Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

So Silo......you can't site any child benefiting from denying same sex marriage..

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

 

[Skylar]

I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

Yeah, but your dichotomy is a irrational hallucination.

First, its not merely a 'few thousand kids'. Its 10s of thousands of children. 40,000 in California alone. And that's just today. THere's also all the children you'll be hurting tomorrow. Gays and lesbians will have kids in the future just like they did in the past. Regardless of the USSC ruling.

Remember, you don't need to be married to have kids. This is the part of your argument that breaks. As you keep equating gay marriage with same sex parenting. As if by denying the first, the second magically disappears.

Um, nope.

Second, denying same sex marriage doesn't help any of the '100s of millions of kids'. As same sex marriage and same sex parenting aren't the same thing. You know how you can tell? Because there were already 40,000 children of same sex parents in California alone BEFORE gay marriage was recognized. If you deny marriage to same sex parents, their kids don't magically have opposite sex parents. You only guarantee that these kids will never have married parents. Which helps no one. And hurts these children.

So your actual dichotomy is this:

Option 1: Deny gay marriage and hurt tens of thousands of children now AND hurting many times more in the future while benefiting no child.

Option 2: Recognizing gay marriage and helping 10s of thousands children today and helping many times more in the future while harming no child.

Why the **** would any rational person go with your option? It helps no one and hurts children by the 10s of thousands today and many more in the future.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

Windsor put constitutional guarantees before State marriage laws. Thus, placing constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws would be reaffirming Windsor.

You always forget the 'constitutional guarantees' part. Thankfully, the Supreme Court doesn't.

 

[JoeB131]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

 

[Silhouette]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

They didn't rule substantively on those stay-denials. So it's anyone's guess. Suffice to say their line of questioning at this Hearing suggests the pivotal Justices may have rethought their logic. Fundamentally torpedoing a thousands-year-old definition to institutionally-alienate boys from their fathers or girls from their mothers might have loomed a bit daunting as the 11th hour approached. Imagine shouldering that burden for an entire society forever? I wouldn't want that responsibility/impact sitting on my shoulders when I drew my last breath and did a life review. I think the Court is smart for wanting everyone on board with this one and not just their Godlike Mandate.

 

[Skylar]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

They didn't rule substantively on those stay-denials. So it's anyone's guess.

Odd, that's not what you said before:

Justices Thomas and Scalia author a scathing dissent to the denial of a stay in Alabama.

Here's the link to Thomas' words, with Scalia getting his back. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1658000/thomasdissent.pdf

You know, his/their logic is flawless. The Court has no business deciding the merits of a case without hearing it first. And the last opinion the Court gave the public on the question of who gets to decide on gay marraige was reiterated 56 times in Windsor "the states do, now and always since the founding of the country"...

The real, and I feel impeachable danger that these rogue Justices are stepping our country into is that the nation will get the idea that there really isn't justice. That there really isn't a system of laws and protocols that will protect the Union that they can rely on. If the Justices get to hold what is essentially a shadow kangaroo court on the question of gay marriage, what topic will they do so on next?

Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a thread you titled 'Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality". You remember, you shit yourself for 48 pages on how it was the denial of stays had demonstrated the Supreme Court's bias and that was the grounds for impeachment.

But now they 'didn't rule substantively on those stay-denials'. So were you lying then or are you lying now?

Suffice to say their line of questioning at this Hearing suggests the pivotal Justices may have rethought their logic.

And if they didn't, does that mean they should be impeached again?

It seems your sole criteria of impeachment is agreement with you.

 

[Silhouette]

I wasn't shitting myself. I was pointing out protocol and the court. And BTW, I still feel 100% that Ginsburg and Kagan should not have sat on this Hearing at all. The 2009 Ruling they made about judges, manifest bias and mandatory recusal applies to every leg of American jurisprudence, even and especially their leg of it....since it's the last stop on that train...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I wasn't shitting myself. I was pointing out protocol and the court. And BTW, I still feel 100% that Ginsburg and Kagan should not have sat on this Hearing at all. The 2009 Ruling they made about judges, manifest bias and mandatory recusal applies to every leg of American jurisprudence, even and especially their leg of it....since it's the last stop on that train...

Their minds were made up, all of them, year ago. They wouldn't even be hearing this case if the lower court decision had been like all the others, to toss out these unconstitutional laws against marriage equality. This was a done deal, long ago. To even hear arguments was being polite, just following protocol.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

 

[Skylar]

I wasn't shitting myself. I was pointing out protocol and the court.

You had a complete rhetorical meltdown. You were calling for the impeachment of the United States Supreme Court due to a 'shadow bias' against the States demonstrated by their denial of stays. You insisted that the judiciary was 'broken'. That it was a 'highest perversion of Federal office'. You even called it 'treason, plain and simple' and 'tyranny defined'.

