Specific Legal Mandates Why Gay Marriage Is Illegal Everywhere in the United States

[Syriusly]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

 

[Silhouette]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

That's weird, because 8 out of 9 (nearly 90%) people voted on the poll here that according to NY vs Ferber, gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states... A constitutional "right" cannot be enjoyed by an adult if it strips a child of a vital psychological necessity (a boy, a father/a girl, a mother)..

In Obergefell, the Court did not hear argument, nor was it about whether or not boys need fathers or girls need mothers. So, Obergefell's merits may stand on their own (they don't, but let's say they do for argument's sake). But even standing on their own, if they affirm an adult constitutional right and that right is shown to deprive children of a vital psychological component in their formative lives...guess what? Obergefell cannot force states to observe it. It cannot force anyone at all to observe it...

 

[mdk]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

That's weird, because 8 out of 9 (nearly 90%) people voted on the poll here that according to NY vs Ferber, gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states... A constitutional "right" cannot be enjoyed by an adult if it strips a child of a vital psychological necessity (a boy, a father/a girl, a mother)..

In Obergefell, the Court did not hear argument, nor was it about whether or not boys need fathers or girls need mothers. So, Obergefell's merits may stand on their own (they don't, but let's say they do for argument's sake). But even standing on their own, if they affirm an adult constitutional right and that right is shown to deprive children of a vital psychological component in their formative lives...guess what? Obergefell cannot force states to observe it. It cannot force anyone at all to observe it...

Wow! A whole 8 people!? lol. Your OP and Poll never mention Feber but if it makes you feel better to pretend otherwise you are free to do so.

Meanwhile, like yesterday, gay marriage is still legal everywhere in the United States. Better luck tomorrow.

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

That's weird, because 8 out of 9 (nearly 90%) people voted on the poll here that according to NY vs Ferber, gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states.....

What's weird is that you take your 'poll's' seriously.

Marriage for Americans- regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation- legal in all 50 states.

Despite your tantrums to the contrary.

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell cannot force states to observe it. It cannot force anyone at all to observe it...

But it is forcing States to observe it.

Despite your tantrums.

 

[mdk]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me, using ad hominem liberally in defense of points you know you can't defend...and putting words into my mouth...and practicing no small amount of just blatant gaslighting. At some point your audience is going to realize where the evil is lodged firmly in this debate between us. Even people with no religion can sense evil when it presents itself so audaciously.

Do carry on.. I like not having to work that hard.

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me, using ad hominem liberally in defense of points you know you can't defend...and putting words into my mouth...and practicing no small amount of just blatant gaslighting. At some point your audience is going to realize where the evil is lodged firmly in this debate between us. Even people with no religion can sense evil when it presents itself so audaciously.

Do carry on.. I like not having to work that hard.

Anyone reading this thread can see that you're misinformed. And that the Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you.

4 times.

They can also rapidly glean that you're insisting we ignore the Supreme Court and their findings on the matter....and instead accept whatever you make up.

No thank you.

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me, using ad hominem liberally in defense of points you know you can't defend...and putting words into my mouth...and practicing no small amount of just blatant gaslighting. At some point your audience is going to realize where the evil is lodged firmly in this debate between us. Even people with no religion can sense evil when it presents itself so audaciously.

Do carry on.. I like not having to work that hard.

Anyone reading this thread can see that you're misinformed. And that the Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you.

4 times.

They can also rapidly glean that you're insisting we ignore the Supreme Court and their findings on the matter....and instead accept whatever you make up.

No thank you.

What is fun is among the mass of Silhouette self contradictions is that she finds that the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell is invalid because of the Supreme Court ruing in Ferber.

She wants us to believe that a Supreme Court ruling is invalid- because of another Supreme Court ruling........on a different subject entirely.

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

That's weird, because 8 out of 9 (nearly 90%) people voted on the poll here that according to NY vs Ferber, gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states... A constitutional "right" cannot be enjoyed by an adult if it strips a child of a vital psychological necessity (a boy, a father/a girl, a mother)..

A poll of 9 people is both statistically and legally meaningless. A Supreme Court ruling is legally authoritative.

See how that works?

The courts explicitly contradicted you, finding that same sex marriage benefits children. And that denying same sex marriage hurts children. Thus, per your own interpretations of Ferber, the court should have (and of course did) recognize same sex marriage to benefit children and prevent them from being harmed.

You disagree with the court's findings, insisting that the Supreme Court is bound to your personal opinion. It isn't. Nor is the validity or authority of any court ruling predicated on your agreement.

And is if this dead horse hadn't been kicked enough,. the court found that the right to marry wasn't predicated upon children or the ability to have them. With people who cannot have children or will not have children having the same right to marry as those who can or do.

