Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Silhouette]

don't know what you mean; this is the supreme law of the land: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Why does the right insist on wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

Protecting a child's interest in having both a mother and father in their home is not a waste of tax money. You had no problem wasting tax money on attempting to legally disenfranchise children from having either a mother or father...then the expense was justified in your mind.

 

[Silhouette]

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

Legally disenfranchising has another name: adoption. That is what happens when straight parents decide they can't be bothered raising their biological children or when society decides they are not fit to do so or when the parent themselves decide they cannot raise the child. You would prefer they stay in institutional care?

Straight parents adopt out to other straight parents. They recognize they can't be the best parents so they attempt to find new ones.

Your comparison doesn't even remotely fit what I said so I'll repeat the key point you left out when it comes to so-called "gay marriage"... It PERMANENTLY removes a child's hopes of EVER having either a mother or father in their life.

And I would absolutely prefer a child remains in an institution rather than be adopted out to a damaging situation to them. That is an emphatic 'YES'! There are plenty of childless normal couples who are looking to adopt. We don't need to let all the little boys go out to Chuck and Dave just because we haven't found normal homes for them yet. A queer home is not an acceptable substitute for a normal one. Imagine being an adoption agent and letting a little boy go to the home of that guy in the photo in my signature? No, they should stay put until people qualify. That's why they have adoption applications instead of a revolving door. We assume the applications are to protect a child from entering a damaging situation...

You spamming the exact same sentences over and over again still doesn't make your ballshit anymore coherent.

Does my bringing up how children are being legally disenfranchinsed from either a mother or a father make you grumpy?

 

[paddymurphy]

You seem to be the one demanding that gay people prove their sexual orientation in your presence. Has that long been a fantasy of yours?

Oh dear, a pissed off an attorney! Never saw that one coming!

I demand nothing, that's what attorneys do. They also test.

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

You seem to be the one demanding that gay people prove their sexual orientation in your presence. Has that long been a fantasy of yours?

Oh dear, a pissed off an attorney! Never saw that one coming!

I demand nothing, that's what attorneys do. They also test.

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say

 

[paddymurphy]

don't know what you mean; this is the supreme law of the land: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Why does the right insist on wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

Protecting a child's interest in having both a mother and father in their home is not a waste of tax money. You had no problem wasting tax money on attempting to legally disenfranchise children from having either a mother or father...then the expense was justified in your mind.

If you had been raised by gay parents you would not be so fucked up.

 

[danielpalos]

don't know what you mean; this is the supreme law of the land: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Why does the right insist on wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

Protecting a child's interest in having both a mother and father in their home is not a waste of tax money. You had no problem wasting tax money on attempting to legally disenfranchise children from having either a mother or father...then the expense was justified in your mind.

all children have parents. why quibble over equality, wo-man?

 

[Silhouette]

If you had been raised by gay parents you would not be so fucked up.

The amicus briefs to the Court saying how fucked up adult children were, being raised in gay homes, sort of conflicts with what you just said. Visit the link in my signature when you get a minute..

all children have parents. why quibble over equality..

Because marriage is the hope that they remain with both a mother and a father. And this hope is for their best interest. It's the reason states incentivize marriage with tax breaks and other perks.

 

[paddymurphy]

don't know what you mean; this is the supreme law of the land: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Why does the right insist on wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

Protecting a child's interest in having both a mother and father in their home is not a waste of tax money. You had no problem wasting tax money on attempting to legally disenfranchise children from having either a mother or father...then the expense was justified in your mind.

all children have parents. why quibble over equality, wo-man?

All we need do is read silhouette's posts to know that straight parents can cause a child to be severely emotionally damaged.

 

[mdk]

Does my bringing up how children are being legally disenfranchinsed from either a mother or a father make you grumpy?

Hardly. Your constant and ineffective lies/smears have driven more people into supporting gay rights than you can ever imagine. You have been a tremendous allies in this fight and I think you should be nominated for a GLAAD award for all your efforts. You have done the gay community a great service.

 

[mdk]

The amicus briefs to the Court saying how fucked up adult children were, being raised in gay homes, sort of conflicts with what you just said. Visit the link in my signature when you get a minute..

Funny that you ignore the countless amicus briefs stating the exact opposite to be true. Doesn't fit your "I hate fags" agenda, does it?

