Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Delta4Embassy]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

 

[Skylar]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

Social security survivor benefits are dependent on a 'private contract between two individuals'? Healtcare coverage for a person other than yourself is dependent on a 'private contract between two individuals'? 'A private contract between two individuals' will free you from the obligation to testify against someone in court?

Nope and nope. Both require that you be married. Demonstrating elegantly that a marriage is far more than simply a 'contract between two individuals'. But comes with all sorts of peripheral advantages.

 

[danielpalos]

The People of the sovereign State of California, exceeded their scope of alleged retained Individual sovereignty, when they voted to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of some of the several and sovereign citizens in this several and sovereign State.

So your interpretation is that every single person in California should be allowed to marry whoever they want? No? Maybe an exception for minors? How old? People who are bother and sister? No? Why? People who want to marry the several others they love? Not OK with polyamorists marrying the ones they love? Why?

Why do homosexuals alone get to dissolve the meaning of the word marriage without the permission of the majority, to launch a brand new social experiment where states are forced to incentivize homes that by their structure lack a father for boys and a mother for girls?

Why do you put so much imaginary power onto gay citizens. We dissolve nothing. We are included. Sorry that you no longer get to exclude law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens. Bummer for you.

It is like Texans making Californians use the outhouse in Texas whenever they are on the outs, with Texas.

 

[Silhouette]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

 

[Skylar]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

Again, Sil....you're hopelessly clueless. Windsor got her money because State marriage laws trump federal marriage laws. But state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Windsor affirmed the following hierarchy:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

(This is where every ruling overturning state gay marriage bans was based. All 44 of them.)

2) State marriage laws

(This is where the Windsor ruling is based)

3) Federal marriage laws.

You bizarrely ignore constitutional guarantees, pretending they don't exist. And then insist that because you ignore constitutional guarantees, that no court is allowed to recognize them.

Um.....sure they are. As you have no idea what you're talking about. June will reaffirm this for you.

 

[danielpalos]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

That is a fallacy simply for omitting Spartan, policies public.

 

[Silhouette]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

That is a fallacy simply for omitting Spartan, policies public.

Then you are saying Windsor should never have gotten her money!

 

[danielpalos]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

That is a fallacy simply for omitting Spartan, policies public.

Then you are saying Windsor should never have gotten her money!

I don't care either way; what I am saying; is that special pleading is no basis to form policies for the general public.

 

[Skylar]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

That is a fallacy simply for omitting Spartan, policies public.

Then you are saying Windsor should never have gotten her money!

That's what you're saying. And you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Edith Windsor won because state marriage laws trump federal marriage laws. Yet not a federal ruling overturning state gay marriage bans has been on the supremecy of federal marriage law. But instead, on the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which the Windsor ruling explicitly finds state marriage laws are subject to:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Every federal court ruling overturning state gay marriage bans was on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

Let me repeat this, as you clearly aren't getting it:

Every federal court ruling overturning state gay marriage bans was on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Without exception. As constitutional guarantees trump state marriage laws.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees. But you can't make the courts ignore them.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law in legal venues.

 

[Silhouette]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

That is a fallacy simply for omitting Spartan, policies public.

Then you are saying Windsor should never have gotten her money!

I don't care either way; what I am saying; is that special pleading is no basis to form policies for the general public.

But that is how law is done in the Judicial branch of government! Or are you saying that all regulation and rewards for marriage should be dissolved completely? What if states want to have an incentive program to entice the best formative environment for kids in order to keep them from becoming depressed, indigent, turning to crime and even suicide as fledging adults? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

That is a fallacy simply for omitting Spartan, policies public.

Then you are saying Windsor should never have gotten her money!

I don't care either way; what I am saying; is that special pleading is no basis to form policies for the general public.

But that is how law is done in the Judicial branch of government!

'How the judicial branch of government works' is to put constitutional guarantees above state laws. Read the 14th amendment.

Yet you still refuse to acknowledge constitutional guarantees and how State marriage laws are subject to them.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

You can pretend that constitutional guarantees don't exist. But the judiciary isn't obligated to pretend with you. As demonstrated elegantly by every federal court ruling overturning state gay marriage bans based on the violation of constitutional guarantees.

Get used to the idea.

 

[danielpalos]

Government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging, rewarding, or otherwise recognizing in law two people entering into a contract with each other. Be like if th egovernment came out and started saying regular business contracts can only be between a man and woman. That's obviously absurd, yet in-law that's all marriages are. So how does it justify treating a strictly legal contract differently? Religion is the answer.

