Masterpiece Cake Baker Civil Rights Lawsuit vs Ginsburg's Obergefell.

[Silhouette]

I'm not reading 53 pages, but this sort of thinking is dumb. Who gives a shit if someone was born gay or not? If I own a business the right is MINE. No one with any brain at all could actually believe a person has a right to make me work for them.

Because innate vs behavioral will be the pivot of the next Ruling on this matter. That's why you should care.

Nobody can be forced to promote behaviors, ideals or rituals they find morally offensive. So sayeth the 1st Amendment. States cannot prefer one set of behaviors, ideals or rituals over other. A State cannot de facto establish an official behavior/ideals/ritual (religion).

Obergefell illegally found that just some deviant sex behaviors (but definitely not others) are included under the 14th's protections. Which instantly in itself is a violation of the 14th Amendment. How many states do you know of where polygamy and incest are legal marriages?

It's a rat's nest but rest assured, the new Constitutional scholars on the Court are going to take more than just a passing glance and untold liberties with interpreting the 14th Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

You mean other sock puppets Sparky?

No. Caperton was not merely about financial interest. In its language it threw a much wider blanket. And kindergarten logic demands that bias is bias & that Caperton was about bias. It was not a narrow ruling. It was expansive & Ginsburg herself supported that expanse.

It was a very narrow ruling....

You are living in a fantasy world where you think we can turn back the clock, when you probably need to be seeking help for your homophobia/latent homosexuality.

 

[JoeB131]

Sparky? You go back to sleep or something?

Actually, it's called having a job. You should try it some time.

My guess is you keep getting fired from yours because you can't contain your homophobia.

 

[Silhouette]

Caperton was not merely about financial interest. In its language it threw a much wider blanket. And kindergarten logic demands that bias is bias & that Caperton was about bias. It was not a narrow ruling. It was expansive & Ginsburg herself supported that expanse.

It was a very narrow ruling....

As for turning back time sparky, the Court did that two years after Windsor. It can be done again.

It what universe where a case is about disqualification even upon a mere whiff of bias do you interpret that the Justices meant purely & only where money was involved?

Ok, did Justice Ginsburg receive anything of monitory value (fame, notoriety, donations to pet funds etc etc etc) for those gay weddings she was presiding over just before the Hearing, in addition to announcing to the press her clear & undeniable bias?

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor v. US doesn't have a thing to do with a man. It was about two women.

And Obergefell was about the *right* of two men to marry.

It actually was about neither and was instead about whether or not the fed has a right to regulate marriage in DOMA passed by Congress. It just so happened that two lesbians were the vehicle to try those facts.'

And, Windsor was awarded money based on the Court finding 56 times that states have the only power to regulate marriage "outside Constitutional guarantees" . Of which there are none for a partial incomplete list of deviant sex addictions. Obergefell two years later completely reversed Windsor's finding and added a new twist. It Found that instead of the federal legislature having power to set standards for marriage, the fed Court itself had that power now...

And then it handed "the right" to marry in all 50 states to just some of its pet favorite deviant sex addictions, but not others. And, in a final act of hubris, cited the 14th to justify doing so. Poor Scalia. No wonder....no wonder. He probably thought he'd never live to see such an obvious act of tyranny from his own beloved Bench.

 

[Andylusion]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Race and gender do

And are unconstitutional.

Well we will see. The Court will look the 14th over carefully this time & not skim like It did with Obergefell (with one openly biased justice presiding...).

I don't care what the court says. It is insane the number of times people say "well the court said X"... as if it doesn't matter what the constitution says.

I'm sorry. I don't give a crap what the court says. If the constitution says this is true, and the court says this is not true.... the court is wrong. Courts are supposed to enforce the law, not re-write the law, or change the law, or re-interpret the law.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't care what the court says. It is insane the number of times people say "well the court said X"... as if it doesn't matter what the constitution says.

I'm sorry. I don't give a crap what the court says. If the constitution says this is true, and the court says this is not true.... the court is wrong. Courts are supposed to enforce the law, not re-write the law, or change the law, or re-interpret the law.

