Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing?

[Silhouette]

It is a fact that children share implicitly the marriage contract with adults. If you don't believe me, go to a family court sometime and see who gets the weight of consideration in the dissolution of any marriage.

Children wrote a number of amicus briefs to SCOTUS this last Spring, urging them NOT to impose a radical redefinition and revision of the marriage contract where they are concerned (parents) upon the 50 states. These children were raised in same-sex homes and grew up to testify it was wrong and it harmed them. Moreover, lacking a role model of one's own gender in a home if you are the opposite gender of the same-sex "parents", comes with predictable dire consequences: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (I urge you to visit the links posted and read the surveys because they are very important for each reader here to understand straight from the source).

Since children are part of the marriage contract, and since children stand to gain or lose from the physical structure of marriage, they absolutely were legally required to have representation and some would even say a dominating voice and advocacy at last Spring's Hearing on the proposed radical revision of that contract. Yet not only was there no guardian ad litem, which is present in many divorce proceedings, at the Hearing, the attempts adult children tried to make on behalf of the absent presence in the court (actual attorneys for the interest of children) were ignored. Correct me if I'm wrong but not a single reference was made to the various amicus briefs filed by adult children raised in gay homes. Not one reference to them in the Opinion last June. Check my signature for the link to a story about those.

So, since there's ample case law about contract revision on the books, can a clever lawyer take up the case of marriage on behalf of children? Or will they forever be subjugated to just 5 people's whims on the future of their having rights in the contract to insist up on it including for their best welfare, one mother and one father, unless the entirety of their state's guardianship (not just 5 people) have weighed in and found otherwise?

And a fun fact to ponder....in three generation's time, we will have families where no matriarch or patriarch is ever known. There will be boy (& girl) children who never knew a grandmother or mother, or even a great grandmother. There will be girl (& boy) children who never knew a great grandfather, grandfather or father. Is this a world we want 5 people to impose upon our society with our hands bound and mouths sealed with duct tape?

Remove duct tape & discuss.

Edit: adding a post here because of an important point with regards to this OP (post #6)

Your post is the proof. Any fool that believes you have to have children in order to get married is a mouth breathing idiot.

You're not required to have a car to have a license to drive either. But it is anticipated by the state and so they require you to live up to certain standards if you want a driver's license. And, I guess all those judges and attorneys who represent children's interest in marriage at divorces in family court are "fools" for assuming kids have a legal stake in the marriage contract.

A state anticipates the arrival of children. Otherwise they have zero interest in giving tax breaks to marrieds as an incentive to place a potential mother and father in a home. As far as a state is concerned you can marry your car stereo. Just don't expect tax breaks unless you can prove up your structure will benefit kids expected to arrive.. Marriage licensing is a state-incentive program which was just completely dismantled by 5 people on behalf of 300 million, without their consent.

 

[Asclepias]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy.

 

[Silhouette]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy.

Your comment itself is a logical fallacy because it lacks substantive proof for its claim. My comments however provide links to the sources themselves and ample substance. Or are you saying contract case law doesn't exist? Or that children don't have guardians ad litem in courts where their interests are at stake?

Yes yes I know "my life is terrible and this is the reason I post about gay marriage all the time"...blah blah blah. There is some truth in all of us who post about topics we are passionate about. When our lives become mundane or in my case often overwhelming with strife and responsibilities, we turn to the internet and posting to vent a bit. Guilty as charged. If my life had more positives like all of ours I suppose, we'd all be off enjoying them and not showing up here to gripe and complain. I'd been having a great time until this morning, so back I am!

But you have to admit that for a venting issue, taking up the cause of protecting the very structure of society and the rights of children, to keep it away from the 5 kings and queens of SCOTUS and return it to where it properly belongs: society, is a very constructive use of a gripe. That just 5 people could created conditions for 300 million where boys and girls grow up systematically not knowing any female matriarchal figure or no male patriarchal figure is worse than anything Hitler could've dreamed up. It truly is Machiavellian..

 

[Asclepias]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy.

Your comment itself is a logical fallacy because it lacks substantive proof for its claim. My comments however provide links to the sources themselves and ample substance. Or are you saying contract case law doesn't exist? Or that children don't have guardians ad litem in courts where their interests are at stake?

Your post is the proof. Any fool that believes you have to have children in order to get married is a mouth breathing idiot. Therein lies just one example of your logical fallacy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. It will remain legal in all 50 states and there is nothing you fanatical conservo-fascists can do about it. End of story.

 

[Silhouette]

Your post is the proof. Any fool that believes you have to have children in order to get married is a mouth breathing idiot.

You're not required to have a car to have a license to drive either. But it is anticipated by the state and so they require you to live up to certain standards if you want a driver's license. And, I guess all those judges and attorneys who represent children's interest in marriage at divorces in family court are "fools" for assuming kids have a legal stake in the marriage contract.

A state anticipates the arrival of children. Otherwise they have zero interest in giving tax breaks to marrieds as an incentive to place a potential mother and father in a home. As far as a state is concerned you can marry your car stereo. Just don't expect tax breaks unless you can prove up your structure will benefit kids expected to arrive.. Marriage licensing is a state-incentive program which was just completely dismantled by 5 people on behalf of 300 million, without their consent.

 

[Asclepias]

Your post is the proof. Any fool that believes you have to have children in order to get married is a mouth breathing idiot.

You're not required to have a car to have a license to drive either. But it is anticipated by the state and so they require you to live up to certain standards if you want a driver's license. And, I guess all those judges and attorneys who represent children's interest in marriage at divorces in family court are "fools" for assuming kids have a legal stake in the marriage contract.

A state anticipates the arrival of children. Otherwise they have zero interest in giving tax breaks to marrieds as an incentive to place a potential mother and father in a home. As far as a state is concerned you can marry your car stereo. Just don't expect tax breaks unless you can prove up your structure will benefit kids expected to arrive.. Marriage licensing is a state-incentive program which was just completely dismantled by 5 people on behalf of 300 million, without their consent.

Another logical fallacy. This post is a great example of false equivalence. You need a tutor in order to make a coherent point.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A state anticipates the arrival of children. Otherwise they have zero interest in giving tax breaks to marrieds as an incentive to place a potential mother and father in a home. As far as a state is concerned you can marry your car stereo. Just don't expect tax breaks unless you can prove up your structure will benefit kids expected to arrive.

Why should married people get tax breaks over unmarried people in the first place?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is neither for nor about children.

 

[Silhouette]

A state anticipates the arrival of children. Otherwise they have zero interest in giving tax breaks to marrieds as an incentive to place a potential mother and father in a home. As far as a state is concerned you can marry your car stereo. Just don't expect tax breaks unless you can prove up your structure will benefit kids expected to arrive.

Why should married people get tax breaks over unmarried people in the first place?

As always and throughout the history of marriage in the various states enacting tax breaks for them: TO ENCOURAGE A MOTHER AND FATHER IN A HOME FOR THE BEST BENEFIT OF THE ANTICIPATION OF CHILDREN EITHER NATURAL OR ADOPTED OR GRANDCHILDREN TO ARRIVE...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A state anticipates the arrival of children. Otherwise they have zero interest in giving tax breaks to marrieds as an incentive to place a potential mother and father in a home. As far as a state is concerned you can marry your car stereo. Just don't expect tax breaks unless you can prove up your structure will benefit kids expected to arrive.

Why should married people get tax breaks over unmarried people in the first place?

Because society likes to promote marriage. It's a stabilizing factor. The state is allowed to promote what's good for the state, like wearing your seat belt and bicycle helmet.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A state anticipates the arrival of children. Otherwise they have zero interest in giving tax breaks to marrieds as an incentive to place a potential mother and father in a home. As far as a state is concerned you can marry your car stereo. Just don't expect tax breaks unless you can prove up your structure will benefit kids expected to arrive.

Why should married people get tax breaks over unmarried people in the first place?

As always and throughout the history of marriage in the various states enacting tax breaks for them: TO ENCOURAGE A MOTHER AND FATHER IN A HOME FOR THE BEST BENEFIT OF THE ANTICIPATION OF CHILDREN EITHER NATURAL OR ADOPTED OR GRANDCHILDREN TO ARRIVE...

