Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
The problems with "gay marriage is constitutional" are these (at least and maybe more)
1. Kagan & Ginsburg both displayed rampant bias before Obergefell was heard. Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 says they were not allowed to preside over Obergefell. A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision: Subtract Two Votes
2. The Judicial Branch of government cannot change the Constitution. Only Congress can do that. Creating a new inclusion in the 14th Amendment for "just some of the the Court's favorite repugnant deviant sex behaviors-as-identity but not others" violates the 14th's equality skeleton. Either all majority-repugnant deviant sex behaviors may be married, (think polygamy) or none of them may outside state laws.
3. There are no provisions in the federal government for regulating marriage: it belongs to the states. In fact, Windsor 2013 found that as fact 56 times in that Opinion's wording. States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage Windsor's essence in fact was that DOMA should be dismantled precisely because marriage was up to New York where Windsor was "gay married"..I'll explain the quotation marks further down...
4. Marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago specifically to remedy the various situations where children found themselves without both a mother and father. Ergo, not only are children implicit partners in that contract, but the contract was invented and maintained for thousands of years FOR CHILDREN. The state gains no benefit from two adults shacking up. The state DOES gain benefit by enticing a mother and father for the sake of children's best shot at life. The woes without either a mother or father present for both genders of children are long understood, established, documented and simply also a matter of common sense. When the radical contract revision was proposed, children were not invited to the table. They had no representation in Obergefell; which was required by contract law.
5. If a contract involving minors either expressly or implicitly serves a need of theirs, the contract cannot be changed to their detriment. Even if children wanted to change it to their detriment, it cannot be done. Study the Infants Doctrine: ancient law. Even if the reason for changing the contract is pure compassion for adults, it still cannot stand if it is to the detriment of children involved.. Incidentally, Loving v Virginia did not change that thousands-years-old skeleton where races all over the world intermarried to provide a mother and father for children. So, gay marriage is nothing at all like Loving and may not cite it because the two (mother/father) & (man/man, woman/woman) are NOTHING alike with regards to marriage's original reason for being invented. Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?
6. New York vs Ferber (1982) Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc. was a case about a guy Ferber who wanted to peddle kiddie porn, claiming the 1st Amendment supported his "right" to do so constitutionally. At first it was found that he could under the 1st, then it was found he could not. SCOTUS heard the case and even though SCOTUS rules in favor of free speech in even ridiculous and offensive cases as an unwavering rule, it found exception in NY v Ferber for one reason: children. The Court found that if a person exercises a constitutional right that somehow hurts children either physically or psychologically, then that right cannot be exercised. Gay marriage systematically strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers FOR LIFE without the possibility of parole from this mental prison. Infants and contract law has a clause that says if adults want to change a contract involving children, if there is even a shadow of a chance that change might hurt them, their new contract is VOID (not "voidable" but void upon its face). The burden is upon the adults to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that boys raised without fathers and girls raised without mothers does no harm to them. Citing "single parenthood" isn't allowed because we are talking about THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT, not other situations outside it. Marriage, remember, exists for a reason. So, "gay marriage" cannot be, because that new revision harms children in predictable ways. There is AT LEAST enough evidence to cast doubt on "the benefits of stripping a child of either a mother or father"..and so...gay marriage everywhere is void. Children cannot suffer as a convenience...or even an extension of compassion to adults...Marriage was and is for children.
7. Children caught up in gay lifestyles are unfortunate...as are children caught up in single parenthood and polygamy. So, if you use the logic that "children are being harmed by their parent(s) not receiving the official blessing of society, you cannot disinclude children of polygamy or of monosexuals (single parents).. So says the 14th.. Hetero divorce and single parenthood are actually more compassionate psychologically to children than gay marriage from a pure physical presentation. Divorce and single parents may again remarry...so the child still has hope that they will have the right combination of parents proven out to the best for their rounded adjustment to the adult world (that precise wording also including in "necessities" where infants and contracts are concerned). Gay marriage is an announcement to children caught up in that lifestyle "By this decree, we declare you will NEVER have a mother (or father) FOR LIFE." *Poof!* All hope gone. That little message will sink deep into the child's mind and fester as they approach adolescence and adulthood. For details on the results of that festering: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY and ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit
8. Obergefell may have been a nice phasod...a lovely parade of compassion for adults wanting to shack up together...but since the most important people in marriage were not invited, nor had representation at that Hearing, Obergefell is void upon its face. That Opinion is void. It is an illegal opinion because of the Infants Doctrine and all the other points made herein.
