Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Skylar]

Almost there, one more to go and the page will be gone. I'd ban you. I really would. You are costing this site viewers..

You'd ban us? Why? Because we point out small details like your sources never mentioning same sex parents? Or your conspiracy theories being factually baseless excuses to ignore overwhelming contradictory evidence?

Your arguments rely on the ignorance of your audience. Which might explain why you'd want to ban anyone who would inform your audience.

 

[Syriusly]

Almost there, one more to go and the page will be gone. I'd ban you. I really would. You are costing this site viewers..

If you could you would ban anyone who disagrees with you.

But then again- you are delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

And what relevance does Article 4, Section 2 have with gay marriage? I've asked you think question before, and you've never had an answer. I agree with Sy....you're trolling.

Ooooh...better tell the mods then and shut the thread down so people won't read this...
.

You are delusional.

I think the opinion of Scalia on what Windsor means really spooked him. As his arguments have degenerated from at least an attempt to discuss the topic of the thread to spamming the same irrelevant study over and over......while making up increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories.

My favorite.....that the University of Melbourne is 'funded by the APA'. Somehow.

I was reading Lawrence v Texas yesterday and noticed this:

"1. Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law--which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples--violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?

Now look what we do with just substituting a couple of words

which restricts marriage by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples--violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?

The anti's often like to make the spurious argument that homosexuals could marry anyone that they wanted as long as they were the opposite gender.

Same argument could have been made about Texas- gay men could have sex with anyone that they wanted- so long is it wasn't with another man.

 

[danielpalos]

Drop the act Syriusly. Danielpalos is your new thread spamming/disappearing partner. It's obvious.

Minors are Individuals in the custody of their Parent and Adults.

If that were true, family law courts wouldn't exist. The truth is that society has many many laws and statutes governing the wellbeing of children from birth until the day they are emancipated. Their formative years receive the highest legal priority of stewardship.

How did you reach your conclusion. Children are not considered competent in legal venues. Adults have custody and charge of their children. It really is that simple, except to the more socialist right, who may believe capitalism is still useless even in this case.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't have to troll simply because I have a clue and a Cause.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

You really do just need a better clue and a better Cause for me to take you more seriously than all of the other ones.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

You really do just need a better clue and a better Cause for me to take you more seriously than all of the other ones.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

Public policy constitutes public use, so the right needs to become more cognitively sonant, and stop complaining about pounds of social spending cure, if they want some on the left, to take them more seriously, than all of the other ones.

In any Case, public policy runs out of authority, if it can be shown to be repugnant to our own laws, which must be more supreme, than any Thing our elected representatives assembled, can come up with.

 

[Silhouette]

How did you reach your conclusion. Children are not considered competent in legal venues. Adults have custody and charge of their children. It really is that simple, except to the more socialist right, who may believe capitalism is still useless even in this case.

Very good Einstein...and it is exactly because of their inferior legal position and their inability to vote that makes it incumbent upon the High Court to take their interests in marriage into account far and above any other party claiming interest in it. Without realizing it, you just made my argument...

 

[danielpalos]

How did you reach your conclusion. Children are not considered competent in legal venues. Adults have custody and charge of their children. It really is that simple, except to the more socialist right, who may believe capitalism is still useless even in this case.

Very good Einstein...and it is exactly because of their inferior legal position and their inability to vote that makes it incumbent upon the High Court to take their interests in marriage into account far and above any other party claiming interest in it. Without realizing it, you just made my argument...

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; I got it. Parents may be Individuals and citizens, with responsibility for their children; it really is that simple, except to the more socialist right, that doesn't even have a Spartan public policy.

 

[Silhouette]

Children aren't possessions and non-entities in the marriage conversation. They have rights. The most suppressed (and therefore the most important) rights of anyone party to the marriage contract. Again, have you never been to a family law court?

 

[Skylar]

Children aren't possessions and non-entities in the marriage conversation. They have rights.

The court has ruled rather definitively on the harm caused to children by denying same sex marriage:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the 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....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor v. US

You can replace the Court's findings with your own personal opinion all you like. The Court won't.

The most suppressed (and therefore the most important) rights of anyone party to the marriage contract. Again, have you never been to a family law court?

Says who? That would be you, citing yourself. And your personal opinion has no relevance to any court ruling. The findings of the Windsor court that the lack of recognition of same sex marriage harms children is relevant. And will almost certainly be cited in their June decision.

You never will be.

 

[Skylar]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

And how does that relate to to gay marriage?

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

What argument? You've never once said anything about gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

You really do just need a better clue and a better Cause for me to take you more seriously than all of the other ones.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

You really do just need a better clue and a better Cause for me to take you more seriously than all of the other ones.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

Public policy constitutes public use, so the right needs to become more cognitively sonant, and stop complaining about pounds of social spending cure, if they want some on the left, to take them more seriously, than all of the other ones.

In any Case, public policy runs out of authority, if it can be shown to be repugnant to our own laws, which must be more supreme, than any Thing our elected representatives assembled, can come up with.

No clue.....

 

[Syriusly]

Children aren't possessions and non-entities in the marriage conversation. They have rights. The most suppressed (and therefore the most important) rights of anyone party to the marriage contract. Again, have you never been to a family law court?

And the only children whose rights are abused by 'gay marriage' are those whose gay parents are not allowed to marry

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Skylar]

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

You really do just need a better clue and a better Cause for me to take you more seriously than all of the other ones.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

You really do just need a better clue and a better Cause for me to take you more seriously than all of the other ones.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

Public policy constitutes public use, so the right needs to become more cognitively sonant, and stop complaining about pounds of social spending cure, if they want some on the left, to take them more seriously, than all of the other ones.