That was my point actually. The Court attempted in Obergefell to overturn Windsor and insert itself as the sole federal authority that could override states' sovereignty to define marriage as affirmed in Windsor 2013.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I don't care what the court says. It is insane the number of times people say "well the court said X"... as if it doesn't matter what the constitution says.

I'm sorry. I don't give a crap what the court says. If the constitution says this is true, and the court says this is not true.... the court is wrong. Courts are supposed to enforce the law, not re-write the law, or change the law, or re-interpret the law.

That was my point actually. The Court attempted in Obergefell to overturn Windsor and insert itself as the sole federal authority that could override states' sovereignty to define marriage as affirmed in Windsor 2013.

False

AND if you weren't utterly stupid you would see the danger of allowing the government to define marriage. What if the nasty queers gained power and made straight marriage illegal ?? You see dumb shit that is why government should not have any say in marriage.

As for public accommodation laws, the idiots arguing for those likewise are too stupid to grasp the consequences of their argument. It's clear that forcing someone to do business with another person is unconstitutional, and it's also clear that affording some people protection from discrimination but not everyone, is also unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

That was my point actually. The Court attempted in Obergefell to overturn Windsor and insert itself as the sole federal authority that could override states' sovereignty to define marriage as affirmed in Windsor 2013.

False

AND if you weren't utterly stupid you would see the danger of allowing the government to define marriage. What if the nasty queers gained power and made straight marriage illegal ?? You see dumb shit that is why government should not have any say in marriage.

As for public accommodation laws, the idiots arguing for those likewise are too stupid to grasp the consequences of their argument. It's clear that forcing someone to do business with another person is unconstitutional, and it's also clear that affording some people protection from discrimination but not everyone, is also unconstitutional.

Do you consider the United States Supreme Court "government"? If yes, then you in particular must be outraged by Obergefell assigning unilateral power to define marriage to the government and ripping the direct power of the People to govern themselves via Windsor's affirmation that States (the People) define marriage.

I highly doubt the queers can legitimately outlaw straight marriage with their tiny numbers. After all, in the most liberal state in the Union (California) gay marriage was voted down twice and remains illegal on the books there today. I'd say that's a vote of confidence that the queers aren't going to take over marriage from the People. But the USSC did attempt that power grab. Luckily the cake issue will reverse that ultimately. Obergefell is going to come under a scanning electron microscope this time...

 

[DandyDonovan]

That was my point actually. The Court attempted in Obergefell to overturn Windsor and insert itself as the sole federal authority that could override states' sovereignty to define marriage as affirmed in Windsor 2013.

False

AND if you weren't utterly stupid you would see the danger of allowing the government to define marriage. What if the nasty queers gained power and made straight marriage illegal ?? You see dumb shit that is why government should not have any say in marriage.

As for public accommodation laws, the idiots arguing for those likewise are too stupid to grasp the consequences of their argument. It's clear that forcing someone to do business with another person is unconstitutional, and it's also clear that affording some people protection from discrimination but not everyone, is also unconstitutional.

Do you consider the United States Supreme Court "government"? If yes, then you in particular must be outraged by Obergefell assigning unilateral power to define marriage to the government and ripping the direct power of the People to govern themselves via Windsor's affirmation that States (the People) define marriage.

I highly doubt the queers can legitimately outlaw straight marriage with their tiny numbers. After all, in the most liberal state in the Union (California) gay marriage was voted down twice and remains illegal on the books there today. I'd say that's a vote of confidence that the queers aren't going to take over marriage from the People. But the USSC did attempt that power grab. Luckily the cake issue will reverse that ultimately. Obergefell is going to come under a scanning electron microscope this time...

Are you stupid, or just hope that everyone else is? The states are government as well and have no more right to define marriage than the federal government does.

Jesus Christ, how some of you morons even make it through a day is a marvel.

 

[Silhouette]

That was my point actually. The Court attempted in Obergefell to overturn Windsor and insert itself as the sole federal authority that could override states' sovereignty to define marriage as affirmed in Windsor 2013.

False

AND if you weren't utterly stupid you would see the danger of allowing the government to define marriage. What if the nasty queers gained power and made straight marriage illegal ?? You see dumb shit that is why government should not have any say in marriage.

As for public accommodation laws, the idiots arguing for those likewise are too stupid to grasp the consequences of their argument. It's clear that forcing someone to do business with another person is unconstitutional, and it's also clear that affording some people protection from discrimination but not everyone, is also unconstitutional.

Do you consider the United States Supreme Court "government"? If yes, then you in particular must be outraged by Obergefell assigning unilateral power to define marriage to the government and ripping the direct power of the People to govern themselves via Windsor's affirmation that States (the People) define marriage.

I highly doubt the queers can legitimately outlaw straight marriage with their tiny numbers. After all, in the most liberal state in the Union (California) gay marriage was voted down twice and remains illegal on the books there today. I'd say that's a vote of confidence that the queers aren't going to take over marriage from the People. But the USSC did attempt that power grab. Luckily the cake issue will reverse that ultimately. Obergefell is going to come under a scanning electron microscope this time...

Are you stupid, or just hope that everyone else is? The states are government as well and have no more right to define marriage than the federal government does.

Jesus Christ, how some of you morons even make it through a day is a marvel.

Actually the state governments were affirmed in Windsor as having exactly that power, because the states are run by the People who govern themselves there.

I guess because you don't understand how democracy works at the ground level, you're the idiot. Your argument seems to be "states have no right to regulate any behaviors or conditions within their boundaries". Would you also prescribe that state powers are unfair regulating driver's licenses? You think the People of a state don't have a vested interest in who can and who can't operate a motor vehicle?

Taking your argument to it's end, you would force People of a state to tolerate bigamy, polygamy, incest etc. marriage. Marriage, as Obergefell said, is of pivotal concern to children. Children's upbringing is of pivotal concern to any state who has to deal with the success or wreckage of how kids grow up. People decided long long ago that both a mother and father in a home where children are raised, produces the best citizen within any state. States with filled prison of the wreckage of children who were short-changed is of immediate concern to that state's voting populace. Ergo, states logically, via their People, control the parameters of marriage because of the children involved in them. This is why states incentivize marriage. Not for the adults in the marriage. People could give a crap what adults do with contracts. It's the children bound up in those contracts that directly and inarguably affect the state as a whole in a real and pivotal way.

So, states DO and MUST have the right to regulate their own social milieu. And marriage is paramount of that right. Windsor said as much. Then of course when it is convenient for the LGBT cult two years later, the owned-Court happily reverses that to yet again and arbitrarily accommodate LGBTs by purposefully misinterpreting the 14th Amendment as a convenience to the Cult. Just some deviant sex addicts may marry, but not others...no matter how that contract legally extinguishes for life a mother or father to a child from the contract.

In fact, children from gay "marriages" tried to weigh in with Amicus briefs in Obergefell about how they suffered from being forced to never have a father or mother. The Court refused to admit those pivotal statements. Yet went on to say the children's wellbeing was pivotal to their rationale in Obergefell! That's like the Court saying "we recognize this third party to the contract as vital, in fact the contract is meant to benefit them the most, however we're going to ban this third party from the discussions of pivotal revisions to the contract to their demise". And that is the violation of the Infancy Doctrine that I've been talking about elsewhere. A child cannot be bound to a contract that harms him or her. And surely if that contract existed for their benefit (mother AND father), revising that key benefit without their participation is a form of oppression towards children, indeed child abuse enshrined in a binding contract that the Infancy Doctrine cannot tolerate.

 

[DandyDonovan]

That was my point actually. The Court attempted in Obergefell to overturn Windsor and insert itself as the sole federal authority that could override states' sovereignty to define marriage as affirmed in Windsor 2013.

False

AND if you weren't utterly stupid you would see the danger of allowing the government to define marriage. What if the nasty queers gained power and made straight marriage illegal ?? You see dumb shit that is why government should not have any say in marriage.

As for public accommodation laws, the idiots arguing for those likewise are too stupid to grasp the consequences of their argument. It's clear that forcing someone to do business with another person is unconstitutional, and it's also clear that affording some people protection from discrimination but not everyone, is also unconstitutional.

Do you consider the United States Supreme Court "government"? If yes, then you in particular must be outraged by Obergefell assigning unilateral power to define marriage to the government and ripping the direct power of the People to govern themselves via Windsor's affirmation that States (the People) define marriage.

I highly doubt the queers can legitimately outlaw straight marriage with their tiny numbers. After all, in the most liberal state in the Union (California) gay marriage was voted down twice and remains illegal on the books there today. I'd say that's a vote of confidence that the queers aren't going to take over marriage from the People. But the USSC did attempt that power grab. Luckily the cake issue will reverse that ultimately. Obergefell is going to come under a scanning electron microscope this time...

Are you stupid, or just hope that everyone else is? The states are government as well and have no more right to define marriage than the federal government does.

Jesus Christ, how some of you morons even make it through a day is a marvel.

Actually the state governments were affirmed in Windsor as having exactly that power, because the states are run by the People who govern themselves there.

I guess because you don't understand how democracy works at the ground level, you're the idiot. Your argument seems to be "states have no right to regulate any behaviors or conditions within their boundaries". Would you also prescribe that state powers are unfair regulating driver's licenses? You think the People of a state don't have a vested interest in who can and who can't operate a motor vehicle?

Taking your argument to it's end, you would force People of a state to tolerate bigamy, polygamy, incest etc. marriage. Marriage, as Obergefell said, is of pivotal concern to children. Children's upbringing is of pivotal concern to any state who has to deal with the success or wreckage of how kids grow up. People decided long long ago that both a mother and father in a home where children are raised, produces the best citizen within any state. States with filled prison of the wreckage of children who were short-changed is of immediate concern to that state's voting populace. Ergo, states logically, via their People, control the parameters of marriage because of the children involved in them. This is why states incentivize marriage. Not for the adults in the marriage. People could give a crap what adults do with contracts. It's the children bound up in those contracts that directly and inarguably affect the state as a whole in a real and pivotal way.

So, states DO and MUST have the right to regulate their own social milieu. And marriage is paramount of that right. Windsor said as much. Then of course when it is convenient for the LGBT cult two years later, the owned-Court happily reverses that to yet again and arbitrarily accommodate LGBTs by purposefully misinterpreting the 14th Amendment as a convenience to the Cult. Just some deviant sex addicts may marry, but not others...no matter how that contract legally extinguishes for life a mother or father to a child from the contract.

In fact, children from gay "marriages" tried to weigh in with Amicus briefs in Obergefell about how they suffered from being forced to never have a father or mother. The Court refused to admit those pivotal statements. Yet went on to say the children's wellbeing was pivotal to their rationale in Obergefell! That's like the Court saying "we recognize this third party to the contract as vital, in fact the contract is meant to benefit them the most, however we're going to ban this third party from the discussions of pivotal revisions to the contract to their demise". And that is the violation of the Infancy Doctrine that I've been talking about elsewhere. A child cannot be bound to a contract that harms him or her. And surely if that contract existed for their benefit (mother AND father), revising that key benefit without their participation is a form of oppression towards children, indeed child abuse enshrined in a binding contract that the Infancy Doctrine cannot tolerate.

You're an idiot, you truly are . Your entire premise is based on your dislike of gays rather than actual freedom. You are free to bee straight (though in truth I don't think you are) others have a right to be gay. Marriage being primarily a religious construct the government ought have no say in who may participate (save for requiring that all parties be consenting adults, of course)

I have little doubt that if California outlawed straight marriage that you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that California does not have the right to regulate marriage. Meaning that your entire argument is contrived .

 

[Silhouette]

That was my point actually. The Court attempted in Obergefell to overturn Windsor and insert itself as the sole federal authority that could override states' sovereignty to define marriage as affirmed in Windsor 2013.

False

AND if you weren't utterly stupid you would see the danger of allowing the government to define marriage. What if the nasty queers gained power and made straight marriage illegal ?? You see dumb shit that is why government should not have any say in marriage.

As for public accommodation laws, the idiots arguing for those likewise are too stupid to grasp the consequences of their argument. It's clear that forcing someone to do business with another person is unconstitutional, and it's also clear that affording some people protection from discrimination but not everyone, is also unconstitutional.

Do you consider the United States Supreme Court "government"? If yes, then you in particular must be outraged by Obergefell assigning unilateral power to define marriage to the government and ripping the direct power of the People to govern themselves via Windsor's affirmation that States (the People) define marriage.

I highly doubt the queers can legitimately outlaw straight marriage with their tiny numbers. After all, in the most liberal state in the Union (California) gay marriage was voted down twice and remains illegal on the books there today. I'd say that's a vote of confidence that the queers aren't going to take over marriage from the People. But the USSC did attempt that power grab. Luckily the cake issue will reverse that ultimately. Obergefell is going to come under a scanning electron microscope this time...

Are you stupid, or just hope that everyone else is? The states are government as well and have no more right to define marriage than the federal government does.

Jesus Christ, how some of you morons even make it through a day is a marvel.

Actually the state governments were affirmed in Windsor as having exactly that power, because the states are run by the People who govern themselves there.

I guess because you don't understand how democracy works at the ground level, you're the idiot. Your argument seems to be "states have no right to regulate any behaviors or conditions within their boundaries". Would you also prescribe that state powers are unfair regulating driver's licenses? You think the People of a state don't have a vested interest in who can and who can't operate a motor vehicle?

Taking your argument to it's end, you would force People of a state to tolerate bigamy, polygamy, incest etc. marriage. Marriage, as Obergefell said, is of pivotal concern to children. Children's upbringing is of pivotal concern to any state who has to deal with the success or wreckage of how kids grow up. People decided long long ago that both a mother and father in a home where children are raised, produces the best citizen within any state. States with filled prison of the wreckage of children who were short-changed is of immediate concern to that state's voting populace. Ergo, states logically, via their People, control the parameters of marriage because of the children involved in them. This is why states incentivize marriage. Not for the adults in the marriage. People could give a crap what adults do with contracts. It's the children bound up in those contracts that directly and inarguably affect the state as a whole in a real and pivotal way.

So, states DO and MUST have the right to regulate their own social milieu. And marriage is paramount of that right. Windsor said as much. Then of course when it is convenient for the LGBT cult two years later, the owned-Court happily reverses that to yet again and arbitrarily accommodate LGBTs by purposefully misinterpreting the 14th Amendment as a convenience to the Cult. Just some deviant sex addicts may marry, but not others...no matter how that contract legally extinguishes for life a mother or father to a child from the contract.

In fact, children from gay "marriages" tried to weigh in with Amicus briefs in Obergefell about how they suffered from being forced to never have a father or mother. The Court refused to admit those pivotal statements. Yet went on to say the children's wellbeing was pivotal to their rationale in Obergefell! That's like the Court saying "we recognize this third party to the contract as vital, in fact the contract is meant to benefit them the most, however we're going to ban this third party from the discussions of pivotal revisions to the contract to their demise". And that is the violation of the Infancy Doctrine that I've been talking about elsewhere. A child cannot be bound to a contract that harms him or her. And surely if that contract existed for their benefit (mother AND father), revising that key benefit without their participation is a form of oppression towards children, indeed child abuse enshrined in a binding contract that the Infancy Doctrine cannot tolerate.

You're an idiot, you truly are . Your entire premise is based on your dislike of gays rather than actual freedom. You are free to bee straight (though in truth I don't think you are) others have a right to be gay. Marriage being primarily a religious construct the government ought have no say in who may participate (save for requiring that all parties be consenting adults, of course)

I have little doubt that if California outlawed straight marriage that you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that California does not have the right to regulate marriage. Meaning that your entire argument is contrived .

I’m willing to take the risk that states like CA wouldn’t outlaw normal marriage. It’s the way we do democracy.

CA still has gay marriage outlawed. Windsor affirms that.

You left out other deviant sex kinks like polygamy & incest. Why is that?

 

[bodecea]

Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Obergefell Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for. That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.

Public Accommodation activists will fall back on Obergefell. Obergefell was an illegal Hearing. How is this going to work out? Ruth Bader Ginsburg: America is ready for gay marriage

Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, a USSC 2009 decision that Ginsburg herself signed off on, says that ANY judge who is reasonably suspected of bias MUST recuse themselves from a case. That's a HUGE problem for the viability of the Obergefell Ruling.
​

*********************
Months after winning a Supreme Court case over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Colorado baker Jack Phillips is setting up for another legal showdown.

Phillips, ordered by the state Civil Rights Commission into mediation with a trans customer of his Masterpiece Cakeshop for whom he had refused to bake a cake, sued Colorado officials in federal court on Tuesday, claiming they violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion.

“Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit cites Phillips’ narrow Supreme Court victory in June that said the state Civil Rights Commission displayed anti-religious attitudes toward the baker, violating his rights, in a case involving his refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Sues Colorado After Refusing To Bake Trans Woman's Cake | HuffPost

**************

One of the many flaws in Obergefell is that it turned just some deviant addictive behaviors (but not others that the majority also find repugnant) into a special class. The list of potentials is incomplete and giving those potentials a complete pass in mention was highly negligent in Obergefell.

And, so, because behaviors, just some but not others, were alluded to be a protected class of people, we find ourselves at a showdown between deviant sex behaviors and the religious people and others of basic moral fortitude opposed, at odds over whether the public has to actually recognize them (what they DO, not what they are) as "protected behaviors" essentially. If they are protected behaviors, the Colorado baker will probably have to bake that cake. But if the Court finds that behaviors, ideals and rituals cannot be foisted on others without their moral consent, then the baker may win.

Very recently a tranny guy wanted the same baker to make him a "transition celebration" cake. The baker again refused on principle. This will wind up in the same case probably. The baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake has now turned away a trans woman

​

How's your gay marriage working out?

 

[DandyDonovan]

That was my point actually. The Court attempted in Obergefell to overturn Windsor and insert itself as the sole federal authority that could override states' sovereignty to define marriage as affirmed in Windsor 2013.

False

AND if you weren't utterly stupid you would see the danger of allowing the government to define marriage. What if the nasty queers gained power and made straight marriage illegal ?? You see dumb shit that is why government should not have any say in marriage.

As for public accommodation laws, the idiots arguing for those likewise are too stupid to grasp the consequences of their argument. It's clear that forcing someone to do business with another person is unconstitutional, and it's also clear that affording some people protection from discrimination but not everyone, is also unconstitutional.

Do you consider the United States Supreme Court "government"? If yes, then you in particular must be outraged by Obergefell assigning unilateral power to define marriage to the government and ripping the direct power of the People to govern themselves via Windsor's affirmation that States (the People) define marriage.

I highly doubt the queers can legitimately outlaw straight marriage with their tiny numbers. After all, in the most liberal state in the Union (California) gay marriage was voted down twice and remains illegal on the books there today. I'd say that's a vote of confidence that the queers aren't going to take over marriage from the People. But the USSC did attempt that power grab. Luckily the cake issue will reverse that ultimately. Obergefell is going to come under a scanning electron microscope this time...

Are you stupid, or just hope that everyone else is? The states are government as well and have no more right to define marriage than the federal government does.

Jesus Christ, how some of you morons even make it through a day is a marvel.

Actually the state governments were affirmed in Windsor as having exactly that power, because the states are run by the People who govern themselves there.

I guess because you don't understand how democracy works at the ground level, you're the idiot. Your argument seems to be "states have no right to regulate any behaviors or conditions within their boundaries". Would you also prescribe that state powers are unfair regulating driver's licenses? You think the People of a state don't have a vested interest in who can and who can't operate a motor vehicle?

Taking your argument to it's end, you would force People of a state to tolerate bigamy, polygamy, incest etc. marriage. Marriage, as Obergefell said, is of pivotal concern to children. Children's upbringing is of pivotal concern to any state who has to deal with the success or wreckage of how kids grow up. People decided long long ago that both a mother and father in a home where children are raised, produces the best citizen within any state. States with filled prison of the wreckage of children who were short-changed is of immediate concern to that state's voting populace. Ergo, states logically, via their People, control the parameters of marriage because of the children involved in them. This is why states incentivize marriage. Not for the adults in the marriage. People could give a crap what adults do with contracts. It's the children bound up in those contracts that directly and inarguably affect the state as a whole in a real and pivotal way.