9. Since Obergefell launched itself off of a false premise ("behavior-as-identity is as static as race"), Obergefell stands to unravel the foundation of American Law on all other fronts. Because once a minority behavior-as-identity repugnant to the majority gets special protection, the 14th says that all other behaviors repugnant to the majority must be free to do as they like as well. How will "bulimic-Americans" or "Polygamist-Americans" or "incest-Americans" or "Man-loving-boys Americans" be turned away? Yes, they are all repugnant...but so is gay marriage to the majority... And since there is no provision for the Constitution to regulate marriage, all other state laws are also wide open now to behaviors-as-identity wanting exception from them. Precedent can be a bitch..
10. Obergefell, since it is behavioral and not static (Anne Heche, prison gays etc. etc.)...and poorly understood at that (why are roughly half of all lesbians attracted to a strong "male" partner in the woman they're with? Why are roughly half of all gay men attracted to a servile, effeminant "female" partner in the man they're with?), is at best a ruling in favor of a waffling cult. A waffling cult cannot have Christians thrown in jail for refusing to play along. Especially with the 1st Amendment protecting Christians rightful fear of the warnings in their Holy Book in Jude 1. Jude 1 reminds Christians in the NEW Testament (the one of Jesus, not the Old jewish history citation) of Sodom and how it was destroyed. It warns Christians that if they promote or enable the spread of a homosexual culture into their own, even if they passively refuse to stop it, their soul will go to the pit of fire forever. The Court has I think four or five catholics. Sotomayor and Kennedy are both catholic. So they have heard that account and were aware of the problem before they voted. The Court knew they were creating a legal nightmare where two freight trains, 1. Their newly created favorite partial-"class" based on repugnant minority "behaviors-as-identity" and 2. The 1st Amendment requiring Christians to never enable homosexuality to spread as a culture, were destined to collide. And wouldn't you know it? Within less than one fiscal quarter after Obergefell, a Christian sat in jail for refusing to adopt the new cult values-as-"law"...
1. Kagan & Ginsburg both displayed rampant bias before Obergefell was heard. Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 says they were not allowed to preside over Obergefell. A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision: Subtract Two Votes
2. The Judicial Branch of government cannot change the Constitution. Only Congress can do that. Creating a new inclusion in the 14th Amendment for "just some of the the Court's favorite repugnant deviant sex behaviors-as-identity but not others" violates the 14th's equality skeleton. Either all majority-repugnant deviant sex behaviors may be married, (think polygamy) or none of them may outside state laws.
3. There are no provisions in the federal government for regulating marriage: it belongs to the states. In fact, Windsor 2013 found that as fact 56 times in that Opinion's wording. States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage Windsor's essence in fact was that DOMA should be dismantled precisely because marriage was up to New York where Windsor was "gay married"..I'll explain the quotation marks further down...
4. Marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago specifically to remedy the various situations where children found themselves without both a mother and father. Ergo, not only are children implicit partners in that contract, but the contract was invented and maintained for thousands of years FOR CHILDREN. The state gains no benefit from two adults shacking up. The state DOES gain benefit by enticing a mother and father for the sake of children's best shot at life. The woes without either a mother or father present for both genders of children are long understood, established, documented and simply also a matter of common sense. When the radical contract revision was proposed, children were not invited to the table. They had no representation in Obergefell; which was required by contract law.
5. If a contract involving minors either expressly or implicitly serves a need of theirs, the contract cannot be changed to their detriment. Even if children wanted to change it to their detriment, it cannot be done. Study the Infants Doctrine: ancient law. Even if the reason for changing the contract is pure compassion for adults, it still cannot stand if it is to the detriment of children involved.. Incidentally, Loving v Virginia did not change that thousands-years-old skeleton where races all over the world intermarried to provide a mother and father for children. So, gay marriage is nothing at all like Loving and may not cite it because the two (mother/father) & (man/man, woman/woman) are NOTHING alike with regards to marriage's original reason for being invented. Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?
