How Hively v Ivy Tech (2016), Etc. Impacts Gay Marriage (Obergefell 2015)

[Skylar]

^^ As the Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) case makes its way up to the USSC, then the Supreme Court has to weigh its findings/precedent vs arguments/precedent opposed to make a decision....When you're ready to share your feelings about the recent ruling making the legal term "sex" in no way equal to "sexual orientation"...and how that applies to the 14th Amendment's interpretation, just let me know...OK?

Sure. But it has nothing to do with Obergefell. Obergefell isn't based on the idea that sex is sexual orientation. Obergefell isn't about employees and employers. Obergefell isn't based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Hively is.

The two cases have jack shit to do with each other.

Round and round the mulberry bush.... Skylar. Obergefell was hinged on the Court interpreting the 14th Amendment as extending to sexual orientation under the word "sex" in the wording of its body.

Nope, Obergefell never equates sexual orientation with sex. Or even addresses the argument. You're literally offering us your imagination as the Obergefell ruling.

And your account of the ruling changes every time you talk about it.

Show us, don't tell us. Show us the Obergefell ruling equating sex with sexual orientation.

Smiling....this should be fun.

You are aware that if any substantive change is to happen in the US Constitution, like creating a new class for protection under the 14th for just some (antithetical to the 14th's intent) sexual behaviors, that substantive change HAS to be done by the Legislative branch.

You are aware that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, right? That what you're typing is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish? That you've never once been right in any legal prediction you've ever made?

You get this, right? You've predicted Obergefell's imminent collapse at least half a dozen times. And nothing has ever happened.

How do you explain the wild inconsistencies between what you predict and what actually happens?

 

[Skylar]

14th Amendment

Here is the exact number of times the word sex appears in the 14th Amendment: Zero. My guess it will be a while before that sharp team of attorneys gets on it.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Hmm...a privilege is a privilege. In my state, blind people can't enjoy the privilege of a driver's license. They're citizens, so what gives? And where do people with a polyamorist sexual orientation fit in with Obergefell? And since Obergefell abridges the privilege (implied contractual right) of children to both a mother and father in marriage, how is Obergefell legal? The only way it would be is if children aren't US citizens.

Show us any law in any state that recognizes that children are parties to the marriage of their parents.

You can't. You made it up. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to any law, any marriage, any child, or the outcome of any case.

One thing's for sure. When they start taking out the microscope on the 14th and its terms, they'll back up and all agree on one thing: that the 14th's intent is equality. At that precise moment in time, they will have no choice but to find one of two things: 1. That ALL sexual orientations (not just hetero or homo) may not be denied the privilege of marriage or 2. That sexual behaviors don't have a right to dictate to the majority how it will define the privilege of marriage within each state's boundaries.

Um, Sil......you're offering us your desires as facts again. And your record on predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure. You've literally never been right.

Ever.

So what possible use would your latest 'prediction' have?

 

[Silhouette]

You've predicted Obergefell's imminent collapse at least half a dozen times. And nothing has ever happened.

How do you explain the wild inconsistencies between what you predict and what actually happens?

Well I never said the paper Obergefell is written on would burst into flames from spontaneous combustion, if that's what you mean. Overturning illegal decisions takes at least a couple of years. Let's give it until 2018 when the next administration is nestled in and see where pro traditional family groups and states take the new Hively v Ivy Tech precedent pitted against Obergefell.

More interesting yet will be when polyamorist sexual orientations march their case right up. Saying no to them is legally impossible right now in fact, because of the clause I just quoted in my last post from the 14th Amendment. BTW Skylar, blind people are US Citizens. Why are they being denied the privilege of driving in each state? Likewise, how can two gay men provide a mother for children who 'share the road' in their "marriage"? Or two lesbians a father?

You may not like the PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY, but it exists and it shows the detriment to children of missing a mother or father in their life. Yes, children of single heteros have this issue, and natural children of "gays" (they had to break ranks at least on one night for a child to be born). But while there's hope in children that they may one day know a the missing gender as a parent in their home in a hetero single parent; that hope is eliminated in "gay marriage". It defines the elimination of hope for those children as a matter of contract. And contract law says no contract may exist legally that fixes as one of its terms, the deprivation of a necessity to a child. Gay marriage contracts deprive children FOR LIFE even of the hope of the missing parent. Depriving someone of hope is psychological torture/bondage.