But they are! Otherwise, Windsor would've never gotten her money. Duh

She got it because there was a statewide deliberation in New York where people (myopically IMHO) there agreed to try the redaction of marriage and use kids as lab rats in the new experiment to deprive boys of a father and girls of a mother; and that was how Windsor's marriage was deemed legal. As it should be: UP TO THE STATES THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THE FORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT OF KIDS.

That is a fallacy simply for omitting Spartan, policies public.

Then you are saying Windsor should never have gotten her money!

I don't care either way; what I am saying; is that special pleading is no basis to form policies for the general public.

But that is how law is done in the Judicial branch of government! Or are you saying that all regulation and rewards for marriage should be dissolved completely? What if states want to have an incentive program to entice the best formative environment for kids in order to keep them from becoming depressed, indigent, turning to crime and even suicide as fledging adults? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It could depend on the regulations and the rewards. Marriage is a purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes.

 

[Silhouette]

It could depend on the regulations and the rewards. Marriage is a purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes.

It's commuted public because states want to incentivize the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise marriage is a complete bust and the states ought not to lose money on it at all.

For those just tuning in, a child's best formative environment is where they have access to both their father and their mother.

 

[Skylar]

It could depend on the regulations and the rewards. Marriage is a purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes.

It's commuted public because states want to incentivize the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise marriage is a complete bust and the states ought not to lose money on it at all.

No one is required to have kids nor be able to have them in order to get married. The basis of exclusion you've cited doesn't exist.

Yet you claim we should use this basis to exclude gays. That's an instant 14th amendment violation. The basis of exclusion is valid only if its applied equally and if the basis itself is valid. As all the infertile couples getting married demonstrate, the basis is invalid. Worse, you insist it should be applied to no one save gays. Any infertile straight couple that wants to marry can do so without incident.

Either both straights and gays would be excluded from marriage if they can't have children, or neither would. And the law is clear: no one is held to that standard.

Making it irrelevant, an invalid basis of exclusion, or a 14th amendment violation. Any of which render it legally invalid.

For those just tuning in, a child's best formative environment is where they have access to both their father and their mother.

Irrelevant to same sex marriage. First, because no child is required to get married. Making the capacity to have kids meaningless in terms of a valid marriage. And second, because same sex marriage and same sex parenting aren't the same thing. Forbidding the first has no effect on the second. Nor does allowing the first mean that the second can begin.

Gays and lesbians are already having kids. Before there was ever same sex marriage in California for example...there were already 40,000 children of same sex parents. Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that these children will never have married parents.

Which even you admit harms these children.And still benefits no child. All while robbing gays and lesbians of a recognized civil right.

Um, no thank you.

 

[danielpalos]

It could depend on the regulations and the rewards. Marriage is a purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes.

It's commuted public because states want to incentivize the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise marriage is a complete bust and the states ought not to lose money on it at all.

For those just tuning in, a child's best formative environment is where they have access to both their father and their mother.

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? For instance, do you think it is more legally weighty to protect children, or to promote adults even when that promotion stands to hurt children (institutionally-depriving them of either a mother or a father in marriage)?

Please describe your answer in intricate logical and legal details. Provide case law to support how the welfare of children is secondary to adults whims around them.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? .

I have no problem with child protective statutes intended to protect children from abuse.

Same gender marriage is totally unrelated.

Preventing same gender marriage only deprives children of married parents.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? For instance, do you think it is more legally weighty to protect children, or to promote adults even when that promotion stands to hurt children (institutionally-depriving them of either a mother or a father in marriage)?

Please describe your answer in intricate logical and legal details. Provide case law to support how the welfare of children is secondary to adults whims around them.

Two parents should be better than one parent. In any case, adults are still responsible for children and not the other way around.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no Constitutional basis for denying or disparaging Individual Liberty in favor of public policy; which must constitute public Use.

What's your position on child-protective statutes as dominant or submissive to "individual (adult) Liberty"? For instance, do you think it is more legally weighty to protect children, or to promote adults even when that promotion stands to hurt children (institutionally-depriving them of either a mother or a father in marriage)?

Please describe your answer in intricate logical and legal details. Provide case law to support how the welfare of children is secondary to adults whims around them.

Two parents should be better than one parent. In any case, adults are still responsible for children and not the other way around.

Yes, adults (society who makes laws) ARE responsible for children. Hence why I asked you the question: which laws are dominant; the ones protecing adults' freedoms or those protecting children's essential welfare?. I notice you evaded answering..

..Genders aren't blended. Sorry to inform you. It turns out a child's gender missing "as parent" has detrimental effects in their lives later on. Why would we force states to incentivize maladjusted kids? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum