the courts have already gone into elaborate detail on how denying marriage to same sex parents HURTS children:

"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 familiesby 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.

So your proposal is all harm to children and no benefit to children.

Um, why would we ever do this?

 

[Silhouette]

You left out #4 Skylar. If you had included it, you would have answered your own question.

 

[Skylar]

You left out #4 Skylar. If you had included it, you would have answered your own question.

Nope. If you deny marriage to lesbian parents, their children don't magically have opposite sex parents. All you do is guarantee they never have married parents.

So I ask for perhaps the 30th time a question you've never once been able to answer:

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

You can't cite a single benefit. While the courts have elaborately detailed the immediate legal harms. Why would we ever do this?

 

[Silhouette]

If we deny polygamists or 13 year olds or brother and sister marriage, all you do is guarantee their kids never have married parents.

I assume you don't believe anyone of any age or any blood relation or any number should be granted "marriage equality". And since you don't support the kids of those arrangements the benefits of marriage, you are agreeing that marriage is a state-regulated privelege; since there is no provision for marriage in the US Constitution. If people are to be excluded from marriage, then it is a privelege, not a right. Therefore, the states can say if they want motherless or fatherless "marriages" or not.

 

[Montrovant]

If we deny polygamists or 13 year olds or brother and sister marriage, all you do is guarantee their kids never have married parents.

I assume you don't believe anyone of any age or any blood relation or any number should be granted "marriage equality". And since you don't support the kids of those arrangements the benefits of marriage, you are agreeing that marriage is a state-regulated privelege; since there is no provision for marriage in the US Constitution. If people are to be excluded from marriage, then it is a privelege, not a right. Therefore, the states can say if they want motherless or fatherless "marriages" or not.

Some people are excluded from owning a firearm, yet that's still a right. Some are excluded from voting. Someone being excluded does not make something not a right. It simply means that rights have limitations and exceptions.

There are different issues at play with age, relatives, and polygamous relationships than are found in same sex marriage. Allowing one does not automatically require allowing another. That said, perhaps other marriage arrangements should be legal. I imagine the courts will consider those cases as they are brought before them, not when you whine about them on a message board trying to make a point that doesn't actually apply.

 

[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?

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.

"such a compromise' would not 'solve' the issue, because the bigot brigated, who screeches for denying gays all rights, would be too butt hurt and would whine and whine about 'states' rights- they don't want an equitable compromise, they want unmitigated discrimination against homosexuals.

Funny. I envision you all as the screeching butt hurt ones when the court doesn't rule your way. In your demonic haughtiness, it's the one possibility that will hit you like a broad faced shovel.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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.

"such a compromise' would not 'solve' the issue, because the bigot brigated, who screeches for denying gays all rights, would be too butt hurt and would whine and whine about 'states' rights- they don't want an equitable compromise, they want unmitigated discrimination against homosexuals.

Funny. I envision you all asl.

I am sure you envision all sorts of vile things.

Meanwhile- as I have pointed out before- if the court rules in a way I disagree with- I will disagree, but accept their ruling as legal.

You?

If the court rules in a way you disagree, you will call them 'fascists in black robes' or some varient thereof.

 

[Syriusly]

If we deny polygamists or 13 year olds or brother and sister marriage, all you do is guarantee their kids never have married parents..

Still waiting for you to do more than pull more straw men out of your closet.

How does preventing a same gender couple from marrying help their children?