Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Skylar]

The fact that the Windsor ruling makes no references of state marriage laws being supreme over the federal judiciary or constitutional guarantees is immediately relevant.

Especially since every challenge to gay marriage bans that the USSC is going to hear this April are on the basis of the violation of these constitutional guarantees.

Yet you ignore it all, pretending that no such constitution guarantees exist. Why? Its not like the courts will ignore them just because you close your eyes.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Silhouette why aren't you showcasing your collection of gay photography in this thread?

Because sexually-explicit parades in front of kids on public streets isn't really germane to this particular topic. But tempt me and I may.

Oh look at you daring me to tempt you!

Do it!!!

 

[Silhouette]

Sil is hoping that people are ignorant of the actual findings in Windsor and just take her word for it on the matter.

The 56 affirmations of this issue being up to the states to decide in the OP were taken DIRECTLY FROM THE OPINION OF WINDSOR 2013. Follow the link to see if they are not quoted directly from that text.

 

[Skylar]

Sil is hoping that people are ignorant of the actual findings in Windsor and just take her word for it on the matter.

The 56 affirmations of this issue being up to the states to decide in the OP were taken DIRECTLY FROM THE OPINION OF WINDSOR 2013.

That's 56 affirmation that State marriage laws trump Federal Marriage laws.

And exactly zero affirmations that State marriage laws trump the federal judiciary or constitutional guarantees. On the contrary, the SCOTUS said this:

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.

Windsor v. US

Yet you pretend no such constitutional guarantees exist. Despite every challenge to gay marriage bans that the USSC has agreed to hear in April being based on the violation of those constitutional guarantees.

The USSC won't pretend with you.

 

[mdk]

Sil is hoping that people are ignorant of the actual findings in Windsor and just take her word for it on the matter.

The 56 affirmations of this issue being up to the states to decide in the OP were taken DIRECTLY FROM THE OPINION OF WINDSOR 2013. Follow the link to see if they are not quoted directly from that text.

You can twist this ruling all you wish but those of us familiar with the finding are not so easily duped by blatant attempts to misrepresent this case to fit your narrative. You have been proven consistently wrong on this point time and time again but you refuse to let it go. Sorry, you have no credibility left.

Why don't you cite where The Prince's Trust mentions same-sex parents? My guess it is going to be pretty difficult considering you've made it up entirely.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right insist on wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolity?

Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States in their capacity as States.

 

[Silhouette]

Why don't you cite where The Prince's Trust mentions same-sex parents? My guess it is going to be pretty difficult considering you've made it up entirely.

Yes, I forgot. You are worried about the Prince's Trust study. Thanks for reminding me.

It makes no difference whether the child grew up in a home with one, two or ten people of the same gender if that gender was not his own..

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY:

Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Here's what we get in contrast from the APA's "CQR" methods (cult regurgitation for public consumption "as science") And what mdk would prefer the US Supreme Court base all its decisions with regards to children's welfare off of. The bits in red bold are what are the antithesis of how scientific research is conducted. I'd much rather have a large sample, self-reporting kids out of the home and influence of the parent(s) like the Prince's Trusts over 2,000 subjects surveyed than "small samples...relying on words over numbers" of kids still under the influence of gay homes/adults.

When the APA discarded the Leona Tyler Principle and decided to embrace...well....reading below....a cult essentially, to publish "conclusions" for public consumption, was the day the APA ceased to exist.

It now all makes sense that Leona Tyler Principle was disappeared without an up or down vote on the board and cannot even be accessed in the APA's archives today. Yet it was the ruling principle the organization lived by for decades before the LGBT activists stormed APA conventions in the 1970s and essentially performed a coup on their ranks...This cult has been working a loooooonnng time trying to reach their... end-game...by any means possible....


... Maybe even as hard as a pedophile works for years grooming custodians and finally their children to trust him implicitly...