So, states DO and MUST have the right to regulate their own social milieu. And marriage is paramount of that right. Windsor said as much. Then of course when it is convenient for the LGBT cult two years later, the owned-Court happily reverses that to yet again and arbitrarily accommodate LGBTs by purposefully misinterpreting the 14th Amendment as a convenience to the Cult. Just some deviant sex addicts may marry, but not others...no matter how that contract legally extinguishes for life a mother or father to a child from the contract.

In fact, children from gay "marriages" tried to weigh in with Amicus briefs in Obergefell about how they suffered from being forced to never have a father or mother. The Court refused to admit those pivotal statements. Yet went on to say the children's wellbeing was pivotal to their rationale in Obergefell! That's like the Court saying "we recognize this third party to the contract as vital, in fact the contract is meant to benefit them the most, however we're going to ban this third party from the discussions of pivotal revisions to the contract to their demise". And that is the violation of the Infancy Doctrine that I've been talking about elsewhere. A child cannot be bound to a contract that harms him or her. And surely if that contract existed for their benefit (mother AND father), revising that key benefit without their participation is a form of oppression towards children, indeed child abuse enshrined in a binding contract that the Infancy Doctrine cannot tolerate.

You're an idiot, you truly are . Your entire premise is based on your dislike of gays rather than actual freedom. You are free to bee straight (though in truth I don't think you are) others have a right to be gay. Marriage being primarily a religious construct the government ought have no say in who may participate (save for requiring that all parties be consenting adults, of course)

I have little doubt that if California outlawed straight marriage that you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that California does not have the right to regulate marriage. Meaning that your entire argument is contrived .

I’m willing to take the risk that states like CA wouldn’t outlaw normal marriage. It’s the way we do democracy.

CA still has gay marriage outlawed. Windsor affirms that.

You left out other deviant sex kinks like polygamy & incest. Why is that?

Jesus Christ, you are truly a semi literate buffoon. I didn't leave out any deviant sex kinks. I CLEARLY stated that the government should not be involved with marriage except to be sure it was only entered into by consenting adults. If 4 brothers want to get married , what do you care?

Except to say that you probably would like to somehow be in the middle of that marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Jesus Christ, you are truly a semi literate buffoon. I didn't leave out any deviant sex kinks. I CLEARLY stated that the government should not be involved with marriage except to be sure it was only entered into by consenting adults. If 4 brothers want to get married , what do you care?

Except to say that you probably would like to somehow be in the middle of that marriage.

Constant ad hominem as your go-too eh?

OK, well, if that's how you like it, you ignorant stinking fat ass. You KEEP FORGETTING that Obergefell and the vast majority of the American public, who GOVERN THEMSELVES IN THE VARIOUS STATES feel that marriage is by and large for the benefit of children.

Children.

Now, you drooling, infantile sub-moron, if you'd read the Infancy Doctrine or even had the most remote familiarity with how society values children and their upbringing as pivotal to any society's health when they become adults....you'd know that adults entering a contract that directly or indirectly affects the well being of children, that contract CANNOT CONTAIN TERMS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN. Period. It is the main argument that has always been used to make polygamy illegal, for example of just one sex kink the majority decided to not qualify for marriage.

But at LEAST with polygamy a child usually gets both a mother and father. With gay marriage a child is legally cut away for life from either a mother or father. We have entire libraries of research dedicated to that phenomenon being very detrimental to children. Making such a situation a matter of contract that the child is bound to is simply unthinkable for a sane society.

So, stupid ****. Put on your thinking cap, size extra small, and start googling the Infancy Doctrine. Or wait, better yet, for a stumbling illiterate lazy ***** like you, I'll provide you with a handy link. Don't want to strain what precious little gray matter you have in your tiny bean: Here's an overview of how we do law, especially contract law when it comes to kids: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

And before you skim it and state emphatically that you're a master on its contents, pay particular attention to where it not only mentions contracts where the benefit to kids is money, but also intangible things like education, and psychological well being...