 

[danielpalos]

If you had been raised by gay parents you would not be so fucked up.

The amicus briefs to the Court saying how fucked up adult children were, being raised in gay homes, sort of conflicts with what you just said. Visit the link in my signature when you get a minute..

all children have parents. why quibble over equality..

Because marriage is the hope that they remain with both a mother and a father. And this hope is for their best interest. It's the reason states incentivize marriage with tax breaks and other perks.

dear; you will Always be wrong with me simply Because, a "King Leonidas study" will always outrank a "Princes' Trust Survey".

 

[Silhouette]

So you fancy yourself a king now eh?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

Legally disenfranchising has another name: adoption. That is what happens when straight parents decide they can't be bothered raising their biological children or when society decides they are not fit to do so or when the parent themselves decide they cannot raise the child. You would prefer they stay in institutional care?

Straight parents adopt out to other straight parents. They recognize they can't be the best parents so they attempt to find new ones.

Your comparison doesn't even remotely fit what I said so I'll repeat the key point you left out when it comes to so-called "gay marriage"... It PERMANENTLY removes a child's hopes of EVER having either a mother or father in their life.

And I would absolutely prefer a child remains in an institution rather than be adopted out to a damaging situation to them. That is an emphatic 'YES'! There are plenty of childless normal couples who are looking to adopt. We don't need to let all the little boys go out to Chuck and Dave just because we haven't found normal homes for them yet. A queer home is not an acceptable substitute for a normal one. Imagine being an adoption agent and letting a little boy go to the home of that guy in the photo in my signature? No, they should stay put until people qualify. That's why they have adoption applications instead of a revolving door. We assume the applications are to protect a child from entering a damaging situation...

the left decided to pre-empt the will of the people?

Jesus fucking christ on a raft...Loving v Virginia was 50 years ago. Get over it already. So what if the SCOTUS totally ran roughshod over the will of the people? So what if only 20% of the country supported interracial marriage at the time? It was still the right thing to do. Seriously, move on!!!

What does race have to do with just some deviant sex behaviors? Loving didn't institutionalize removing children from either a father or a mother.

The law shouldn't even consider that there's a god. The question should be is it unconstitutional? Unlikely.

We have the Law in the 1st Amendment. So now there's a direct conflict. And this conflict was mentioned by one of the dissenting Justices in the OP.

Only a complete fucking moron would think that a child is better off in an institution that to be adopted by a same sex couple.!! I notices that you have not been able to respond to my post from yesterday. Here it is again:

1. 
   Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage
   
   
2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either
   
   
3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage
   
   
4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got.
   
   
5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”
   

All of this is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. Anyone who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together can see right through that.

 

[Silhouette]

If you had been raised by gay parents you would not be so fucked up.

The amicus briefs to the Court saying how fucked up adult children were, being raised in gay homes, sort of conflicts with what you just said. Visit the link in my signature when you get a minute..

all children have parents. why quibble over equality..

Because marriage is the hope that they remain with both a mother and a father. And this hope is for their best interest. It's the reason states incentivize marriage with tax breaks and other perks.

dear; you will Always be wrong with me simply Because, a "King Leonidas study" will always outrank a "Princes' Trust Survey".

Unless a republican administration Court declares last Spring's Hearing a mistrial for all the reasons stated in the OP, and then overturns it. Want to start talking about contract case law and how radical revisions demand all parties...not just some..have a seat at the revision table?

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

 

[danielpalos]

If you had been raised by gay parents you would not be so fucked up.

The amicus briefs to the Court saying how fucked up adult children were, being raised in gay homes, sort of conflicts with what you just said. Visit the link in my signature when you get a minute..

all children have parents. why quibble over equality..

Because marriage is the hope that they remain with both a mother and a father. And this hope is for their best interest. It's the reason states incentivize marriage with tax breaks and other perks.

dear; you will Always be wrong with me simply Because, a "King Leonidas study" will always outrank a "Princes' Trust Survey".

Unless a republican administration Court declares last Spring's Hearing a mistrial for all the reasons stated in the OP, and then overturns it. Want to start talking about contract case law and how radical revisions demand all parties...not just some..have a seat at the revision table?

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a boy who was molested from getting counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor.

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

dear; all of that is nugatory and void from Inception; since there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[bodecea]

So you fancy yourself a king now eh?

Thank you for your valuable support for equal rights for gays. You've done so much for our cause.

 

[Silhouette]

dear; all of that is nugatory and void from Inception; since there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Then you should brush up on the 1st Amendment because it too is a Law. When Dave and Chuck go to adopt little boys from a catholic agency, that is when the shit is going to hit the fan. Which horse are you going to bet on in that race, after the recent visit from the Pope?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you had been raised by gay parents you would not be so fucked up.

The amicus briefs to the Court saying how fucked up adult children were, being raised in gay homes, sort of conflicts with what you just said. Visit the link in my signature when you get a minute..

all children have parents. why quibble over equality..

Because marriage is the hope that they remain with both a mother and a father. And this hope is for their best interest. It's the reason states incentivize marriage with tax breaks and other perks.

dear; you will Always be wrong with me simply Because, a "King Leonidas study" will always outrank a "Princes' Trust Survey".

Unless a republican administration Court declares last Spring's Hearing a mistrial for all the reasons stated in the OP, and then overturns it. Want to start talking about contract case law and how radical revisions demand all parties...not just some..have a seat at the revision table?

OK PP..

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage...2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either....3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage....4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got....5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table”

1. So you're saying that since children in institutions have fallen on hard times..."anything goes and they should feel lucky".. I say they deserve a new shot at a mother and father. You say "tough luck kid, you get what you get...time to revise the adoption screening process"..

2. So then children can be adopted out to wolves? Again, you are re-emphasizing a orphaned child's vulnerability as an excuse for "gays to get at them legally"...which is creepy and shining light on your true regard to children. I assume you grew up having regular contact with both a mother and father?

3. What NJ does is wrong. And so is their law banning a minor boy who was molested from getting his own requested counseling to shed unwanted gay compulsions as a direct result of that damage done to him by his molestor...until he is 18...and too far gone to change...by design? 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. If you are even remotely hopeful that you will convince the world that children are just fine without either a mother or father...you've got a long way to go yet. Your problem is that most of the world, including most of your cult had both a mother and father in their life. And then there's the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, showing us that children raised without their gender daily represented in parenting suffer predictably and become burdens upon society..

5. Please quote from the Decision this last June where the Court discusses the pros and cons of legally disenfranchising children in marriage from either a mother or father. What? That wasn't done?

Obviously you are unable to understand a single point that I made. Your spinning truth and logic into bull shit does not change the facts. You argument is a pathetic fail for the reasons that I have repeatedly stated .You are very strange and hateful

 

[Pop23]

Oh dear, a pissed off an attorney! Never saw that one coming!

I demand nothing, that's what attorneys do. They also test.

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Oh dear, a pissed off an attorney! Never saw that one coming!

I demand nothing, that's what attorneys do. They also test.

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

Ok counselor. Guess we just take your word for it then. Lol

Better mine than yours. There has never been a case, in any court, where a DNA test was used to determine the race or ethnicity of a plaintiff in a discrimination case.

Not the question however. Tests exist for both that are objective and reliable.

Genetic Ancestry Tests Mostly Hype, Scientists Say

This MIT post seems to conflict yours

Tracing Your Ancestry | MIT Technology Review

But it doesn't have to go that far in most cases

Birth certificates, immigration records, physical exams for structural traits etc. can reliably and objectively trace ancestral roots.

In most cases a simple record search is considered reliable and objective

So, what is the gay test? We take you're word for it?

If that were the test for all legal matters why the hell would we need attorneys for in the first place.

 

[danielpalos]

dear; all of that is nugatory and void from Inception; since there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Then you should brush up on the 1st Amendment because it too is a Law. When Dave and Chuck go to adopt little boys from a catholic agency, that is when the shit is going to hit the fan. Which horse are you going to bet on in that race, after the recent visit from the Pope?

not a first amendment issue; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[Pop23]

The law shouldn't even consider that there's a god. The question should be is it unconstitutional? Unlikely.

I agree with this. The argument of tradition is based on religious marriage not civil marriage. It is the letter of the law that should be the concern. And since the winning side used the 14th amendments equal protection argument this applies to all.

The legal definition of marriage contains no requirement for sexual contact.

Following the letter and spirit of the law then makes exclussion of family members also a violation of the 14th amendment.

I oppose family marriage but see no legal argument that can exclude family members from such contract.