Marriage has never been about children but it is useful in dealing with inheritance.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage neither for nor about children.

Similar Paint-logic: , "a driver's license is neither for nor about operating cars on a roadway...."

There is no requirement to own a car in order to get a driver's license. Yet, the state assumes you will drive at some point, so they make you live up to certain standards in order to get a driver's license...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is neither for nor about children.

Similarly, a driver's license is neither for nor about operating cars on a roadway....

There is no requirement to own a car in order to get a driver's license. It's assumed you will drive at some point.

And it's assumed that you will have children at some point but no license is required. Most people can figure that out on their own.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is neither for nor about children.

Similarly, a driver's license is neither for nor about operating cars on a roadway....

There is no requirement to own a car in order to get a driver's license. It's assumed you will drive at some point.

And it's assumed that you will have children at some point but no license is required. Most people can figure that out on their own.

Good then brothers and sisters and polygamists may marry since "the structure of a marriage is in no way about children, and, therefore, anyone can marry anyone they like if they are consenting adults". Glad you finally admitted that...

But you want to know something ironic? When questioned about legalizing polygamy, LGBT's FIRST point is "those marriages are harmful to the children involved; so they MUST remain illegal..."...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Good then brothers and sisters and polygamists may marry since "the structure of a marriage is in no way about children, and, therefore, anyone can marry anyone they like if they are consenting adults". Glad you finally admitted that...

I've never had a problem with that although currently it's limited to just two. Why should you care if siblings or close relations marry?

 

[Silhouette]

Good then brothers and sisters and polygamists may marry since "the structure of a marriage is in no way about children, and, therefore, anyone can marry anyone they like if they are consenting adults". Glad you finally admitted that...

I've never had a problem with that although currently it's limited to just two. Why should you care if siblings or close relations marry?

More important is the question why states should worry: inbreeding creates predictable deformation and ill health in children. Hence why they don't incentivize those marriages. You agree they are still illegal for precisely that point, yes?

 

[mdk]

The last nine threads you started on this exact same topic were an utter failure as well. Glutton for punishment?

Meanwhile, queers continue to marry in every state and all you can do is gnash your teeth/craft wild conspiracies to keep you warm at night.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Good then brothers and sisters and polygamists may marry since "the structure of a marriage is in no way about children, and, therefore, anyone can marry anyone they like if they are consenting adults". Glad you finally admitted that...

I've never had a problem with that although currently it's limited to just two. Why should you care if siblings or close relations marry?

More important is the question why states should worry: inbreeding creates predictable deformation and ill health in children. Hence why they don't incentivize those marriages. You agree they are still illegal for precisely that point, yes?

Nope. They are illegal because people find the idea icky. The coupling can create children either way and you'll never get past the fact that being able to have children, or even planning to, is not a requirement for marriage. Children are, at best, a byproduct of married sex.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As far as a state is concerned you can marry your car stereo. Just don't expect tax breaks unless you can prove up your structure will benefit kids expected to arrive..

Well that is false. Any tax breaks pertaining to conceiving (medical), pregnancy (medical), and child rearing are equally available to single parents and parents that are not civilly married. Medical expenses not covered by insurance can be claimed (if a long form is used for taxes and the expenses exceed 10% of AGI) as a tax deduction. Civil Marriage is not required.

Deductions for raising a child, such as a standard deduction and the deduction of child care expenses are also available to non married individual and couples raising a child. If a non-married couple they just need to ensure that the receipt for payment, no matter who supplies the actual money, shows that person itemizing deductions has the receipt in their name.

Marriage licensing is a state-incentive program which was just completely dismantled by 5 people on behalf of 300 million, without their consent.

This is a factually incorrect statement. Prior to the SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

• 2004 Massachusetts
• 2008 Connecticut
• 2009 District of Columbia
• 2009 Iowa
  
• 2009 New Hampshire
• 2009 Vermont
• 2011 New York
• 2012 Maine
• 2012 Maryland
• 2012 Minnesota
• 2012 Washington
• 2013 California
• 2013 Delaware
• 2013 Hawaii
• 2013 Illinois
• 2013 New Jersey
• 2013 New Mexico
• 2013 Rhode Island

(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)


>>>>