 

[Skylar]

You've predicted Obergefell's imminent collapse at least half a dozen times. And nothing has ever happened.

How do you explain the wild inconsistencies between what you predict and what actually happens?

Well I never said the paper Obergefell is written on would burst into flames from spontaneous combustion, if that's what you mean. Overturning illegal decisions takes at least a couple of years. Let's give it until 2018 when the next administration is nestled in and see where pro traditional family groups and states take the new Hively v Ivy Tech precedent pitted against Obergefell.

Odd, the cornerstone of your entire argument is that Obergefell equates sex and sexual orientation.

Yet when I ask you to show us Obergefell ever doing this, you can't. Try again.

Show us the Obergefell ruling equating sex with sexual orientation.

More interesting yet will be when polyamorist sexual orientations march their case right up.

Except of course that they're not. Remember, you're just making up the 'polyamory is a sexual orientation', citing yourself.

Which again, is legally meaningless. Notice the pattern yet? You make shit up, it has no relevance to the law, nothing happens.

Watch, I'll show you:

You may not like the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey, but it exists and it shows the detriment to children of missing a mother or father in their life.

The Prince Trust Study makes no mention of gays, same sex marriage, same sex parenting, mothers, fathers, or any of the other babble you attribute to it.

You make shit up, it has no relevance to the law, nothing happens.

See how that works?

 

[mdk]

If gays are allowed to marry then alcoholics are allowed to drive drunk according to Mentally Sil.

 

[Skylar]

If gays are allowed to marry then alcoholics are allowed to drive drunk according to Mentally Sil.

Its just bizarre to see the incoherent ramblings of Sil's understanding of the law. If the blind aren't allowed to drive then gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Um....'because'.

 

[Silhouette]

Odd, the cornerstone of your entire argument is that Obergefell equates sex and sexual orientation.

Yet when I ask you to show us Obergefell ever doing this, you can't. Try again.

Show us the Obergefell ruling equating sex with sexual orientation.

You're right. It would be difficult to show you since other sexual orientations cannot legally marry...and Obergefell cited the 14th; which addresses equality in privileges. But Obergefell did talk about sexual orientation being the hub of its addition to the Constitutional protections:

Obergefell vs Hodges

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach,a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

That's the first paragraph of the Opinion. On the child-aspect alone, Obergefell is challenged. Marrying someone of the same sex deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. The Court, upon challenge, would have to find that children in no way shape or form were implied parties to any marriage contract. But the Court has already spoken on that point, hinting that children share in the marriage contract:
(page 3)

Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons.... It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex. That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and through-out the world.

But here's the clincher with respect to the Court making "same sex marriage" equal to "homosexual (orientation) marriage".

(pages 7-8)
*******
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae
5–28. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as

Amici Curiae
7–17. In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law.

**********
In that crucial discourse, the Court wove together the terms "same-sex" and "homosexual" and "sexual orientation". So when you claim Obergefell wasn't about sexual orientation, you're full of shit. It is and was about sexual orientation.. What's weird though is I only see mention of one type of sexual orientation. Polyamorists and incest (attraction to one's own blood family) are not mentioned anywhere there. Let's see if, now that we've established Obergefell was about sexual orientation getting rights to marry, if they cited the 14th Amendment. Remember, the 14th insists on equal treatment. That would include ALL sexual orientations, not just the Court's pet favorites:

oops! Yep...here it is...

********
(Page 10)

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana , 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.

The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.”...Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect....That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements.

