LGBT Election "Victory Fund" Fund Founding Member Arrested For Sex With Juvenile

[Silhouette]

How is marriage a right?

Loving v Virginia
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

Well Syriusly, given that marriage is "fundametal to our very existence and survival" and "the foundation of the family and of society", it seems to me that children are the paramount members of marriage. And so it is to their rights the states set definitions, such as "no incest, no polygamy, no homosexual" marriages. Incest we can predict would produce genetically hampered children. Polygamy we have seen divides the attention of one blood parent (usually the father) too thinly between his often very numerous children..and lessens is individual devotions to each wife....which ultimately makes them like quasi-single mothers. Single parents the children are lacking one of the blood parents 100% of the time, and that's no good either. Homosexuals even worse, guarantee a missing blood parent 100% of the time PLUS they offer zero exposure and daily interaction for the children for the complimentary gender-as-role-model.

So as you can see, the issue of marriage is family, society and survival. All those things begin with the children in marriage, who then grow to become married themselves based on what they saw modeled before them in their parents. So it is that the state becomes interested in marriage, to preserve all those good things by setting incentives for two, just two, blood parents of the children who most likely will result, to be in their home to raise them with the best social advantage and promise as future rocks at the foundation of any subsequent generation. Male/female is that guarantee, or best shot at the ideal.

A black marrying a white woman is still a man marrying a woman. So naturally, to ban that was functionally indefensible. But banning polygamy, banning incest, banning single parents, banning homosexuals? All those things make rock solid, objective, emotionless, sober good sense for the best interest of the children in the home. Just as a black man marrying a white woman didn't tarnish the brass ring, neither do two sterile heteros. Because if they adopt, at least they provide the "complimentary gender-as-role-model" which is vital to a child's well-rounded formation in society; which contains men and women, males and females. A sterile hetero couple, like a black man and a white woman do not tarnish the "male/female" structure approved by the state for the best interest of children.

In the overwhelming majority of male/female marriages our future people/citizens are created. We'd do well to inspect any new petition to disrupt that apple tree to make sure socieity's children (its very future) isn't being sold a bushel of rotten fruit hidden at the bottom..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A dog with a bone, only the dog won't hunt. What will you do when it is legal in all 50 states Sil? That's pretty soon BTW.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Even if that consenting adults happens to be a sibling?

Why not, what's the harm to you or society? The only possible concern is the higher risk of genetic deformities any children biological siblings might produce, but that's fucking each other not getting married. And that is much closer to a rational basis than denying the rights of two gay people who without the help of the opposite sex aren't going to produce any children at all.

So the reasons you have make it OK to limit something you call a right? Since you admit rights aren't absolute, you should have no problem with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. If you do, you're saying that marriage is a right when you think it should be and can be limited when you don't. Hypocrite.

This has been discussed fairly often in the courts.

Marriage is a right- and as such- can only be denied by a compelling state interest, and only when that denying that right accomplishes that state interest.

For example- Wisconsin had a law forbidding men who owed child support from getting married.

The court pointed out that while the State had an interest in ensuring that parents pay for their children, denying those men their right to marriage did not accomplish the State's interest.

Similarly another state did not allow for inmates to marry- but could provide no compelling reason why inmates should not be allowed their right to marriage- so that law was overturned also.

Such is the issue with same gender marriage- if the state wants to deny same gender couples the right to marry, it must provide a compelling state interest to treat them differently- and the states have not been able to provide a compelling interest so far.

How is marriage a right?

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Good. Now step 2. How does marriage being a right, which is instinctively understood by every civilization from the dawn of man, translate into a right to marry whoever or whatever you want, which is absolutely NOT a right ever recognized by ANY civilization EVER?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A dog with a bone, only the dog won't hunt. What will you do when it is legal in all 50 states Sil? That's pretty soon BTW.

You don't know that. You Leftists are nothing if not haughty and utterly devoid of humility. The Supreme Court can rule that this is a state issue.

 

[SixFoot]

Not surprised at all by this story.