Killing your argument yet again

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. And no court nor law is bound to your personal opinion. Especially on matters you're so poorly informed about.

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me, using ad hominem liberally in defense of points you know you can't defend...and putting words into my mouth...and practicing no small amount of just blatant gaslighting. At some point your audience is going to realize where the evil is lodged firmly in this debate between us. Even people with no religion can sense evil when it presents itself so audaciously.

Do carry on.. I like not having to work that hard.

Anyone reading this thread can see that you're misinformed. And that the Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you.

4 times.

They can also rapidly glean that you're insisting we ignore the Supreme Court and their findings on the matter....and instead accept whatever you make up.

No thank you.

What is fun is among the mass of Silhouette self contradictions is that she finds that the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell is invalid because of the Supreme Court ruing in Ferber.

She wants us to believe that a Supreme Court ruling is invalid- because of another Supreme Court ruling........on a different subject entirely.

And she has to ignore the ACTUAL findings of the Supreme Court on the very issues she's discussing: the welfare of children. The court found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

Thus, by her own interpretation of Ferber, the courts had to recognize same sex marriage.

Her entire argument is predicated on the idea that her personal opinion trumps any finding or ruling of the Supreme Court. Which, of course, it doesn't.

 

[Silhouette]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

That's weird, because 8 out of 9 (nearly 90%) people voted on the poll here that according to NY vs Ferber, gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states... A constitutional "right" cannot be enjoyed by an adult if it strips a child of a vital psychological necessity (a boy, a father/a girl, a mother)..

A poll of 9 people is both statistically and legally meaningless. A Supreme Court ruling is legally authoritative.

See how that works?

That's funny The USSC is a poll of 9 people too. And they don't have any more of a degree of child psychology than the 9 people who voted here. Which makes New York vs Ferber especially troubling for you. You will never convince, even Justice Kennedy (unless he's bought and paid for) that boys do just as well without fathers and girls do just as well without mothers; indeed BANNED from them, for life than man/woman marriage..

NY v Ferber says that adult civil rights take a back seat to children's psychological well being. Behaviors cannot have civil rights unless they are a religion. But even if they did, they'd still have to provide boys with a father and girls with a mother; because if they don't, that's depriving the child of a need...NY v Ferber concludes your "civil right" can't do that..

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

That's weird, because 8 out of 9 (nearly 90%) people voted on the poll here that according to NY vs Ferber, gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states... A constitutional "right" cannot be enjoyed by an adult if it strips a child of a vital psychological necessity (a boy, a father/a girl, a mother)..

A poll of 9 people is both statistically and legally meaningless. A Supreme Court ruling is legally authoritative.

See how that works?

That's funny The USSC is a poll of 9 people too. ..

Silhouette- unable to tell the difference between an online poll- and a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

[ Behaviors cannot have civil rights unless they are a religion. ..

Behaviors don't have civil rights- people do.

Obergefell was about denying the civil rights of people- which the court found that that the States were doing- just as the court had previously found in three other marriage cases.

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

That's weird, because 8 out of 9 (nearly 90%) people voted on the poll here that according to NY vs Ferber, gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states... A constitutional "right" cannot be enjoyed by an adult if it strips a child of a vital psychological necessity (a boy, a father/a girl, a mother)..

A poll of 9 people is both statistically and legally meaningless. A Supreme Court ruling is legally authoritative.

See how that works?

That's funny The USSC is a poll of 9 people too.

9 people imbued with the constitutional authority to interpret the constitution and
adjudicate issues that arise under it.

Which you equate to any 9 people at random. Demonstrating once again that you don't have the slightest clue how our system of laws works. Nor does any of your gibberish have a thing to do with the actual law.

There's a reason why your every legal prediction is wrong: You keep citing yourself as the law. And you're still nobody.

And they don't have any more of a degree of child psychology than the 9 people who voted here. Which makes New York vs Ferber especially troubling for you. You will never convince, even Justice Kennedy (unless he's bought and paid for) that boys do just as well without fathers and girls do just as well without mothers; indeed BANNED from them, for life than man/woman marriage..

Not even a little, Sil. As Ferber never so much as mentions marriage. It never finds that same sex marriage harms children, that parents are married to their children, that a marriage of parents is a 'minor contract' of children, or any of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

You hallucinated all of that. Ferber never says any of it. And your hallucinations are legally irrelevant.

You're insisting that since you disagree with the FINDINGS of the Supreme Court that their ruling is 'void', 'illegal', a 'mistrial' and all manner of nonsense. And the validity of no ruling is predicated on your agreement with it.