*****
The "broad principles" of the 14th Amendment, as I have stated before here, is EQUALITY. Therefore as I have maintained before, if a person's choice is to be polyamorous, how can any clerk nationwide now bar certain sexual orientation choices while giving others the green light to marry? The Court wove sexual orientation into the foundation of the discussion of Obergefell. Then it cited the 14th, whose broad meaning is absolute equality. Then the Court went on to narrow its finding JUST to homosexual orientation, leaving all the others out in the cold. What makes Obergefell even worse, having just said all that, is that polygamists were publicly pushing forward and challenging in the courts for the rights to be legitimized in their sexual orientation (the right to marry), to the full knowledge of each and every single Justice on the Court when they heard Obergefell. Yet not a word was mentioned of polyamorists' struggles in this regard.

So, properly speaking, Obergefell was an act of dismissal or even bigotry against the sufferings of sexual orientation, while it professed hypocritically to be a champion of it.

As polygamists march their shooting-fish-in-a-barrel case forward, the nature of how the Court arrived at turning a behavior (sexual orientation) into the same status as sex, or a race or country of origin etc. (1964 Civil Rights Act, intimately "married" to the 14th Amendment) is going to pop up in arguments. The Court will have to reluctantly inform the 50 states that now any and all combinations of adults "in love" may marry, or Obergefell is going to have to be overturned. Those are the only two options. If you claim that the Court has to limit marriage to "two" I can cite you numerous passages where the Court discusses how marriage cannot be limited as it "evolves" to any historical constraints....That would include any of its parameters where personal dignity and choice were concerned...including the number "two"...

Obergefell Opinion, page 3: Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons....

And, as I said before, the issue of children being implicit sharers in the marriage contract may overtake any other issue in importance. Gay marriage contracts systematically deprive any children involved of the hope of a mother or father for life. Infants and contracts though, demand that NO contract have any provision to the detriment of children. And, there are so many studies showing the lack of a father for boys being harmful or the lack of a mother for girls being harmful that to create a contract where those conditions are cemented in law is an institution of punishment to children. Single parents may lack the opposite gendered parent in the home, but there is always the hope one may come along one day. And, most importantly, single parents do not bind those conditions in a legal document as gay marriage does for the entire life of that child with no escape.

 

[Silhouette]

Any state right now could refuse to issue gay marriage licenses on the grounds that gay marriage creates contract violation to the detriment of children. Gays would sue and the issue would come to a head. When it does, I'd refer attorneys for the state to cite Obergefell page 3, "a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons"... It would be a cold day in hell before even this current panel of liberal hacks on the US Supreme Court would brave forward to suggest that children aren't implicit parties to the marriage contract. That would be one of the boldest lies ever told in the last millenium.

Demonstrating that fatherless boys or motherless girls suffer ...well now...there's your "shooting fish in a barrel" case. Binding those conditions for life in a contract? Not allowed.

 

[mdk]

That's the first paragraph of the Opinion. On the child-aspect alone, Obergefell is challenged. Marrying someone of the same sex deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. The Court, upon challenge, would have to find that children in no way shape or form were implied parties to any marriage contract.

I wonder why states are not clamoring to use your legal mumbo-jumbo? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that children are not implied parties to any marriage contract in any state. lol

And, as I said before, the issue of children being implicit sharers in the marriage contract may overtake any other issue in importance. Gay marriage contracts systematically deprive any children involved of the hope of a mother or father for life. Infants and contracts though, demand that NO contract have any provision to the detriment of children. And, there are so many studies showing the lack of a father for boys being harmful or the lack of a mother for girls being harmful that to create a contract where those conditions are cemented in law is an institution of punishment to children. Single parents may lack the opposite gendered parent in the home, but there is always the hope one may come along one day. And, most importantly, single parents do not bind those conditions in a legal document as gay marriage does for the entire life of that child with no escape.

I always love that your standards of detriment only ever seem to apply to gays. The instant your standards do not you craft all sorts of self-serving exemptions. Stop kidding yourself, Sil. You really don't give a shit about children, you only care about finding a way to punish and smear queers. Good thing none of it is based in reality and nobody is bound by your mentally ill obsession and imagination. True story.

 

[Skylar]

Any state right now could refuse to issue gay marriage licenses on the grounds that gay marriage creates contract violation to the detriment of children.

Nope. Three problems. First, no state nor the federal government recognizes children as parties to the marriage of their parents. You made that shit up.

Second, Obegefell explicitly finds that same sex marriage benefits children. Your personal opinion v. the explicit findings of the Supreme Court aren't equal.

Third, no one is obligated to have children or be able to have them in order to marry. As Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.

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

Killing your silly argument a third time. Remember, Sil........you make shit up, it has no relevance to the law, nothing happens.

 

[Skylar]

Odd, the cornerstone of your entire argument is that Obergefell equates sex and sexual orientation.

Yet when I ask you to show us Obergefell ever doing this, you can't. Try again.

Show us the Obergefell ruling equating sex with sexual orientation.

You're right. It would be difficult to show you since other sexual orientations cannot legally marry...and Obergefell cited the 14th; which addresses equality in privileges. But Obergefell did talk about sexual orientation being the hub of its addition to the Constitutional protections:

Obergefell vs Hodges

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach,a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

The passage you cited never even mentions sexual orientation. Let alone equates sex with sexual orientatin. Try agin, this time reading for comprehension.

Show us the Obergefell ruling equating sex with sexual orientation.

That's the first paragraph of the Opinion. On the child-aspect alone, Obergefell is challenged. Marrying someone of the same sex deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life.

Nope. No state recognizes children as a party to the marriage of their parents. You made that shit up, citing your imagination as the law.

You make shit up. It has no relevance to the law. Nothing happens.

See how that works?

But here's the clincher with respect to the Court making "same sex marriage" equal to "homosexual (orientation) marriage".

(pages 7-8)
*******
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae
5–28. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as

Nothing you've cited even mentions 'homosexual marriage'. Let alone equates it to same sex marriage. You're hallucinating.

You make shit up. It has no relevance to the law. Nothing happens.

Notice the pattern yet? You should.......your every post follows it.

 

[Skylar]

That's the first paragraph of the Opinion. On the child-aspect alone, Obergefell is challenged. Marrying someone of the same sex deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. The Court, upon challenge, would have to find that children in no way shape or form were implied parties to any marriage contract.

I wonder why states are not clamoring to use your legal mumbo-jumbo? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that children are not implied parties to any marriage contract in any state. lol

And, as I said before, the issue of children being implicit sharers in the marriage contract may overtake any other issue in importance. Gay marriage contracts systematically deprive any children involved of the hope of a mother or father for life. Infants and contracts though, demand that NO contract have any provision to the detriment of children. And, there are so many studies showing the lack of a father for boys being harmful or the lack of a mother for girls being harmful that to create a contract where those conditions are cemented in law is an institution of punishment to children. Single parents may lack the opposite gendered parent in the home, but there is always the hope one may come along one day. And, most importantly, single parents do not bind those conditions in a legal document as gay marriage does for the entire life of that child with no escape.

I always love that your standards of detriment only ever seem to apply to gays. The instant your standards do not you craft all sorts of self-serving exemptions. Stop kidding yourself, Sil. You really don't give a shit about children, you only care about finding a way to punish and smear queers. Good thing none of it is based in reality and nobody is bound by your mentally ill obsession and imagination. True story.

For crying out loud, she just cited as amicus curiae as the Obergefell, demonstrating yet again that she has no idea how the law works. With Obergefell never making the argument she claims.

Hively is about employer discrimination. It has nothing to do with marriage, nor Obergefell. Which the Hively court emphasized in their ruling;

And finally, two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same‐sex couples had the right to marry in every state of the Union. (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015). We emphasize yet again that none of these cases directly impacts the statutory interpretations of Title VII.

The Supreme Court neither created Title VII nor was required to address any issues regarding employment discrimination in considering the issues it chose to address.

Opinion | Lambda Legal

Yet as Sil is prone to do, she's ignoring the very ruling she claims to cite....ignores them dismissing any impact from Obergefell, ignores the Hively court acknowledging that the Obergefell court never even addressed the issues raise in Hively.

And having ignored the Hively decision......Sil just starts making shit up about it. Following the exact same pattern she does in every legal thread:

Sil makes shit up. It has nothing to do with the law. Nothing happens.