 

[Silhouette]

A dog with a bone, only the dog won't hunt. What will you do when it is legal in all 50 states Sil? That's pretty soon BTW.

Define "legal". Because when lower court activist judges overrule Windsor and Baker from underneath, procedural violations dictate that whatever "Ruling" they came up with isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[Silhouette]

From another source:

*******

Terry Bean, a Portland power player in national Democratic politics and the gay rights movement, was arrested today on charges of sex abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy....

...Law enforcement sources familiar with the case say Bean will be charged with two counts of sodomy in the third degree, a felony, and sex abuse in the third degree, a misdemeanor. He will be arraigned later in Lane County, where the crimes allegedly occurred in 2013....

...
Bean made millions as a real estate developer and used his wealth to promote political causes, primarily gay rights. He is a founder of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading gay-rights organization and has given more than $1 million to the group.
He has also been a central figure in national Democratic politics. As WW reported in June: “No Oregonian has raised more money for President Barack Obama. At a 2009 Human Rights Campaign dinner, Obama called Bean a ‘great friend and supporter.’ The president in 2012 hosted Bean on Air Force One, and when Obama visits Oregon, Bean has had the honor of greeting him as the president gets off his plane.” http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-32476-terry_bean_arrested_.html
************

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell you what Sil, I'll make a thread every time a GOPer gets caught after they rape someone, like this guy: State Re-Files Rape Charge Against Former GOP Chairman - Fox 2 News Headlines

 

[Silhouette]

Tell you what Sil, I'll make a thread every time a GOPer gets caught after they rape someone, like this guy: State Re-Files Rape Charge Against Former GOP Chairman - Fox 2 News Headlines

All rapists and molestors should be exposed. The unique part of this molestor is that he is one of the key advocates and funders for LGBT 'civil rights' in America. LGBT has to do exclusively with sexuality. This guy's sexuality "as representative of the LGBT movement' just happens to include felony sodomy against a minor boy.

Just like Harvey Milk's did. Harvey Milk is the socio-sexual icon of the sexual LGBT movement at large and en masse.

Bean's alleged crimes he was arrested for have a color to them that other similar crimes do not. Hence this thread.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell you what Sil, I'll make a thread every time a GOPer gets caught after they rape someone, like this guy: State Re-Files Rape Charge Against Former GOP Chairman - Fox 2 News Headlines

All rapists and molestors should be exposed. The unique part of this molestor is that he is one of the key advocates and funders for LGBT 'civil rights' in America. LGBT has to do exclusively with sexuality. This guy's sexuality "as representative of the LGBT movement' just happens to include felony sodomy against a minor boy.

Just like Harvey Milk's did. Harvey Milk is the socio-sexual icon of the sexual LGBT movement at large and en masse.

Bean's alleged crimes he was arrested for have a color to them that other similar crimes do not. Hence this thread.

You're simply a homophobe Sil. There's nothing we can do about that except tease you about the fact in 2/3rds of the U.S. people like you are screwed because equality won the day and your bigotry didn't.

 

[Silhouette]

You're simply a homophobe Sil. There's nothing we can do about that except tease you about the fact in 2/3rds of the U.S. people like you are screwed because equality won the day and your bigotry didn't.

When was the SCOTUS hearing on the topic? Please do not cite Baker or Windsor as "in your favor" with removing states' rights, because they were not in your favor. As you know, SCOTUS has not cemented an Opinion on the matter. And gay marriage according to the 6th circuit is illegal in any state where a lower court violated procedure and attempted to overrule SCOTUS in anticipation of how they think SCOTUS might overturn itself as to Baker or Windsor.

Ergo, that shaves your "2/3rds" number back a bit, doesn't it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're simply a homophobe Sil. There's nothing we can do about that except tease you about the fact in 2/3rds of the U.S. people like you are screwed because equality won the day and your bigotry didn't.

When was the SCOTUS hearing on the topic? Please do not cite Baker or Windsor as "in your favor" with removing states' rights, because they were not in your favor. As you know, SCOTUS has not cemented an Opinion on the matter. And gay marriage according to the 6th circuit is illegal in any state where a lower court violated procedure and attempted to overrule SCOTUS in anticipation of how they think SCOTUS might overturn itself as to Baker or Windsor.

