Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

[thanatos144]

I wish that was true. But having a penis is worse then being a homosexual and in the minds of people like you that equals rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Fascinating.....I think Freud had a name for crazies like you.

I think idiots who quote a drunk with mommy issues are absurd.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

So...you don't think we should quote you.........interesting.

Are you ever going to get over the fact that you were born with out a penis?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Will you ?

That made no sense

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

Yet- in all 50 states, gay couples are marrying- and their children now have married parents- despite your desire to harm those children.

Let's differentiate between "harm THOSE children" from gay marriage harming "ALL" children involved in a broader sense. You're saying "there's a stigma that children of gays (impossible physically) suffer by their parents not being married.". And I'm saying there is worse harm done to kids in gay marriage by this bandaid fix. You're saying "the bandaid will fix the severed artery". I'm saying the bandaid IS what's severing the artery.

There is no denying that children come from men and women uniting. Men and men uniting or women and women uniting NEVER results in children. So as the child grows out of this bandaid fix of Obergefell, they realize they still don't have either a mommy or daddy. And THAT is the stigma that will never leave them, for which there is no legal remedy once two gay people get married and children come into their midst.

So the courts will have to decide which is worse for children of so-called "gay marriage"...a stigma that is never lifted in actual fact, since no mother can ever be introduced into a gay male "marriage" for the sake of children and no father can every be introduced into a lesbian "marriage" for the sake of the children....or a lifelong sentence of being permanently divorced for the children from the idea even of having the missing mother or father come into their life.

Which is worse? I know where my money is at. And so do the kids, now young adults who were actually raised in otherwise "harmless" gay homes (see the signature in my link). These children spoke out for, advocated for all children at such risk. And their voices were muted in Obergefell. A complete pass was given to how this completely new structure of "marriage" would affect the most important people involved in the marriage contract: children...

 

[Silhouette]

Yet- in all 50 states, gay couples are marrying- and their children now have married parents- despite your desire to harm those children.

Your desire to harm children by depriving them even of the hope of a mother or father...for life... is the harm being done. That is our point of contention.

It's like you're saying "because we got away with murder, the body is already dead, so you should no longer look into our crime"..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What is old and should be over is this ignorance of the law and ridiculous lie from most on the right.

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting class legislation dating back well over 100 years; government may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are.

This bigotry and hate toward gay Americans many on the right wish to codify into law is in fact un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're right, this topic is old and over

Thier votes won't last long.... why? Because progressivism is rooted in elitism and feminism. Both of which is diametrically opposite to the liberty needed for homosexuals to live peacefully and safely in a society. You see the marrige idiocy is just a cheap parlor trick.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

The only idiocy can be found in this post.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

'Extra rights' meaning of course- treating them the same before the law.

Something Conservatives despise.

Meaning giving them special exemption from laws based on sexual predilection. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is the usurpation of states rights to make laws. Whether a state had homosexual marriage or not should have been up to each state not five old people in a robe. But like I said the progressives bought the homosexual male vote for a short period of time. Because homosexual or not they are still men and feminism thus progressivism see them are war mongering rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

There are no 'special rights,' no 'special exemption,' those notions are true idiocy.

The real issue is the hate, fear, and bigotry that manifests mostly among the ranks of republicans and conservatives, their desire to disadvantage through force of law those whom they fear, and the contempt most conservatives have for the rule of law.

The states have no 'right' to discriminate against the American citizens who reside in the states, citizens' rights are paramount, superior to that of the states, immune from attack by the states, safeguarded by the Constitution and its case law.

States that sought to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law were wrong to do so, and their measures prohibiting gay Americans from marrying were wisely and appropriately invalidated because those measures were repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[thanatos144]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

'Extra rights' meaning of course- treating them the same before the law.

Something Conservatives despise.

Meaning giving them special exemption from laws based on sexual predilection. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is the usurpation of states rights to make laws. Whether a state had homosexual marriage or not should have been up to each state not five old people in a robe. But like I said the progressives bought the homosexual male vote for a short period of time. Because homosexual or not they are still men and feminism thus progressivism see them are war mongering rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

There are no 'special rights,' no 'special exemption,' those notions are true idiocy.

The real issue is the hate, fear, and bigotry that manifests mostly among the ranks of republicans and conservatives, their desire to disadvantage through force of law those whom they fear, and the contempt most conservatives have for the rule of law.

The states have no 'right' to discriminate against the American citizens who reside in the states, citizens' rights are paramount, superior to that of the states, immune from attack by the states, safeguarded by the Constitution and its case law.

States that sought to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law were wrong to do so, and their measures prohibiting gay Americans from marrying were wisely and appropriately invalidated because those measures were repugnant to the Constitution.

Anything that goes against the tyrannical fist of regressives and feminism Is labeled hate. Why? Because free thought and speech is counter productive to them.... Liars like you are not worth spit

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who is "we" bodecea? And are you all ganging up on people here on USMB when they oppose anything LGBT? Is this the same "we" who shoved their agenda all the way into marriage with children's needs of a mother and father bound and gagged...all under the umbrella of "help us, we're being beaten back!"

