New Civil Rights Issue: "Alcoholic Americans" & "The Right to Drive"...

[Skull Pilot]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Nobody but you and small handful of fools believe your cockamamie bullshit.

If marriage is not a privilege but instead a right available to all without qualifiers that the states regulate, then I'll put in a call to the Brown polygamy family in Nevada. They'll be thrilled to know that they can now be legally married all to one another in any state of their choosing.

Marriage in legal terms is a contract specifically a property contract which is protected under the constitution therefore it matters not what sex the participants in that contract are

 

[Skull Pilot]

The "right" to drive even if it is acknowledged can still have reasonable restrictions placed upon it not unlike the right to bear arms or the right to assemble

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage in legal terms is a contract specifically a property contract which is protected under the constitution therefore it matters not what sex the participants in that contract are

That's one of the contract's terms. The others that children enjoyed unique implied rights to are "mother and father". You cannot legally deprive a child using a contract, of a necessity they previously enjoyed. It's forbidden and the contract isn't merely voidable, it is already void without challenge before the ink is dry. Children cannot be deprived by contract of either a mother or father for life. It is legally impossible.

Adults "share the road" with the marriage contract privilege with children. Adults share the road with the driving license privilege.

If you assert that marriage is an unquestioned right that can't be denied to anyone because of their sexual orientation, how is it that people reject homosexual marriage in the majority, polygamy and incest marriage as well, yet only one of those is (erroneously) called "legal"? Either there's marriage equality or there isn't. And if there isn't and discrimination must still be used to shut out other sexual orientations, the power to do that discriminating rests ONLY with the states and their licensing procedures. If they can discriminate against polygamy and incest, they may also discriminate against homosexual marriage too if their laws say "only a man and a woman may marry".

 

[mdk]

That's one of the contract's terms. The others that children enjoyed unique implied rights to are "mother and father". You cannot legally deprive a child using a contract, of a necessity they previously enjoyed. It's forbidden and the contract isn't merely voidable, it is already void without challenge before the ink is dry.

Children do not have 'unique implied rights' in a marriage contract.

Who gives a crap you think it is 'void without challenge' as reality shows quite the opposite. The SCOTUS just ruled 8-0 that states have to recognize same-sex adoptions performed in other states. No where did they mention children having an implied rights to marriage contract. That is just a bunch of dumb shit you made up in hopes of stopping gays from marrying.

 

[bodecea]

There is no part of the Constitution with special rights for gay sexual behaviors (no such thing as "gay Americans" anymore than there are "alcholic Americans" as a class) to marry. Behaviors don't get special unwritten protections in the Constitution. When behaviors are protected, they are specified. No such specification exists for homosexuality in the Constitution. There is though quite a bit in the Constitution about another behavior: drinking alcohol.

Like a vehicle to transport ones children from one place to another, marriage is the "vehicle" to transport children from infancy into a well-rounded social preparation for the adult "destination". With driving a car, others share the road. And this is why drivers' licenses are required in all states under certain specific conditions and qualifiers. Likewise, children can't be placed in any "vehicle" where the driver is unqualified to drive and their well being might be jeopardized. Marriage licenses are required in all states and one wonders why now that Obergefell was heard. "Gay Americans" aren't the only ones with a sexual fetish the majority finds repugnant. And since we know via the 14th Amendment that you can't play favorites, Obergefell de facto issued in a "come one, come all" mandate to marriage licensing in every state. Discrimination against polygamy as to marriage is equally as "unconstitutional" as it is for homosexuals.

You can decriminalize people getting drunk. You just can't take the legal leap from there and say "drunk Americans have the right to drive like everyone else!". Gays cannot provide both a mother and father to children: implicit partners in the marriage contract "road". Therefore, gays guarantee a psychological "car wreck" to the other parties on the road or in the car: the most important ones as it turns out..children. Instead of asking states to scrape up more children off of the wreckage from the highway, we need to realize the damage done to children by not assuring their safety: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

And, New York vs Ferber (1982) says that even if homosexuality had explicit written protections in the Constitution (which it doesn't, but for argument's sake...) to marry, if such a union results in harm to children either physically or mentally (by stripping children of either a mother or father for life) that "right" is no longer protected.. Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States. Just as the union of a person with too much alcohol in their blood has the potential to strip children of the mental tools needed to not be wreckage victims through their adult lives. New York vs Ferber Found that even if an adult has a delineated and undisputed Constitutionally-protected right, that right may not be exercised if it results in physical or mental harm to children.

States' first and foremost duty is to protect children. Secondarily they look to protect delineated adult Constitutional rights. States have to ask themselves, "in protecting gay marriage are we inadvertently harming the children we expect to be involved?" If the answer is "yes", the states don't have the luxury of fiddling around. They are mandated to act swiftly to protect children. (See previous link for those legal mandates upon states).

Taking the comparison of behaviors as "(fill in the blank) Americans"...& Obergefell to its natural conclusion...In fact, the right to drink to any excess one likes is even protected by a Constitutional Amendment, no less. So, states had better be prepared for a mandate to issue drivers' licenses to ALL Americans and not just some! Nevermind who else is involved! Anything less would be discrimination, and bigoted...coming from "haters"...

So, once again, despite the title....this is a "whine about gays" thread from Silly.

 

[bodecea]

mdk, you are such a troll and do nothing but chase people around the boards introducing strawmen and ad hominems with almost zero substance as such a regular habit, that I would've banned you and all your sock puppets here long long ago. So, you must know at least one of the moderators personally to continue disrupting in such a way.

If you have something to say about Alcoholic Americans and their "right to drive" despite who shares the road with them, say it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Oh, shut the fuck up you whiny little twat.

Driving isn't a right, ending this odd and latest attempt to stop queers from marrying.

Marriage isn't a right either. Haven't found it anywhere in the Constitution...let me know if you find it. If you're arguing that certain people with certain behaviors adverse to marrying (not providing man and wife, father and mother) have now some "right" to marry; I could just as equally argue that certain people, with behaviors adverse to driving (moving down the road safely without incumbering anyone else from said behavior) now have some "right" to drive. Both marriage and driver's conditional licenses (they are conditional, arent' they? Since polygamists still may not marry) are issued at the state level. Not a word of mention about driving or marrying in the US Constitution..

Remember, Loving won because their marriage did not violate laws of man/woman marriage. And since race was protected specifically and referenced as such in the Constitution as to rights (instead of "same sex behaviors" which aren't), a black man and a white woman legally are qualified for "man and wife". Two gays aren't.

If you think marriage is a "right", please tell me where polygamists may legally marry. Failing that, please tell me why the number "two" is more legally "magical and important" than man/woman...OK? Those advocating for children's enjoyments in the marriage contract would say that polygamy is better for kids than gay marriage because polygamy gives them both a mother and father at least..

And here Silly falls into the trap of believing that only those rights listed in the Constitution count...which is a by product of believing that the government GIVES us our rights instead of us being BORN with them.

 

[Silhouette]

And here Silly falls into the trap of believing that only those rights listed in the Constitution count...which is a by product of believing that the government GIVES us our rights instead of us being BORN with them.

So are people with polygamy sexual orientation or incest sexual orientation "born with" the right to marry?

 

[Syriusly]

And here Silly falls into the trap of believing that only those rights listed in the Constitution count...which is a by product of believing that the government GIVES us our rights instead of us being BORN with them.

So are people with polygamy sexual orientation or incest sexual orientation "born with" the right to marry?

Silhouette- are you in favor of incestuous marriage?

Are you in favor of polygamous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage in legal terms is a contract specifically a property contract which is protected under the constitution therefore it matters not what sex the participants in that contract are

That's one of the contract's terms. The others that children enjoyed unique implied rights to are "mother and father". You cannot legally deprive a child using a contract, of a necessity they previously enjoyed. It's forbidden and the contract isn't merely voidable.

Adults void that "contract" without the advise or consent of children every day in America- it is called divorce.

Now- why can't adults divorce their minor children?

 

[Skylar]

Thread 57. She's added 15 or so to her grand total in the last 3 weeks.

 

[Skylar]

There is no part of the Constitution with special rights for gay sexual behaviors (no such thing as "gay Americans" anymore than there are "alcholic Americans" as a class) to marry. Behaviors don't get special unwritten protections in the Constitution. When behaviors are protected, they are specified. No such specification exists for homosexuality in the Constitution. There is though quite a bit in the Constitution about another behavior: drinking alcohol.

Like a vehicle to transport ones children from one place to another, marriage is the "vehicle" to transport children from infancy into a well-rounded social preparation for the adult "destination". With driving a car, others share the road. And this is why drivers' licenses are required in all states under certain specific conditions and qualifiers. Likewise, children can't be placed in any "vehicle" where the driver is unqualified to drive and their well being might be jeopardized. Marriage licenses are required in all states and one wonders why now that Obergefell was heard. "Gay Americans" aren't the only ones with a sexual fetish the majority finds repugnant. And since we know via the 14th Amendment that you can't play favorites, Obergefell de facto issued in a "come one, come all" mandate to marriage licensing in every state. Discrimination against polygamy as to marriage is equally as "unconstitutional" as it is for homosexuals.