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team... Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

 

[mdk]

Why don't you cite where The Prince's Trust mentions same-sex parents? My guess it is going to be pretty difficult considering you've made it up entirely.

Yes, I forgot. You are worried about the Prince's Trust study. Thanks for reminding me.

It makes no difference whether the child grew up in a home with one, two or ten people of the same gender if that gender was not his own..

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY:

Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Here's what we get in contrast from the APA's "CQR" methods (cult regurgitation for public consumption "as science") And what mdk would prefer the US Supreme Court base all its decisions with regards to children's welfare off of. The bits in red bold are what are the antithesis of how scientific research is conducted. I'd much rather have a large sample, self-reporting kids out of the home and influence of the parent(s) like the Prince's Trusts over 2,000 subjects surveyed than "small samples...relying on words over numbers" of kids still under the influence of gay homes/adults.

When the APA discarded the Leona Tyler Principle and decided to embrace...well....reading below....a cult essentially, to publish "conclusions" for public consumption, was the day the APA ceased to exist.

It now all makes sense that Leona Tyler Principle was disappeared without an up or down vote on the board and cannot even be accessed in the APA's archives today. Yet it was the ruling principle the organization lived by for decades before the LGBT activists stormed APA conventions in the 1970s and essentially performed a coup on their ranks...This cult has been working a loooooonnng time trying to reach their... end-game...by any means possible....


... Maybe even as hard as a pedophile works for years grooming custodians and finally their children to trust him implicitly...

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team... Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

Thank you for proving my point that The Prince's Study in no way actually studies same-sex parenting; nevertheless, I suspect you will continue to try and use this study as way to besmirch gay parents.

 

[Syriusly]

The lastest and Highest Opinion on the merits (the only one to date upon the merits) of the specific question of law of legitimacy of same-sex marriage by where its legitimacy is derived from is Windsor 2013. It found that that question was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.)

Wow- all of that and you didn't manage to include the courts actual decision?

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by theFifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña,515 U. S. 200–218 (1995). While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered. I think the only thing that'll put an end to this dangerous mental illness, is going to be a lot of blood running in American gutters. On this issue, Isil and the Muslim world have it 100% correct. What's happening in America today, with belligerent homosexuals bludgeoning their "rights" regarding pedophilia, is no different than what was happening in Nazi Germany in the mid-1930's.
“Exterminate all homosexuals and fascism will vanish.”--Maxim Gorky, Stalin's chief propagandist in Pravda, 1933, shortly after Hitler's election.

Once again the call for violence against Americans from the wingnuts of the far right.

 

[Syriusly]

Why don't you cite where The Prince's Trust mentions same-sex parents? My guess it is going to be pretty difficult considering you've made it up entirely.

Yes, I forgot. You are worried about the Prince's Trust study. Thanks for reminding me.

It makes no difference whether the child grew up in a home with one, two or ten people of the same gender if that gender was not his own]

LOL.....once again a study that doesn't mention gay marriage or homosexuals at all.....or say what Sil wants to pretend it says.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered.

Nope.

"It is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum," CPS spokesman Bill McCaffrey wrote. "It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students."

Fifth-Grade Sex Ed Plan Horrifies Chicago Parents Who Say It s Obscene - University Village - DNAinfo.com Chicago

Deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Says the proven liar who is calling for violence against Americans if they happen to be gay.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Meanwhile the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered.

Nope.

"It is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum," CPS spokesman Bill McCaffrey wrote. "It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students."

Fifth-Grade Sex Ed Plan Horrifies Chicago Parents Who Say It s Obscene - University Village - DNAinfo.com Chicago

Deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Says the proven liar who is calling for violence against Americans if they happen to be gay.

Listen to Syriusly. He thinks that prison sentences for queers who rape children are "violence", and, well, you know, gay-bashing and Nazi and ummm, tea party and stuff like that.

 

[Skylar]

Why don't you cite where The Prince's Trust mentions same-sex parents? My guess it is going to be pretty difficult considering you've made it up entirely.

