New GOP Edge: Did 5 Dem/Indp Justices Ratify Child-Deprivation Using Fake "Gay Gene" Premise?

[Skylar]

That's not what the the court said in Obergefell in its third tier of rationale addressing children specifically. They said that children & child rearing are "part of the whole" of the concept of marriage.

The phrase 'part of the whole' doesn't appear anywhere in the Obergefell ruling. You're citing your imagination again. And you literally making up passages in the Obergefell ruling has no legal relevance.

Just as you ignoring the explicit findings of the Obergefell ruling has no relevance to the ruling's enforcement or its effect on other cases.

"The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples"

Obergefell v. Hodges

You can pretend the USSC never found this. But its not like the lower courts or the law will.

Know what else is part of the whole? The contract. Where was the discussion or citation..

The Obergefell decision never finds children are party to the marriage of their parents. You've imagined it. Or that children are the only purpose in marriage. In fact they found that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation.

"...the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Obergefell V. Hodges

How do you deal with this explicit contradiction of your assertion that EVERY marriage must be conditioned on procreation? You simply ignore the Supreme Court and replace their explicit findings with your imagination.

And your imagination is, as always, legally irrelevant. It has no impact on the outcome of any case.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Pages 14-15 of the Opinion
********
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384 ....

....__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

******

Yet the Court made zero discussion of how a contract children are intrinsically involved in banishes them from either a father or mother for life; said revision taken away from the state's power to control with just five unelected pens. No citation of studies saying "fathers or mothers aren't necessary in a two parent home". No studies cited showing the pros and cons of fatherless boys or motherless girls. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Just "this is how it will be", from five self-appointed armchair child psychologist "experts" at the demise of the 300 million's entire society into time unforeseeable.

The Court erred worse in its complete oversight on rationale for father/mother deprivation in marriage when it said this (like 5 demigods from a throne to the collective woe of the entire society of 300 million into time unforeseeable)

Page 16 of the Opinion:
*******
Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this truth on his travels through the United States almost two centuries ago: “There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America . . . [W]hen the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace . . . . [H]e afterwards carries [that image] with him into public affairs.”
*********

OK, so the Court says "Americans learn their values from home and then carry them out to promote them in public as the standard of peace and tranquility". So how is this conducive to a happy society to make fathers or mother socially irrelevant? We are taking away particularly from women, the last bastion of unique pride they have as contributing adults to society. Women may have other careers but their main pride is their ability to mother the children that make up our future citizens.

Congratulations ladies, the gaystapo just rendered your most prestigious contribution to society as "replaceable with counterfeits". Some ass-wiggling "bottom" homo, an artificial vagina for his buddy to express his closeted heterosexuality on, is now your equal in the ability to mother children. Feel good? Have you "come a long way baby"? Ginsburg, the "champion of women's rights and standing" just took a butcher knife and eviscerated the last bastion of unique importance women had that men previously could not hold a candle to. Well done you FRIGGIN IDIOT.

 

[Skylar]

Yet the Court made zero discussion of how a contract children are intrinsically involved in banishes them from either a father or mother for life; said revision taken away from the state's power to control with just five unelected pens.

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. You keep imagining they are, even taking it so far as to claim that children are *married* to their parents. And thus your confusion.

All while ignoring the *actual* harm, the *actual* humiliation that same sex marriage bans cause these children.

"The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."

Obergefell v. Hodges

You can pretend this finding doesn't exist. But you can't make us ignore it. Or any court. Which is why you fail.

OK, so the Court says "Americans learn their values from home and then carry them out to promote them in public as the standard of peace and tranquility". So how is this conducive to a happy society to make fathers or mother socially irrelevant?

Again, the courts have found that children are *a* basis of marriage. Though the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation.

You're insisting that children are the ONLY basis of marriage. And that the right to marry MUST be conditioned on procreation. Two things the court never finds. And instead, explicitly contradict.

You're ignoring the explicit findings of the court and replacing them imagination.

We are taking away particularly from women, the last bastion of unique pride they have as contributing adults to society. Women may have other careers but their main pride is their ability to mother the children that make up our future citizens.

So women can't take pride in raising their children.....because of same sex marriage?

Even by the nonsense standards of your bizarre, pseudo-legal rants....this is just silly. If your pride in raising your daughter was based in your ability to deny someone *else* the right to marry, then you weren't doing it right.

 

[Syriusly]

Ob
Congratulations ladies, the gaystapo just rendered your most prestigious contribution to society as "replaceable with counterfeits". Some ass-wiggling "bottom" homo, an artificial vagina for his buddy to express his closeted heterosexuality on, is now your equal in the ability to mother children. Feel good? Have you "come a long way baby"? Ginsburg, the "champion of women's rights and standing" just took a butcher knife and eviscerated the last bastion of unique importance women had that men previously could not hold a candle to. Well done you FRIGGIN IDIOT.

Wow- Silly is really losing it today.

Silly doesn't have any problem with a mother raising her kids on her own- or a dad raising his kids on his own.

But if there are two men- one of them is nothing more than an 'artiifical vagina' to her.

The courts rejected such double standards- and rightfully so.

What Obergefell did note was that denying marriage to the same gender parents of kids- harms their kids.

Silly knows this- and still argues for a position that will harm actual children.

 

[Silhouette]

So the LGBT advocates here unanimously agree: women are dispensable as mothers....very progressive of you guys....