Georgia To Bolster Gay Marriage Refusals ..Religious Grounds..Though Secular Grounds Compelling Too

[mdk]

Hells bells, just the other day Sil was gassing on about how Obergefell was illegal b/c of Windsor after spending many months arguing that was an illegal ruling as well. lol

The conclusion of Windsor was that states decide on gay marriage. Obergefell overturned that. Neither Obergefell nor Windsor are capable of removing a state's right to regulate marriage. For a multitude of reasons. And you will find that out soon enough.

Exactly, states can still regulate marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional gaurantees. That's the part you pretend doesn't exist.

Pardon me, if I don't take your legal predictions very seriously.

 

[Skylar]

Hells bells, just the other day Sil was gassing on about how Obergefell was illegal b/c of Windsor after spending many months arguing that was an illegal ruling as well. lol

The conclusion of Windsor was that states decide on gay marriage. Obergefell overturned that. Neither Obergefell nor Windsor are capable of removing a state's right to regulate marriage. For a multitude of reasons. And you will find that out soon enough.

Exactly, states can still regulate marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional gaurantees. That's the part you pretend doesn't exist.

Pardon me, if I don't take your legal predictions very seriously.

Sil's record of legal predictions is perfect. Perfectly wrong.

She's never once ever been right in predicting any legal outcome.

 

[Silhouette]

Exactly, states can still regulate marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional gaurantees. That's the part you pretend doesn't exist.

Pardon me, if I don't take your legal predictions very seriously.

Oh good, because New York vs Ferber (1982) guarantees children no harm in the exercising of an adult constitutional right. Found by the Supreme Court to be "constitutionally-so"... I guess that means that anyone trying to deprive a child via contract of either a mother or father for life, can't do that...

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly, states can still regulate marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional gaurantees. That's the part you pretend doesn't exist.

Pardon me, if I don't take your legal predictions very seriously.

Oh good, because New York vs Ferber (1982) guarantees children no harm in the exercising of an adult constitutional right. Found by the Supreme Court to be "constitutionally-so"... I guess that means that anyone trying to deprive a child via contract of either a mother or father for life, can't do that...

Pete...Repeat

 

[Syriusly]

Exactly, states can still regulate marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional gaurantees. That's the part you pretend doesn't exist.

Pardon me, if I don't take your legal predictions very seriously.

Oh good, because New York vs Ferber (1982) guarantees children no harm in the exercising of an adult constitutional right. Found by the Supreme Court to be "constitutionally-so"... I guess that means that anyone trying to deprive a child via contract of either a mother or father for life, can't do that...

Once again- you are trying to argue that a prior Supreme Court ruling on an unrelated topic over-rules a more recent Supreme Court ruling that is actually on topic.

Once again you are delusional.

 

[Skylar]

Exactly, states can still regulate marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional gaurantees. That's the part you pretend doesn't exist.

Pardon me, if I don't take your legal predictions very seriously.

Oh good, because New York vs Ferber (1982) guarantees children no harm in the exercising of an adult constitutional right. Found by the Supreme Court to be "constitutionally-so"... I guess that means that anyone trying to deprive a child via contract of either a mother or father for life, can't do that...

Ferber never find that same sex marriage hurts any child. Or even mentions marriage. Windsor and Obergefell found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

Thus, per your own reasoning the Obergefell court should have ruled exactly as they did: in recognition of same sex marriage.

As for the 'deprive a child of a mother or father by contract' gibberish, you're just citing yourself. No court nor law recognizes marriage of parents as a minor contract for their children. Or recognizes that children are married to their parents.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Which might explain why all of your legal predictions are perfectly wrong.

 

[Skylar]

Exactly, states can still regulate marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional gaurantees. That's the part you pretend doesn't exist.

Pardon me, if I don't take your legal predictions very seriously.

Oh good, because New York vs Ferber (1982) guarantees children no harm in the exercising of an adult constitutional right. Found by the Supreme Court to be "constitutionally-so"... I guess that means that anyone trying to deprive a child via contract of either a mother or father for life, can't do that...

Once again- you are trying to argue that a prior Supreme Court ruling on an unrelated topic over-rules a more recent Supreme Court ruling that is actually on topic.

Once again you are delusional.

These are just thumb sucking threads. Silly knows her pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to any case. She's merely repeating comforting lies to herself.....that no one, not even Silly, actually believes.

Its a continuing exercise in cognitive dissonance. And same sex marriage is still recognized in 50 of 50 States.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh good, because New York vs Ferber (1982) guarantees children no harm in the exercising of an adult constitutional right. Found by the Supreme Court to be "constitutionally-so"... I guess that means that anyone trying to deprive a child via contract of either a mother or father for life, can't do that...

Once again- you are trying to argue that a prior Supreme Court ruling on an unrelated topic over-rules a more recent Supreme Court ruling that is actually on topic.

Once again you are delusional.

The topic is whether or not a state has a right to act on behalf of Christians or children to not enact gay marriage. So, depriving a child of a mother or father for life (harm to a child in the process of exercising a constitutional right, forbidden by New York vs Ferber) as an institution IS factually spot on topic...

Georgia has a right to protect its children. Do you contest that?

 

[Skylar]

Oh good, because New York vs Ferber (1982) guarantees children no harm in the exercising of an adult constitutional right. Found by the Supreme Court to be "constitutionally-so"... I guess that means that anyone trying to deprive a child via contract of either a mother or father for life, can't do that...

Once again- you are trying to argue that a prior Supreme Court ruling on an unrelated topic over-rules a more recent Supreme Court ruling that is actually on topic.