Yes, I forgot. You are worried about the Prince's Trust study. Thanks for reminding me.

It makes no difference whether the child grew up in a home with one, two or ten people of the same gender if that gender was not his own..

The Prince Trust study never even mentions same sex parents. Or two parent households. Or single parenting. Nor where the role model came from. Remember, the standard isn't a 'role model'. Its a positive role model. Which may be in or outside of the immediate family. If its a friend, a parent, a mentor, a boss, an older brother or sister, a teacher, the Prince Trust study doesn't say.

You assume this positive role model is drawn from one's parents exclusively, but the Prince Trust study never says this. And your assumptions are utterly meaningless. The issues you insist the Prince Study measures, the Prince Study never even mentions.

Worse for you the issue of the health of children of same sex parents has been measured by over a dozen studies. And the overwhelming consensus is that these children are as healthy mentally and physically as those of hetero parents. And more healthy than children of single parents.

Children of same-sex parents have above average health and wellbeing, research by the University of Melbourne shows.

The research was based on data from the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, which involved input from 315 same-sex parents and a total of 500 children. Of these participating families, 80 percent had female parents while 18 percent had male parents.

"It appears that same-sex parent families get along well and this has a positive impact on health," said Dr Simon Crouch from the Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, Centre for Health Equity at the University of Melbourne.

Children of same sex parents healthier Study

And you ignore this study.....because you don't like its findings. No rational person would. And no judge would.

Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages. Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents. For example, adolescents with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected at school. Another study reported that children in gay and lesbian households are more likely to talk about emotionally difficult topics, and they are often more resilient, compassionate and tolerant.

Same-sex Parents and Their Children

You ignore the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy study.....because you don't like their findings either. Again, that's not a rational reason.

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.....

...."Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Kids Of Same-Sex Parents Do Fine - CBS News

And you Dr. Perrin as surely as you do anything else that contradicts you. Again, for no particular reason.

One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

“Levels of anxiety, depression, self-esteem and other measures of social and psychological behaviors were generally similar,” Biblarz said. “While all children probably get teased for one thing or another, children with gay parents may experience a higher degree of teasing and ridicule. It is impressive then that their psychological well-being and social adjustment does not significantly differ, on average, from that of children in comparable heterosexual-parent families. Exploring how lesbian and gay parent families help children cope with stigma could prove helpful to all kinds of families.”

Sociology Study examines gender roles of children with gay parents USC News

And you'll ignore the USC study.....just because.

But your willfull ignorance doesn't change the outcome of any of these studies. Worse, any one of these studies is more relevant to the health and well being of children of same sex parents than the Prince Study. As each of these measures the mental health of the children of same sex parents. The prince study doesn't measure that at all. Or even mention it.

As usual, Silo....you're allowing your own prejudices to cloud your reason. And there's virtually no chance that the judiciary is going to ignore what you must to cling to your shattered beliefs.

 

[Silhouette]

Like I said...

It makes no difference whether the child grew up in a home with one, two or ten people of the same gender if that gender was not his own..
http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY:
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

And the reason why we don't consult studies funded by or condoned by the APA is because they use small polluted sampes in their surveys. I've already said this before. They don't use science but rather rely on "words and feelings" to come to conclusions they feed the public "as fact"..

...Here's what we get in contrast from the APA's "CQR" methods (cult regurgitation for public consumption "as science") And what mdk would prefer the US Supreme Court base all its decisions with regards to children's welfare off of. The bits in red bold are what are the antithesis of how scientific research is conducted. I'd much rather have a large sample, self-reporting kids out of the home and influence of the parent(s) like the Prince's Trusts over 2,000 subjects surveyed than "small samples...relying on words over numbers" of kids still under the influence of gay homes/adults.

When the APA discarded the Leona Tyler Principle and decided to embrace...well....reading below....a cult essentially, to publish "conclusions" for public consumption, was the day the APA ceased to exist.