You absolutely lost your shit.

And now, 'They didn't rule substantively on those stay-denials.'

Laughing.......it can't be both 'treason' and a non substantive denial. Its one or the other. Pick one.

And BTW, I still feel 100% that Ginsburg and Kagan should not have sat on this Hearing at all. The 2009 Ruling they made about judges, manifest bias and mandatory recusal applies to every leg of American jurisprudence, even and especially their leg of it....since it's the last stop on that train...

And you're still wrong. The 2009 case was about an elected judge who had accepted massive campaign contributions from one of the parties he was adjudicating over. Neither Ginsberg nor Kagan were elected. Nor do either accept campaign contributions. Nor did they receive any benefit of any kind from any of the litigants in the case you insist they 'recuse themselves' from.

Making your application of the 2009 ruling more pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.

Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

The message was obvious, to all with eyes to see. The case they took was the only one to rule the other way. It's time to put a bow on this box, the box was already wrapped, nothing more.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I wasn't shitting myself. I was pointing out protocol and the court.

You were calling for the impeachment of the United States Supreme Court due to a 'shadow bias' against the States demonstrated by their denial of stays.

You had a rhetorical melt down. And now, 'They didn't rule substantively on those stay-denials.'

Its one or the other. Pick one.

And BTW, I still feel 100% that Ginsburg and Kagan should not have sat on this Hearing at all. The 2009 Ruling they made about judges, manifest bias and mandatory recusal applies to every leg of American jurisprudence, even and especially their leg of it....since it's the last stop on that train...

And you're still wrong. The 2009 case was about an elected judge who had accepted massive campaign contributions from one of the parties he was adjudicating over. Neither Ginsberg nor Kagan were elected. Nor do either accept campaign contributions. Nor did they receive any benefit of any kind from any of the litigants in the case you insist they 'recuse themselves' from.

Making your application of the 2009 ruling more pseudo-legal gibberish.

They presided over homo weddings. They aren't objective.

 

[Silhouette]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

The message was obvious, to all with eyes to see. The case they took was the only one to rule the other way. It's time to put a bow on this box, the box was already wrapped, nothing more.

When was the Opinion published and released? Is it June yet?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

The message was obvious, to all with eyes to see. The case they took was the only one to rule the other way. It's time to put a bow on this box, the box was already wrapped, nothing more.

No the "message" wasn't obvious to all, especially the majority of voters that enacted those bans to begin with. Deep throat failure.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.

Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.

Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.

 

[Skylar]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.

Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.

Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.

Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.

That was easy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're talking about a static temporal standard. I'm arguing from the Supreme Court's impact over time. I'm thinking that faced with these two temporal dichotomies 1. a few thousand kids caught up in gay adult lifestyles today vs 2. 100s of millions of kids institutionally deprived of either a mother or father over time, the Court will choose to focus on the longterm impacts of the decision of just 9 of them in DC today, this year.

They will return the question to the states where it has always been; certainly it would be reaffirming Windsor.

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.

Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.

Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.

Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.

That was easy.

No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

If the court was going to that, they'd have overturned or at least put a stay on all the lower courts that struck down gay marriage bans.

They didn't do that. In fact, the only reason why they are acting at all is because one circuit didn't get the message and decided to uphold bans in four states.

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.

Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.

Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.

Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.

That was easy.

No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.

Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Didn't get the message? Are all judges supposed to be in lock step? One judge upholds the Constitution and the separation of powers and he's wrong because he broke consensus?

I don't think so.

No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.

Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.

Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.

Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.

That was easy.

No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.

Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.

Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.

 

[Skylar]

No, but you can hardly argue that its just 'activist judges' when 44 of 46 cases go in one direction. And 2 of 46 go in the other.

Well I suppose you could. For those 2 cases.

Fidelity to one's oath to uphold the Constitution is not subject to popular whim. That's as idiotic as saying global warming exists because most scientists agree. Truth is not arrived at by majority consensus.

Then you just obliterated the argument for 'judicial activism' on the part of any of the 44 of 46 rulings that overturned gay marriage bans. As they were merely demonstrating 'fidelity to one's oath to uphold the constitution'.

That was easy.

No they weren't. They were perverting the Constitution.

Says you. I think 44 of 46 federal rulings speaks far louder to a valid interpretation of the constitution than you saying 'uh-uh'.

Most people are going to hell too. Your faith in popular opinion shows not only a fundamental lack of intelligence, but also a gross unfamiliarity with how the majority has almost always been wrong throughout history.

I have more faith in 44 of 46 federal rulings on what is constitutional than I do you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about