 

[mdk]

That's the first paragraph of the Opinion. On the child-aspect alone, Obergefell is challenged. Marrying someone of the same sex deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. The Court, upon challenge, would have to find that children in no way shape or form were implied parties to any marriage contract.

I wonder why states are not clamoring to use your legal mumbo-jumbo? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that children are not implied parties to any marriage contract in any state. lol

And, as I said before, the issue of children being implicit sharers in the marriage contract may overtake any other issue in importance. Gay marriage contracts systematically deprive any children involved of the hope of a mother or father for life. Infants and contracts though, demand that NO contract have any provision to the detriment of children. And, there are so many studies showing the lack of a father for boys being harmful or the lack of a mother for girls being harmful that to create a contract where those conditions are cemented in law is an institution of punishment to children. Single parents may lack the opposite gendered parent in the home, but there is always the hope one may come along one day. And, most importantly, single parents do not bind those conditions in a legal document as gay marriage does for the entire life of that child with no escape.

I always love that your standards of detriment only ever seem to apply to gays. The instant your standards do not you craft all sorts of self-serving exemptions. Stop kidding yourself, Sil. You really don't give a shit about children, you only care about finding a way to punish and smear queers. Good thing none of it is based in reality and nobody is bound by your mentally ill obsession and imagination. True story.

For crying out loud, she just cited as amicus curiae as the Obergefell, demonstrating yet again that she has no idea how the law works. With Obergefell never making the argument she claims.

Hively is about employer discrimination. It has nothing to do with marriage, nor Obergefell. Which the Hively court emphasized in their ruling;

And finally, two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same‐sex couples had the right to marry in every state of the Union. (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015). We emphasize yet again that none of these cases directly impacts the statutory interpretations of Title VII.

The Supreme Court neither created Title VII nor was required to address any issues regarding employment discrimination in considering the issues it chose to address.

Opinion | Lambda Legal

Yet as Sil is prone to do, she's ignoring the very ruling she claims to cite....ignores them dismissing any impact from Obergefell, ignores the Hively court acknowledging that the Obergefell court never even addressed the issues raise in Hively.

And having ignored the Hively decision......Sil just starts making shit up about it. Following the exact same pattern she does in every legal thread:

Sil makes shit up. It has nothing to do with the law. Nothing happens.

Why bother anymore? You would have better luck trying to teach a house plant quantum physics. It doesn't matter how many facts are introduced as Sil is only every going to cite her imagination when it comes to her mentally ill crusade aganist gay people. It is the very soul of a fool's errand. I am pretty much bored with this lunatic and I am content with letting her prattle to herself from now on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Any state right now could refuse to issue gay marriage licenses on the grounds that gay marriage creates contract violation to the detriment of children. Gays would sue and the issue would come to a head. When it does, I'd refer attorneys for the state to cite Obergefell page 3, "a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons"... It would be a cold day in hell before even this current panel of liberal hacks on the US Supreme Court would brave forward to suggest that children aren't implicit parties to the marriage contract. That would be one of the boldest lies ever told in the last millenium.

Demonstrating that fatherless boys or motherless girls suffer ...well now...there's your "shooting fish in a barrel" case. Binding those conditions for life in a contract? Not allowed.

Wrong - again...

From Obergefel

"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384 (quoting Meyer, supra, at 399). Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).

That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one."​

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

That's the first paragraph of the Opinion. On the child-aspect alone, Obergefell is challenged. Marrying someone of the same sex deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. The Court, upon challenge, would have to find that children in no way shape or form were implied parties to any marriage contract.

I wonder why states are not clamoring to use your legal mumbo-jumbo? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that children are not implied parties to any marriage contract in any state. lol

And, as I said before, the issue of children being implicit sharers in the marriage contract may overtake any other issue in importance. Gay marriage contracts systematically deprive any children involved of the hope of a mother or father for life. Infants and contracts though, demand that NO contract have any provision to the detriment of children. And, there are so many studies showing the lack of a father for boys being harmful or the lack of a mother for girls being harmful that to create a contract where those conditions are cemented in law is an institution of punishment to children. Single parents may lack the opposite gendered parent in the home, but there is always the hope one may come along one day. And, most importantly, single parents do not bind those conditions in a legal document as gay marriage does for the entire life of that child with no escape.