It now all makes sense that Leona Tyler Principle was disappeared without an up or down vote on the board and cannot even be accessed in the APA's archives today. Yet it was the ruling principle the organization lived by for decades before the LGBT activists stormed APA conventions in the 1970s and essentially performed a coup on their ranks...This cult has been working a loooooonnng time trying to reach their... end-game...by any means possible....

... Maybe even as hard as a pedophile works for years grooming custodians and finally their children to trust him implicitly...

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team... Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered.

Nope.

"It is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum," CPS spokesman Bill McCaffrey wrote. "It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students."

Fifth-Grade Sex Ed Plan Horrifies Chicago Parents Who Say It s Obscene - University Village - DNAinfo.com Chicago

Deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Says the proven liar who is calling for violence against Americans if they happen to be gay.

Listen to Syriusly. He thinks that prison sentences for queers who rape children are "violence", and, well, you know, gay-bashing and Nazi and ummm, tea party and stuff like that.

Like I said- says the proven liar- who- SURPRISE!- lies again.

I think that anyone convicted of any child molestation should be sent to prison for the maximum sentence- the difference between you and I is that I think that applies regardless if the rapist is a 'queer' or the child's father.

You are the one however actually encouraging violence against Americans with crap like this:

Tom Sweet:
I think the only thing that'll put an end to this dangerous mental illness, is going to be a lot of blood running in American gutters. On this issue, Isil and the Muslim world have it 100% correct.

Now that is sick.

 

[Syriusly]

Like I said..

][/QUOTE]

You say all sorts of crap.

All of it crap.

 

[Silhouette]

All of it really? Even my citations and links?

Cite for me how many times in Windsor 2013 the federal Court mentions how states have the final say on marraige under the specific question of same-sex marriage. My count is 56 times in 26 pages. Go ahead, see if I'm wrong.. United States v. Windsor

 

[Skylar]

Like I said...

It makes no difference whether the child grew up in a home with one, two or ten people of the same gender if that gender was not his own..

Same problem as last time.The standard wasn't simply a 'role model'. But a positive role model. You assume that the positive role model was a parent and only could be a parent. The Prince Trust never says this. Such a positive role model could be a friend, or a collegue, a mentor or a teacher, a parent, grand parent or uncle, a coworker or older brother or sister.

You imagine it was only parents. Citing yourself. And your imagination is irrelevant. The factors you insist the Prince Trust study measures....the Prince Trust study never even mentions.

While the more than a dozen studies that directly measure the health of children of same sex parents explicitly contradict you. With the overwhelming consensus of such studies showing that these children are just as healthy as those of hetero couples.

So the lone study you cite doesn't measure anything you claim it does. And the more than a dozen studies you ignore measure *exactly* what you claim to be measuring. But you ignore them because you don't like their results.

That's silly. No judge is going to follow suit.

 

[Skylar]

All of it really? Even my citations and links?

Cite for me how many times in Windsor 2013 the federal Court mentions how states have the final say on marraige under the specific question of same-sex marriage. My count is 56 times in 26 pages.

That's 56 citations in Windsor of State marriage law being supreme over Federal Marriage law.

But that's not the basis of the challenges to same sex marriage bans that the USSC is hearing this year. The violation of constitutional guarantees is the basis of every such challenge.

And there are exactly 0 citations in Windsor of State marriage laws being supreme over the federal judiciary or constitutional guarantees. Which is why you fastidiously avoid any

Go ahead, see if I'm wrong.. United States v. Windsor

Your citations are irrelevant to the issues being addressed by the USSC this year. As the supremacy of State law over federal law isn't the specific legal question being asked. Whether or not state marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees is the specific legal question.

And you refuse to acknowledge that any such constitutional guarantees even exist. Despite the fact that the Windsor court undeniably established that every State marriage law is 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.

Windsor v. US

Ignore whatever you'd like. The court won't.