Silhouette said:
Removing all hope of a child gaining a mother or father for the duration of that child's entire formative years is harsh an onerous.
Says you, citing you. Which means nothing. Nor does any case you've cited even mention marriage. Nor does it back any of the pseudo-legal gibberish you've imagined about marriage.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has explicitly contradicted you, finding that denying same sex marriage is harmful to children. That the right to marry has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. And that same sex marriage benefits children.
Windsor v. US said:
And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
With the Supreme Court reiterating the harm denying same sex marriage causes children in the Obergefell ruling.
Obergefell v Hodge said:
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.
And finally, the Supreme Court found that same sex marriage benefits children:
Obergefell v Hodge said:
By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests.
And affirm again that same sex marriage benefits children, recognizing gays and lesbians as creating loving, supportive families:
Obergefell v Hodge said:
As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.
And of course, the Supreme Court already affirmed that the right to married is predicated on neither children nor the ability to have them.
Obergefell v. Hodges said:
This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.
You ignore it all. And the laughably pretend that if you ignore it, every court is obligated to ignore it as well. Including, even more bizarrely, the very court that wrote those rulings.
Um, no. Your imagination obligates no one to do anything.