I always love that your standards of detriment only ever seem to apply to gays. The instant your standards do not you craft all sorts of self-serving exemptions. Stop kidding yourself, Sil. You really don't give a shit about children, you only care about finding a way to punish and smear queers. Good thing none of it is based in reality and nobody is bound by your mentally ill obsession and imagination. True story.

For crying out loud, she just cited as amicus curiae as the Obergefell, demonstrating yet again that she has no idea how the law works. With Obergefell never making the argument she claims.

Hively is about employer discrimination. It has nothing to do with marriage, nor Obergefell. Which the Hively court emphasized in their ruling;

And finally, two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same‐sex couples had the right to marry in every state of the Union. (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015). We emphasize yet again that none of these cases directly impacts the statutory interpretations of Title VII.

The Supreme Court neither created Title VII nor was required to address any issues regarding employment discrimination in considering the issues it chose to address.

Opinion | Lambda Legal

Yet as Sil is prone to do, she's ignoring the very ruling she claims to cite....ignores them dismissing any impact from Obergefell, ignores the Hively court acknowledging that the Obergefell court never even addressed the issues raise in Hively.

And having ignored the Hively decision......Sil just starts making shit up about it. Following the exact same pattern she does in every legal thread:

Sil makes shit up. It has nothing to do with the law. Nothing happens.

Why bother anymore? You would have better luck trying to teach a house plant quantum physics. It doesn't matter how many facts are introduced as Sil is only every going to cite her imagination when it comes to her mentally ill crusade aganist gay people. It is the very soul of a fool's errand. I am pretty much bored with this lunatic and I am content with letting her prattle to herself from now on.

And I'm going to make sure everyone knows she's citing her imagination....by citing the actual case, the actual rulings, and the caselaw.

Not for her benefit. But for anyone who might read the thread.

 

[mdk]

And I'm going to make sure everyone knows she's citing her imagination....by citing the actual case, the actual rulings, and the caselaw.

Not for her benefit. But for anyone who might read the thread.

I take solace in knowing that you can count the number of people that take Sil seriously here on one hand. Maybe two.

 

[Skylar]

And I'm going to make sure everyone knows she's citing her imagination....by citing the actual case, the actual rulings, and the caselaw.

Not for her benefit. But for anyone who might read the thread.

I take solace in knowing that you can count the number of people that take Sil seriously here on one hand. Maybe two.

Its a dying argument. We'll look back at opposition to same sex marriage with the same mix of dumbfounded awe and disgust that we do today those who opposed interracial marriage.

Even among conservatives, this is largely a dead issue.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow^^ The choir really showed up for damage control this time.

I'm sure among conservatives, nullifying contract law with respect to kids and inadvertently legalizing polygamy and incest at the same time as homosexual orientation is "largely a dead issue even among conservatives"... NOT.


All I said was this.


***

Odd, the cornerstone of your entire argument is that Obergefell equates sex and sexual orientation.

Yet when I ask you to show us Obergefell ever doing this, you can't. Try again.

Show us the Obergefell ruling equating sex with sexual orientation.

You're right. It would be difficult to show you since other sexual orientations cannot legally marry...and Obergefell cited the 14th; which addresses equality in privileges. But Obergefell did talk about sexual orientation being the hub of its addition to the Constitutional protections:

Obergefell vs Hodges

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach,a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

That's the first paragraph of the Opinion. On the child-aspect alone, Obergefell is challenged. Marrying someone of the same sex deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. The Court, upon challenge, would have to find that children in no way shape or form were implied parties to any marriage contract. But the Court has already spoken on that point, hinting that children share in the marriage contract:
(page 3)

Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons.... It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex. That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and through-out the world.

But here's the clincher with respect to the Court making "same sex marriage" equal to "homosexual (orientation) marriage".

(pages 7-8)
*******
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae
5–28. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as

Amici Curiae
7–17. In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law.