In any Case, public policy runs out of authority, if it can be shown to be repugnant to our own laws, which must be more supreme, than any Thing our elected representatives assembled, can come up with.

No clue.....

See what I'm talking about? I think he's trolling us by offering random political appellation, but never once connecting them to the conversation.

In this entire thread, he's never so much as mentioned gay marriage. With his replies increasingly devolving into gibberish. I mean "...so right needs to be more cognitively sonant..."?

Its just babble. He's ******* with us.

 

[Skylar]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Smiling..... but why would the court ever listen to the guy who said that?

 

[Silhouette]

See what I'm talking about? I think he's trolling us by offering random political appellation, but never once connecting them to the conversation.

In this entire thread, he's never so much as mentioned gay marriage. With his replies increasingly devolving into gibberish. I mean "...so right needs to be more cognitively sonant..."?

Its just babble. He's ******* with us.

Well then you should really quickly take your theater act..er...I mean "complaint" to the moderators and get this thread shut down.

Don't want folks seeing that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times that the question of gay marraige constitutionally is up to the states... {see the OP}

 

[Syriusly]

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

Nothing but diversion; I got it.

You really do just need a better clue and a better Cause for me to take you more seriously than all of the other ones.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

You really do just need a better clue and a better Cause for me to take you more seriously than all of the other ones.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

Public policy constitutes public use, so the right needs to become more cognitively sonant, and stop complaining about pounds of social spending cure, if they want some on the left, to take them more seriously, than all of the other ones.

In any Case, public policy runs out of authority, if it can be shown to be repugnant to our own laws, which must be more supreme, than any Thing our elected representatives assembled, can come up with.

No clue.....

See what I'm talking about? I think he's trolling us by offering random political appellation, but never once connecting them to the conversation.

In this entire thread, he's never so much as mentioned gay marriage. With his replies increasingly devolving into gibberish. I mean "...so right needs to be more cognitively sonant..."?

Its just babble. He's ******* with us.

Yep- legal babble.

 

[Syriusly]

See what I'm talking about? I think he's trolling us by offering random political appellation, but never once connecting them to the conversation.

In this entire thread, he's never so much as mentioned gay marriage. With his replies increasingly devolving into gibberish. I mean "...so right needs to be more cognitively sonant..."?

Its just babble. He's ******* with us.

Don't want folks seeing that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times that the question of gay marraige constitutionally is up to the states... {see the OP}

I don't have any problem with that- because the Supreme Court has consistantly held that marriage is up to the states, but must be Constitutional

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."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[mdk]

See what I'm talking about? I think he's trolling us by offering random political appellation, but never once connecting them to the conversation.

In this entire thread, he's never so much as mentioned gay marriage. With his replies increasingly devolving into gibberish. I mean "...so right needs to be more cognitively sonant..."?

Its just babble. He's ******* with us.

Well then you should really quickly take your theater act..er...I mean "complaint" to the moderators and get this thread shut down.

Don't want folks seeing that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times that the question of gay marraige constitutionally is up to the states... {see the OP}

Oh give it a rest already. Nobody wants to get this thread shut down, if anything, the more you continue to misrepresent court findings and studies the more people you lose in the middle concerning this issue. I am all for this thread lasting until the end of time b/c it demonstrates that your arguments are built on a foundation of rapidly meting ice.

 

[Skylar]

Well then you should really quickly take your theater act..er...I mean "complaint" to the moderators and get this thread shut down.

This is like the 4th time you've talked about shutting this thread down.

Can I take it things aren't working out so well for you here?

Don't want folks seeing that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times that the question of gay marraige constitutionally is up to the states... {see the OP}

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Guarantees you try and pretend don't exist. Which is odd....given that every challenge to gay marriage bans being heard by the USSC are on the basis of violation of constitutional guarantees.

None of which you're willing to discuss, or even acknowledge exist. Do you honestly think that if you ignore these guarantees....that the court is obligated to as well? If so, wow.

Alas, Scalia, who opposes gay marriage bans and is PART of the SCOTUS, contradicts you:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia, dissent from Windsor V. US

'Beyond Mistaking' and 'Inevitable'.

But you know better, huh?

 

[Skylar]

See what I'm talking about? I think he's trolling us by offering random political appellation, but never once connecting them to the conversation.

In this entire thread, he's never so much as mentioned gay marriage. With his replies increasingly devolving into gibberish. I mean "...so right needs to be more cognitively sonant..."?

Its just babble. He's ******* with us.

Well then you should really quickly take your theater act..er...I mean "complaint" to the moderators and get this thread shut down.

Don't want folks seeing that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times that the question of gay marraige constitutionally is up to the states... {see the OP}

Oh give it a rest already. Nobody wants to get this thread shut down, if anything, the more you continue to misrepresent court findings and studies the more people you lose in the middle concerning this issue. I am all for this thread lasting until the end of time b/c it demonstrates that your arguments are built on a foundation of rapidly meting ice.

I think this thread is a superb mine for gleaning Silo's rhetoric in June.

How the USSC 'ignored and overturned Windsor'. Despite no portion of Windsor even mentioning gay marriage bans. How they 'ignored the Prince Trust Study'. Despite the Prince Trust study never mentioning same sex parenting.

And of course, Silo explicitly refusing to discuss or even acknowledge any portion of their ruling related to constitutional guarantees. Just as he does now with the Windsor ruling.