You're a cult. An insidious and massively hypocritical cult. NY v Ferber sets the deep psychological need of both a mother and father for girls and boys above your civil rights. "We" (on our side) have case law and a case can be built upon it. The only way it can't win is if the USSC rolls back NY v Ferber and child porn can be "a first amendment right to free speech"..

How dare those gay people resist your attempts to take away their rights. The nerve...the cheek even!

They can have civil unions all day long, but not marriage. Marriage was created to provide kids with both a mother and father. Gays can't qualify. Call it something else because marriage is and always has = "providing a mother/father matrix for children anticipated to arrive".

According to this 'reasoning' opposite-sex couples who cannot have children should be disallowed to marry.

Fail.

 

[Silhouette]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What is old and should be over is this ignorance of the law and ridiculous lie from most on the right.

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting class legislation dating back well over 100 years; government may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are.

This bigotry and hate toward gay Americans many on the right wish to codify into law is in fact un-Constitutional.

It was never "settled" over 100 years ago that the Judicial Branch of government should look past the qualifier for "new class" and ignore that it derives from a repugnant sexual behavior instead of a static state of being like gender or race, or which country one is from. The only category left for the Judicial to have considered Obergefell was "religion". Since the LGBT cult flatly denies it is a cult, and has quite successfully dressed up their lie in the cloak of "born that way" without a shred of evidence to support that outrageous claim (prison gays, Anne Heche), "religion" didn't fit either. So the Judicial made up out of thin air a new category for the 14th: "Just some of our favorite repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors-as-identities, but not other deviant sex behaviors (polygamy)". This is 1. forbidden by the checks and balances. The Judicial Branch cannot add new things to the Constitution. 2. Discriminatory (not allowed in the 14th) to other deviant sex behaviors like polygamy and 3. All derived from a patently false premise of "just these deviant sex behaviors are innate while others aren't"...

Obergefell isn't worth the paper it's written on for all these reasons BESIDES that Kagan and Ginsburg presided over it in violation of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, and the court was essentially sitting on a proposed radical revision to the marriage contract without all implicit parties to that contract having representation at the Hearing.

And if that was all bad enough, it gets worse. In finding for gay marriage mandate, the Court completely destroyed the meaning and thousands-years-old purpose of creating the contract in the first place: to remedy the ills brought upon children of not having both a mother and father as mentors in their daily lives (kids come in both boys and girls folks). The Court created in Obergefell a brand new legal prison for which children may never escape. Even single parents would be better for kids in that they at least offer the hope of escape from that prison of the missing parent when they finally married. With "gay marriage" it is one and the same as a psychological prison of which there is no escape. And if you want to see how the prisoners regard that, read the link of the amicus brief in my signature of young adults raised in otherwise "perfectly happy" gay homes. And, if you want to read up on all the statistical woes awaiting kids who grow up without an intimately-concerned daily mentor in their lives of their same gender (a girl, a mother, a boy, a father), read how this causes elevated levels of depression, drug abuse, indigency and suicidal thoughts coming from a feeling of not mattering (since your gender was never represented in the daily adult functioning world you grew up in) PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Look for Obergefell to be heading to the paper shredder the minute the semi-sane people get back in control. Your little child abusing cult is going to get horse-whipped back into the "religious" category of the 14th. And from there, you can try to convince the people to give y'all "rights"..

As it stands now, no matter what "Constitutional rights" you claim or what nefarious process you claim was legitimate in giving them to you, they will not protect you when it comes to New York vs Ferber. The conclusion there being that a rock solid adult constitutional right becomes subdominant if it threatens to harm children physically or psychologically..

 

[Syriusly]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

'Extra rights' meaning of course- treating them the same before the law.

Something Conservatives despise.

Meaning giving them special exemption from laws based on sexual predilection. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is the usurpation of states rights to make laws. Whether a state had homosexual marriage or not should have been up to each state not five old people in a robe. But like I said the progressives bought the homosexual male vote for a short period of time. Because homosexual or not they are still men and feminism thus progressivism see them are war mongering rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

There are no 'special rights,' no 'special exemption,' those notions are true idiocy.

The real issue is the hate, fear, and bigotry that manifests mostly among the ranks of republicans and conservatives, their desire to disadvantage through force of law those whom they fear, and the contempt most conservatives have for the rule of law.

The states have no 'right' to discriminate against the American citizens who reside in the states, citizens' rights are paramount, superior to that of the states, immune from attack by the states, safeguarded by the Constitution and its case law.

States that sought to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law were wrong to do so, and their measures prohibiting gay Americans from marrying were wisely and appropriately invalidated because those measures were repugnant to the Constitution.

Anything that goes against the tyrannical fist of regressives and feminism Is labeled hate. Why? Because free thought and speech is counter productive to them.... Liars like you are not worth spit
k

LOL- says the bigoted right wing liar.