6. New York vs Ferber (1982) Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc. was a case about a guy Ferber who wanted to peddle kiddie porn, claiming the 1st Amendment supported his "right" to do so constitutionally. At first it was found that he could under the 1st, then it was found he could not. SCOTUS heard the case and even though SCOTUS rules in favor of free speech in even ridiculous and offensive cases as an unwavering rule, it found exception in NY v Ferber for one reason: children. The Court found that if a person exercises a constitutional right that somehow hurts children either physically or psychologically, then that right cannot be exercised. Gay marriage systematically strips boys of fathers and girls of mothers FOR LIFE without the possibility of parole from this mental prison. Infants and contract law has a clause that says if adults want to change a contract involving children, if there is even a shadow of a chance that change might hurt them, their new contract is VOID (not "voidable" but void upon its face). The burden is upon the adults to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that boys raised without fathers and girls raised without mothers does no harm to them. Citing "single parenthood" isn't allowed because we are talking about THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT, not other situations outside it. Marriage, remember, exists for a reason. So, "gay marriage" cannot be, because that new revision harms children in predictable ways. There is AT LEAST enough evidence to cast doubt on "the benefits of stripping a child of either a mother or father"..and so...gay marriage everywhere is void. Children cannot suffer as a convenience...or even an extension of compassion to adults...Marriage was and is for children.
7. Children caught up in gay lifestyles are unfortunate...as are children caught up in single parenthood and polygamy. So, if you use the logic that "children are being harmed by their parent(s) not receiving the official blessing of society, you cannot disinclude children of polygamy or of monosexuals (single parents).. So says the 14th.. Hetero divorce and single parenthood are actually more compassionate psychologically to children than gay marriage from a pure physical presentation. Divorce and single parents may again remarry...so the child still has hope that they will have the right combination of parents proven out to the best for their rounded adjustment to the adult world (that precise wording also including in "necessities" where infants and contracts are concerned). Gay marriage is an announcement to children caught up in that lifestyle "By this decree, we declare you will NEVER have a mother (or father) FOR LIFE." *Poof!* All hope gone. That little message will sink deep into the child's mind and fester as they approach adolescence and adulthood. For details on the results of that festering: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY and ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit
8. Obergefell may have been a nice phasod...a lovely parade of compassion for adults wanting to shack up together...but since the most important people in marriage were not invited, nor had representation at that Hearing, Obergefell is void upon its face. That Opinion is void. It is an illegal opinion because of the Infants Doctrine and all the other points made herein.
9. Since Obergefell launched itself off of a false premise ("behavior-as-identity is as static as race"), Obergefell stands to unravel the foundation of American Law on all other fronts. Because once a minority behavior-as-identity repugnant to the majority gets special protection, the 14th says that all other behaviors repugnant to the majority must be free to do as they like as well. How will "bulimic-Americans" or "Polygamist-Americans" or "incest-Americans" or "Man-loving-boys Americans" be turned away? Yes, they are all repugnant...but so is gay marriage to the majority... And since there is no provision for the Constitution to regulate marriage, all other state laws are also wide open now to behaviors-as-identity wanting exception from them. Precedent can be a bitch..
10. Obergefell, since it is behavioral and not static (Anne Heche, prison gays etc. etc.)...and poorly understood at that (why are roughly half of all lesbians attracted to a strong "male" partner in the woman they're with? Why are roughly half of all gay men attracted to a servile, effeminant "female" partner in the man they're with?), is at best a ruling in favor of a waffling cult. A waffling cult cannot have Christians thrown in jail for refusing to play along. Especially with the 1st Amendment protecting Christians rightful fear of the warnings in their Holy Book in Jude 1. Jude 1 reminds Christians in the NEW Testament (the one of Jesus, not the Old jewish history citation) of Sodom and how it was destroyed. It warns Christians that if they promote or enable the spread of a homosexual culture into their own, even if they passively refuse to stop it, their soul will go to the pit of fire forever. The Court has I think four or five catholics. Sotomayor and Kennedy are both catholic. So they have heard that account and were aware of the problem before they voted. The Court knew they were creating a legal nightmare where two freight trains, 1. Their newly created favorite partial-"class" based on repugnant minority "behaviors-as-identity" and 2. The 1st Amendment requiring Christians to never enable homosexuality to spread as a culture, were destined to collide. And wouldn't you know it? Within less than one fiscal quarter after Obergefell, a Christian sat in jail for refusing to adopt the new cult values-as-"law"...