**********
In that crucial discourse, the Court wove together the terms "same-sex" and "homosexual" and "sexual orientation". So when you claim Obergefell wasn't about sexual orientation, you're full of shit. It is and was about sexual orientation.. What's weird though is I only see mention of one type of sexual orientation. Polyamorists and incest (attraction to one's own blood family) are not mentioned anywhere there. Let's see if, now that we've established Obergefell was about sexual orientation getting rights to marry, if they cited the 14th Amendment. Remember, the 14th insists on equal treatment. That would include ALL sexual orientations, not just the Court's pet favorites:

oops! Yep...here it is...

********
(Page 10)

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana , 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.

The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.”...Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect....That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements.

*****
The "broad principles" of the 14th Amendment, as I have stated before here, is EQUALITY. Therefore as I have maintained before, if a person's choice is to be polyamorous, how can any clerk nationwide now bar certain sexual orientation choices while giving others the green light to marry? The Court wove sexual orientation into the foundation of the discussion of Obergefell. Then it cited the 14th, whose broad meaning is absolute equality. Then the Court went on to narrow its finding JUST to homosexual orientation, leaving all the others out in the cold. What makes Obergefell even worse, having just said all that, is that polygamists were publicly pushing forward and challenging in the courts for the rights to be legitimized in their sexual orientation (the right to marry), to the full knowledge of each and every single Justice on the Court when they heard Obergefell. Yet not a word was mentioned of polyamorists' struggles in this regard.

So, properly speaking, Obergefell was an act of dismissal or even bigotry against the sufferings of sexual orientation, while it professed hypocritically to be a champion of it.

As polygamists march their shooting-fish-in-a-barrel case forward, the nature of how the Court arrived at turning a behavior (sexual orientation) into the same status as sex, or a race or country of origin etc. (1964 Civil Rights Act, intimately "married" to the 14th Amendment) is going to pop up in arguments. The Court will have to reluctantly inform the 50 states that now any and all combinations of adults "in love" may marry, or Obergefell is going to have to be overturned. Those are the only two options. If you claim that the Court has to limit marriage to "two" I can cite you numerous passages where the Court discusses how marriage cannot be limited as it "evolves" to any historical constraints....That would include any of its parameters where personal dignity and choice were concerned...including the number "two"...

Obergefell Opinion, page 3: Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons....

And, as I said before, the issue of children being implicit sharers in the marriage contract may overtake any other issue in importance. Gay marriage contracts systematically deprive any children involved of the hope of a mother or father for life. Infants and contracts though, demand that NO contract have any provision to the detriment of children. And, there are so many studies showing the lack of a father for boys being harmful or the lack of a mother for girls being harmful that to create a contract where those conditions are cemented in law is an institution of punishment to children. Single parents may lack the opposite gendered parent in the home, but there is always the hope one may come along one day. And, most importantly, single parents do not bind those conditions in a legal document as gay marriage does for the entire life of that child with no escape.

 

[Skylar]

Wow^^ The choir really showed up for damage control this time.

I'm sure among conservatives, nullifying contract law with respect to kids and inadvertently legalizing polygamy and incest at the same time as homosexual orientation is "largely a dead issue even among conservatives"... NOT.


All I said was this.


***

Odd, the cornerstone of your entire argument is that Obergefell equates sex and sexual orientation.

Yet when I ask you to show us Obergefell ever doing this, you can't. Try again.

Show us the Obergefell ruling equating sex with sexual orientation.

You're right. It would be difficult to show you since other sexual orientations cannot legally marry...and Obergefell cited the 14th; which addresses equality in privileges. But Obergefell did talk about sexual orientation being the hub of its addition to the Constitutional protections:

Obergefell vs Hodges

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach,a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

That's the first paragraph of the Opinion. On the child-aspect alone, Obergefell is challenged. Marrying someone of the same sex deprives children via contract of either a mother or father for life. The Court, upon challenge, would have to find that children in no way shape or form were implied parties to any marriage contract. But the Court has already spoken on that point, hinting that children share in the marriage contract:
(page 3)

Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons.... It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex. That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and through-out the world.

But here's the clincher with respect to the Court making "same sex marriage" equal to "homosexual (orientation) marriage".