 

[Syriusly]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What is old and should be over is this ignorance of the law and ridiculous lie from most on the right.

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting class legislation dating back well over 100 years; government may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are.

This bigotry and hate toward gay Americans many on the right wish to codify into law is in fact un-Constitutional.

It was never "settled" over 100 years.

Blah blah blah- why do you keep vomitting the exact same crap on the page?

Marriage is legal for Americans of any gender to marry any other gender now in all 50 states.

That is the fact.

Your thread a day doesn't change that fact.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet- in all 50 states, gay couples are marrying- and their children now have married parents- despite your desire to harm those children.

Your desire to harm children by depriving them even of the hope of a mother or father...for life... is the harm being done. .

Children are not 'harmed' by not having the 'hope of a mother or father'- despite what the voices in your head tell you.

Meanwhile- preventing gay parents from marrying only prevents children from having married parents.

It does not magically give those children opposite gender parents.

Of course your real plan is to have the government seize all the children being raised by gay or single parents and force them into your perfect hetero familes.

 

[thanatos144]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What is old and should be over is this ignorance of the law and ridiculous lie from most on the right.

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting class legislation dating back well over 100 years; government may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are.

This bigotry and hate toward gay Americans many on the right wish to codify into law is in fact un-Constitutional.

It was never "settled" over 100 years.

Blah blah blah- why do you keep vomitting the exact same crap on the page?

Marriage is legal for Americans of any gender to marry any other gender now in all 50 states.

That is the fact.

Your thread a day doesn't change that fact.

It was already legal for any gender retard

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What is old and should be over is this ignorance of the law and ridiculous lie from most on the right.

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting class legislation dating back well over 100 years; government may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are.

This bigotry and hate toward gay Americans many on the right wish to codify into law is in fact un-Constitutional.

It was never "settled" over 100 years.

Blah blah blah- why do you keep vomitting the exact same crap on the page?

Marriage is legal for Americans of any gender to marry any other gender now in all 50 states.

That is the fact.

Your thread a day doesn't change that fact.

It was already legal for any gender retard

Yes- it was legal even for a gender retard like you.

Now you can legally marry another gender retard- of the same gender.

In all 50 states.

 

[thanatos144]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What is old and should be over is this ignorance of the law and ridiculous lie from most on the right.

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting class legislation dating back well over 100 years; government may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are.

This bigotry and hate toward gay Americans many on the right wish to codify into law is in fact un-Constitutional.

It was never "settled" over 100 years.

Blah blah blah- why do you keep vomitting the exact same crap on the page?

Marriage is legal for Americans of any gender to marry any other gender now in all 50 states.

That is the fact.

Your thread a day doesn't change that fact.

It was already legal for any gender retard

Yes- it was legal even for a gender retard like you.

Now you can legally marry another gender retard- of the same gender.

In all 50 states.

You were always able to marry another gender .... hell it wasn't even illegal to marry the SAME gender. It wasn't like you went to jail for it...no authoritarian feminist douches like you are more apt to do that then us normal Americans

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

Now you can legally marry another gender retard- of the same gender.

In all 50 states.

That remains to be seen. That is false, if doing so violates the finding in New York v Ferber (adult civil rights take a back seat to the physical and psychological well being of children), by depriving children systematically of either a vital mother or vital father for life, without escape, those prison bars displayed every day when the child wakes up and sees their two dads or two moms parading about the house..could be found to be what the children themselves have declared: intolerable. No matter how "nice" the gay home is otherwise. That vacuum can't be filled with toys, money or soccer game trophies..

 

[Syriusly]

Now you can legally marry another gender retard- of the same gender.

In all 50 states.

That remains to be seen. ..

No- this is the fact- Americans can legally marry in all 50 states- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

No matter how much that distresses you.

 

[Syriusly]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What is old and should be over is this ignorance of the law and ridiculous lie from most on the right.

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting class legislation dating back well over 100 years; government may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are.

This bigotry and hate toward gay Americans many on the right wish to codify into law is in fact un-Constitutional.

It was never "settled" over 100 years.

Blah blah blah- why do you keep vomitting the exact same crap on the page?

Marriage is legal for Americans of any gender to marry any other gender now in all 50 states.

That is the fact.

Your thread a day doesn't change that fact.

It was already legal for any gender retard

Yes- it was legal even for a gender retard like you.

Now you can legally marry another gender retard- of the same gender.

In all 50 states.

You were always able to marry another gender k

Now Americans can legally marry in all 50 states, regardless of the gender of their spouse.

Now even you can marry your gender retard.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.

Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.

The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.

Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.

Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw​

Same horseshit, different day

 

[Silhouette]

Same horseshit, different day

On the contrary, it's not every day you find case law for USSC that says "adult civil rights take a back seat if kids are harmed". That's exactly the conclusion in New York vs Ferber. And I doubt many people know about that law.