Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,401
- 15,067
- 2,180
You cannot fly in the face of reality. Your opinion that the Loving case cannot be used to support same sex marriage denies the fact that it was, and favorably. The Supreme Court has ruled that the marriage of perverts is a benefit to children.... or is that alarmist?
Even the "gay marriage" is aligning South vs. North...or no?
Could be, but I'd give it less than a 20% chance of really happening.
Agreed. There will be no "civil war" because New York vs Ferber upon peaceful civil challenge will overturn Obergefell and the question of states defining marriage will be affirmed in favor of the states. There never was a provision in the Constitution for either 1. Just some deviant repugnant sex behaviors but not others (polygamy, for instance which the 14th says should also right now be legal) or 2. A definition or promise of a "right" for everyone to marry anyone they like.
Loving v Virgina was about race, not behavior. And it didn't eradicate a mother and father for children. Gay marriage does, and that's a problem. And, harmful ultimately to children. New York vs Ferber (1982) was a USSC Finding that says that even if an adult enjoys a constitutionally-protect right, even as rock-solid as the 1st Amendment which the Court slavishly finds in favor of, that right cannot hurt a child or children physically or psychologically.
Ferber was a depraved man who was trying to peddle child pornography featuring two young boys masturbating. He claimed when New York shut him down, that doing so was his constitutional right. He won initially in the lower courts but when SCOTUS reviewed his "right" they recoiled and determined that no, there was a clear line in the sand when children are involved in any adult "right" if that right harms them. Then, it isn't constitutionally-protected. An interesting case for those thinking about challenging Obergefell 2015...
Ferber never so much as mentions marriage. Let alone finds that same sex marriage 'hurts children'. Ferber is merely your case of the month. You'll forget about in a few weeks and come up with a brand new irrelevant case you insist will overturn Obergefell. And then forget about that one too.
Back in reality, Obergefell is fine. And your pseudo-legal babble is still irrelevant.
As you know, when people use previous Court Findings to support their argument, they don't narrow down to specifics, but instead argue the GENERALIZED finding of a case. In Ferber, the generalized finding was that even when a person enjoys a civil right...even one as rock-solid and supported by previous case law as the 1st Amendment, that right is suspended if that "enjoyment" involves hurting children physically or psychologically.
Using your logic, Loving v Virginia never mentioned gay marriage...so....it can't be used to argue that "gay marriage should be legal across 50 states"..
It doesn't mean that perv marriage really is a benefit to children, merely that the Supreme Court said it was. Since we are a nation of laws, (as filtered through social justice) it will remain this way until such time as social justice is replaced by real justice.
Real justice encompasses same sex marriage. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children will never have married parents.
Which hurts these kids and helps none.