A married couple isn't a car. Ending this latest round of bizarro pseudo-legal gibberish.

Next fallacy please.

You can decriminalize people getting drunk. You just can't take the legal leap from there and say "drunk Americans have the right to drive like everyone else!". Gays cannot provide both a mother and father to children: implicit partners in the marriage contract "road". Therefore, gays guarantee a psychological "car wreck" to the other parties on the road or in the car: the most important ones as it turns out..children. Instead of asking states to scrape up more children off of the wreckage from the highway, we need to realize the damage done to children by not assuring their safety: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

The Prince's Trust Study never mentions mothers, fathers, gays, gay marriage, same sex parenting, or measures the effects of any kind of parenting. You made all that up. Citing yourself.

Next fallacy please.

And, New York vs Ferber (1982) says that even if homosexuality had explicit written protections in the Constitution (which it doesn't, but for argument's sake...) to marry, if such a union results in harm to children either physically or mentally (by stripping children of either a mother or father for life) that "right" is no longer protected.. Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States. Just as the union of a person with too much alcohol in their blood has the potential to strip children of the mental tools needed to not be wreckage victims through their adult lives. New York vs Ferber Found that even if an adult has a delineated and undisputed Constitutionally-protected right, that right may not be exercised if it results in physical or mental harm to children.

Ferber never mentions homosexuality, marriage, same sex marriage or finds that any child is harmed by same sex marriage. You do. Citing yourself.

Next fallacy please.

States' first and foremost duty is to protect children. Secondarily they look to protect delineated adult Constitutional rights. States have to ask themselves, "in protecting gay marriage are we inadvertently harming the children we expect to be involved?" If the answer is "yes", the states don't have the luxury of fiddling around. They are mandated to act swiftly to protect children. (See previous link for those legal mandates upon states).

Taking the comparison of behaviors as "(fill in the blank) Americans"...& Obergefell to its natural conclusion...In fact, the right to drink to any excess one likes is even protected by a Constitutional Amendment, no less. So, states had better be prepared for a mandate to issue drivers' licenses to ALL Americans and not just some! Nevermind who else is involved! Anything less would be discrimination, and bigoted...coming from "haters"...

So if States have a duty to protect children....and you insist that same sex parenting is chjild abuse, then are you insisting that we remove children from same sex parents?

Its a simple question, Jen. And we both know you'll run from it. We also both know what your answer is.

Oh, and as a point of law, there's a right to travel but not a right to drive on public roads. Just FYI.

 

[Skylar]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Nobody but you and small handful of fools believe your cockamamie bullshit.

If marriage is not a privilege but instead a right available to all without qualifiers that the states regulate, then I'll put in a call to the Brown polygamy family in Nevada. They'll be thrilled to know that they can now be legally married all to one another in any state of their choosing.

Marriage in legal terms is a contract specifically a property contract which is protected under the constitution therefore it matters not what sex the participants in that contract are

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Marriage is, first and foremost, about property.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage in legal terms is a contract specifically a property contract which is protected under the constitution therefore it matters not what sex the participants in that contract are

That's one of the contract's terms. The others that children enjoyed unique implied rights to are "mother and father".

Nope. That's all pseudo-legal horseshit.

No court nor law recognizes that children are parties to the marriage of their parents. Not explicit parties. Not implied parties. Not third party beneficiaries. You've made it all up. Nor can you find any legal source that backs any claim you've made regarding children and the 'contract of marriage'.

There's a reason why you only cite yourself on this point of 'contract law'.

You cannot legally deprive a child using a contract, of a necessity they previously enjoyed. It's forbidden and the contract isn't merely voidable, it is already void without challenge before the ink is dry. Children cannot be deprived by contract of either a mother or father for life. It is legally impossible.

None of that is actually contract law. Remember, the 'Infancy Doctrine'....is about explicit contracts in business. Like if a minor wanted to obtain a mortgage.

The Infancy Doctrine has no application in marriage. Nor can you find a single example in our law of it every being applied in the manner you describe.

Not one. Remember, you don't have the slightest clue how the law works. You're literally just making up this pseudo-legal gibberish as you go along.

If you assert that marriage is an unquestioned right that can't be denied to anyone because of their sexual orientation, how is it that people reject homosexual marriage in the majority, polygamy and incest marriage as well, yet only one of those is (erroneously) called "legal"?

Strawman. No where does the Obergefell ruling argue that the right to marry is based on sexual orientation. Merely that you can't bar someone from marriage because of their gender.

Same sex couples have the right to marry as much as opposite sex couples do. There's no requirement that the same sex couples be gay or that the opposite sex couples be straight.

You made all that up. And your imagination is legally meaningless.