Ergo, that shaves your "2/3rds" number back a bit, doesn't it?

No, not in the slightest because the SC has already spoken, by letting the rulings making gay marriage legal stand. You're fucked, just give it up little homophobe.

 

[Silhouette]

...the SC has already spoken, by letting the rulings making gay marriage legal stand. You're fucked, just give it up little homophobe.

No, because they also let the 6th's decision stand; which denies gay marriage. There is no implied Finding that overrules either Baker or Windsor. So on the "we have this one in the bag" angle, YOU are fucked little cultee...any cult that has people defending pedophiles and specifically their sexual preference for minors (like Harvey Milk and others within the fold in high ranks) cannot force their lifestyles on the various states.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...the SC has already spoken, by letting the rulings making gay marriage legal stand. You're fucked, just give it up little homophobe.

No, because they also let the 6th's decision stand; which denies gay marriage. There is no implied Finding that overrules either Baker or Windsor. So on the "we have this one in the bag" angle, YOU are fucked little cultee...any cult that has people defending pedophiles and specifically their sexual preference for minors (like Harvey Milk and others within the fold in high ranks) cannot force their lifestyles on the various states.

No, they haven't let the decision of the 6th stand, it hasn't been to them yet, and you are the who is fucked little one because the faggots won and you lost.

 

[Silhouette]

No, they haven't let the decision of the 6th stand, it hasn't been to them yet, and you are the who is fucked little one because the faggots won and you lost.

Sorry, I cannot buy your logic there. The hinge and what your cult alleges is that SCOTUS was so struck with empathy for the other states gays and their "immediate emergency and need to marry for the sake of their kids" (even though most of them have been shacking up for years without it being a compelling issue except for *suddenly!*). The stays revoked were this "great act of urgency and compassion from SCOTUS"...right? 'the great indicator of the inevitable'...yes?

So if they had this urgency in mind, why do all the gays in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan have to languish and suffer so? Does SCOTUS hate those gays that much? Or is this a very important question that Sotomayor is knowingly fudging in favor of the LGBT cult and is herself in contempt of prior Rulings that bind ALL of the Supreme Court Justices. She must feel verrrrrryy powerful right about now, removing citizen's rights to vote in so many states...or so she thinks. She is guilty of sedition of the Will of the People and in overstepping her authority.

I wonder if Congress is thinking of impeaching her for violating procedure to help the LGBT lobbyists "marry in" against the will of the Governed that find gay marriage lifestyles utterly repugnant and damaging to children? She knows until her ENTIRE panel decides the question that the old rulings of Baker 1971 and Windsor 2013 are binding her as well. She cannot dicate law. She has to decide it with a majority of her Panel. She is, along with the lower court judges in some circuits, manipulating procedure against the Will of the electorate and her Panel to forward her own personal agenda.

This is the type of tyranny that was foretold of in the early days of our nation. Sotomayor and the lower court judges are engaged in that tyranny.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Logic is unknown to you, which is the very root of the problem.

 

[Silhouette]

Logic is unknown to you, which is the very root of the problem.

OK, since you are the paragon of logic, explain to me why gays marrying is "an emergency" in the wards of the other circuit courts but "not an emergency" in the ward of the 6th circuit?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Logic is unknown to you, which is the very root of the problem.

OK, since you are the paragon of logic, explain to me why gays marrying is "an emergency" in the wards of the other circuit courts but "not an emergency" in the ward of the 6th circuit?

It isn't, and that isn't true.

 

[Silhouette]

Logic is unknown to you, which is the very root of the problem.

OK, since you are the paragon of logic, explain to me why gays marrying is "an emergency" in the wards of the other circuit courts but "not an emergency" in the ward of the 6th circuit?

It isn't, and that isn't true.

Be specific if you can. Otherwise you're like a child saying "neener neener neener". Why do you refuse to rebut with actual points?

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, I didn't think so..