(pages 7-8)
*******
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae
5–28. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as

Amici Curiae
7–17. In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law.

**********
In that crucial discourse, the Court wove together the terms "same-sex" and "homosexual" and "sexual orientation". So when you claim Obergefell wasn't about sexual orientation, you're full of shit. It is and was about sexual orientation.. What's weird though is I only see mention of one type of sexual orientation. Polyamorists and incest (attraction to one's own blood family) are not mentioned anywhere there. Let's see if, now that we've established Obergefell was about sexual orientation getting rights to marry, if they cited the 14th Amendment. Remember, the 14th insists on equal treatment. That would include ALL sexual orientations, not just the Court's pet favorites:

oops! Yep...here it is...

********
(Page 10)

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana , 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.

The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.”...Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect....That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements.

*****
The "broad principles" of the 14th Amendment, as I have stated before here, is EQUALITY. Therefore as I have maintained before, if a person's choice is to be polyamorous, how can any clerk nationwide now bar certain sexual orientation choices while giving others the green light to marry? The Court wove sexual orientation into the foundation of the discussion of Obergefell. Then it cited the 14th, whose broad meaning is absolute equality. Then the Court went on to narrow its finding JUST to homosexual orientation, leaving all the others out in the cold. What makes Obergefell even worse, having just said all that, is that polygamists were publicly pushing forward and challenging in the courts for the rights to be legitimized in their sexual orientation (the right to marry), to the full knowledge of each and every single Justice on the Court when they heard Obergefell. Yet not a word was mentioned of polyamorists' struggles in this regard.

So, properly speaking, Obergefell was an act of dismissal or even bigotry against the sufferings of sexual orientation, while it professed hypocritically to be a champion of it.

As polygamists march their shooting-fish-in-a-barrel case forward, the nature of how the Court arrived at turning a behavior (sexual orientation) into the same status as sex, or a race or country of origin etc. (1964 Civil Rights Act, intimately "married" to the 14th Amendment) is going to pop up in arguments. The Court will have to reluctantly inform the 50 states that now any and all combinations of adults "in love" may marry, or Obergefell is going to have to be overturned. Those are the only two options. If you claim that the Court has to limit marriage to "two" I can cite you numerous passages where the Court discusses how marriage cannot be limited as it "evolves" to any historical constraints....That would include any of its parameters where personal dignity and choice were concerned...including the number "two"...

Obergefell Opinion, page 3: Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons....

And, as I said before, the issue of children being implicit sharers in the marriage contract may overtake any other issue in importance. Gay marriage contracts systematically deprive any children involved of the hope of a mother or father for life. Infants and contracts though, demand that NO contract have any provision to the detriment of children. And, there are so many studies showing the lack of a father for boys being harmful or the lack of a mother for girls being harmful that to create a contract where those conditions are cemented in law is an institution of punishment to children. Single parents may lack the opposite gendered parent in the home, but there is always the hope one may come along one day. And, most importantly, single parents do not bind those conditions in a legal document as gay marriage does for the entire life of that child with no escape.

And you just blinked. I can always tell when your'e desperate when you start block spamming.

Nothing in your quote equates sexual orientation with sex. There's not even the slightest mention of 'homosexual marriage". Nor does the court nor a single state recognize that children are parties to the marriage of their parents. You're just making shit up again.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

Meanwhile, when we look at the actual Hively case, the court goes out of its way to emphasize that the Obergefell ruling has nothing to do with employment discrimination or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.....nor even addresses these arguments:

And finally, two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same‐sex couples had the right to marry in every state of the Union. (Obergefell v. Hodges 2015). We emphasize yet again that none of these cases directly impacts the statutory interpretations of Title VII.

The Supreme Court neither created Title VII nor was required to address any issues regarding employment discrimination in considering the issues it chose to address.

You're literally ignoring the Hively court on Obergefell's relevance to the Hively ruling.

Laughing........so much for your 'mulberry bush'.

 

[Silhouette]

Hmm...you and your clones took up the entire page here...slinging ad hominems. And I'm the "desperate one spamming"?