Once again you are delusional.

The topic is whether or not a state has a right to act on behalf of Christians or children to not enact gay marriage. So, depriving a child of a mother or father for life as an institution IS factually spot on topic...

Ferber never find that same sex marriage hurts any child. Or even mentions marriage. Windsor and Obergefell found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

Thus, per your own reasoning the Obergefell court should have ruled exactly as they did: in recognition of same sex marriage.

As for the 'deprive a child of a mother or father by contract' gibberish, you're just citing yourself. No court nor law recognizes marriage of parents as a minor contract for their children. Or recognizes that children are married to their parents.

Sy has you dead to rights. Ferber says nothing about same sex marriage or its effect on children. Yet you cite it as doing exactly that. Windsor and Obergefell say plenty about same sex marriage and its effect on children contradicting you 4 times. So you ignore the findings of both rulings.

You're either delusional or dishonest. Sy is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Silhouette]

Ferber never find that same sex marriage hurts any child. Or even mentions marriage. Windsor and Obergefell found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

So the Justices somehow Found, without argument or representation on behalf of children, (a judge cannot be a representative for a party and the judge at the same time) on the proposal to strip children of the hope of either a mother or father for life, that they felt children wouldn't be harmed by gay marriage...and that was that.

It's funny how five people without a whit of a degree in child psychology, could silently argue, deliberate and pass decree upon such a binding and radical change to a child's life without a single bit of expertise in how children view and see the world; how that deeply affects them.

This is the secular reason outside jailing a Christian that Obergefell had better put on a flack jacket..

 

[Montrovant]

Ferber never find that same sex marriage hurts any child. Or even mentions marriage. Windsor and Obergefell found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

So the Justices somehow Found, without argument or representation on behalf of children, (a judge cannot be a representative for a party and the judge at the same time) on the proposal to strip children of the hope of either a mother or father for life, that they felt children wouldn't be harmed by gay marriage...and that was that.

It's funny how five people without a whit of a degree in child psychology, could silently argue, deliberate and pass decree upon such a binding and radical change to a child's life without a single bit of expertise in how children view and see the world; how that deeply affects them.

This is the secular reason outside jailing a Christian that Obergefell had better put on a flack jacket..

Marriage is a 'binding and radical change to a child's life', is it? And that change is a bad one? What is the terrible change that happens to children of homosexual parents when those parents are married?

Could it be, perhaps, that you are not so much concerned with homosexuals getting married as you are with trying to prevent homosexuals from being allowed to be parents?

 

[rightwinger]

Ferber never find that same sex marriage hurts any child. Or even mentions marriage. Windsor and Obergefell found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

So the Justices somehow Found, without argument or representation on behalf of children, (a judge cannot be a representative for a party and the judge at the same time) on the proposal to strip children of the hope of either a mother or father for life, that they felt children wouldn't be harmed by gay marriage...and that was that.

It's funny how five people without a whit of a degree in child psychology, could silently argue, deliberate and pass decree upon such a binding and radical change to a child's life without a single bit of expertise in how children view and see the world; how that deeply affects them.

This is the secular reason outside jailing a Christian that Obergefell had better put on a flack jacket..

Marriage is a 'binding and radical change to a child's life', is it? And that change is a bad one? What is the terrible change that happens to children of homosexual parents when those parents are married?

Could it be, perhaps, that you are not so much concerned with homosexuals getting married as you are with trying to prevent homosexuals from being allowed to be parents?

Never seen a child consulted when divorced parents remarry

Where in Ferber does it address that?

 

[Montrovant]

Ferber never find that same sex marriage hurts any child. Or even mentions marriage. Windsor and Obergefell found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

So the Justices somehow Found, without argument or representation on behalf of children, (a judge cannot be a representative for a party and the judge at the same time) on the proposal to strip children of the hope of either a mother or father for life, that they felt children wouldn't be harmed by gay marriage...and that was that.

It's funny how five people without a whit of a degree in child psychology, could silently argue, deliberate and pass decree upon such a binding and radical change to a child's life without a single bit of expertise in how children view and see the world; how that deeply affects them.

This is the secular reason outside jailing a Christian that Obergefell had better put on a flack jacket..

Marriage is a 'binding and radical change to a child's life', is it? And that change is a bad one? What is the terrible change that happens to children of homosexual parents when those parents are married?

Could it be, perhaps, that you are not so much concerned with homosexuals getting married as you are with trying to prevent homosexuals from being allowed to be parents?

Never seen a child consulted when divorced parents remarry

Where is Ferber does it address that?

 

[Skylar]

Ferber never find that same sex marriage hurts any child. Or even mentions marriage. Windsor and Obergefell found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

So the Justices somehow Found, without argument or representation on behalf of children, (a judge cannot be a representative for a party and the judge at the same time) on the proposal to strip children of the hope of either a mother or father for life, that they felt children wouldn't be harmed by gay marriage...and that was that.

The courts never found any of that. You're citing your imaginary version of the law again.

Remember....your imagination doesn't actually mean anything.

It's funny how five people without a whit of a degree in child psychology, could silently argue, deliberate and pass decree upon such a binding and radical change to a child's life without a single bit of expertise in how children view and see the world; how that deeply affects them.

Its funny how you've never actually read the Obergefell decision nor have the slightest clue what its sources are.

Do you always dedicate paragraphs to topics you know nothing about?

This is the secular reason outside jailing a Christian that Obergefell had better put on a flack jacket..

Same sex couples right to marry has nothing to do with a Christian's belief. Making your argument more meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish.

There's a reason your record on predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.