Remember, you're nobody. That you disagree with the Supreme Court is legally meaningless.

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that anyone reading our interchange here can see that you are ganging up on me,.

I realize that everyone (of the dozen's) reading our interchange knows that 'gay marriage' i.e. marriage equality- is legal in all 50 states and your claims are just insane.

That's weird, because 8 out of 9 (nearly 90%) people voted on the poll here that according to NY vs Ferber, gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states... A constitutional "right" cannot be enjoyed by an adult if it strips a child of a vital psychological necessity (a boy, a father/a girl, a mother)..

A poll of 9 people is both statistically and legally meaningless. A Supreme Court ruling is legally authoritative.

See how that works?

That's funny The USSC is a poll of 9 people too. ..

Silhouette- unable to tell the difference between an online poll- and a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

And she wonders why her predictions on any case or legal issue have been one of perfect failure.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette- unable to tell the difference between an online poll- and a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

There is no difference when it comes to qualifications to pass binding, lifelong decrees derived from armchair "child psychology". At most the Five Justices took their best guess at what might be OK for kids: (since they did not allow dissenting argument, nor was the case about "does this interfere with or cause harm to children's best psychological adjustment?)

So when it comes to the essence of the legal question "can adults break contractual obligations to infants when doing so would cause them harm", the Justices are equally qualified to the 9 voters on the poll here. They haven't heard that case yet and when they do, they'd damn well better listen to what kids have to say (link in my signature) at the very least. A read-through on the Prince's Trust 2010 survey wouldn't hurt either. Then if they find that boys lacking dads or girls lacking moms isn't good for kids, they can visit NY vs Ferber to see which one of the two (the newly and illegally preferential creation of a "class" of adults based on some deviant sex fixations, or children's psychological well being) they will find dominant in Law. From there, the states will likely sort it out, how they want to deal with "gay marriage vs mom/dad necessity for kids". ie: how they will or will not incentivize gay marriage with tax breaks, or if it should be legal at all..

Marriage was not created with adult interests in mind. Marriage was created with the expectation of how it would best serve children. Adults play a secondary role, not a primary one in how marriage was always defined. If it is found for gay marriage, it isn't merely "granting gays the right to marry". In fact, Obergefell was a five-person Declaration (two of which displayed patent prejudice) negating billions of people over a thousand years' understanding of the very reason the word "marriage" came into being: as a service to children and the society that had to deal with them as adults as a direct result of the environment in which they grew up.

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette- unable to tell the difference between an online poll- and a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

There is no difference when it comes to qualifications to pass binding, lifelong decrees .

LOL- yes there is a difference Silhouette.

Your 'online' poll is merely the musings of a few people with no authority or legal expertise.

The decision of the Supreme Court is done by people authorized by the U.S. Constitution to make those decisions, all of whom are legal experts.

That you can't tell the difference between the two just shows how delusional you are.

 

[Montrovant]

Silhouette- unable to tell the difference between an online poll- and a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

There is no difference when it comes to qualifications to pass binding, lifelong decrees derived from armchair "child psychology". At most the Five Justices took their best guess at what might be OK for kids: (since they did not allow dissenting argument, nor was the case about "does this interfere with or cause harm to children's best psychological adjustment?)

So when it comes to the essence of the legal question "can adults break contractual obligations to infants when doing so would cause them harm", the Justices are equally qualified to the 9 voters on the poll here. They haven't heard that case yet and when they do, they'd damn well better listen to what kids have to say (link in my signature) at the very least. A read-through on the Prince's Trust 2010 survey wouldn't hurt either. Then if they find that boys lacking dads or girls lacking moms isn't good for kids, they can visit NY vs Ferber to see which one of the two (the newly and illegally preferential creation of a "class" of adults based on some deviant sex fixations, or children's psychological well being) they will find dominant in Law. From there, the states will likely sort it out, how they want to deal with "gay marriage vs mom/dad necessity for kids". ie: how they will or will not incentivize gay marriage with tax breaks, or if it should be legal at all..

Marriage was not created with adult interests in mind. Marriage was created with the expectation of how it would best serve children. Adults play a secondary role, not a primary one in how marriage was always defined. If it is found for gay marriage, it isn't merely "granting gays the right to marry". In fact, Obergefell was a five-person Declaration (two of which displayed patent prejudice) negating billions of people over a thousand years' understanding of the very reason the word "marriage" came into being: as a service to children and the society that had to deal with them as adults as a direct result of the environment in which they grew up.

Marriage is not a contractual obligation to infants. The obligations that parents have to their children under the law exist whether or not those parents are married.

Have you been under the impression that only married parents have legal obligations to their children, or that the legal obligations of parents to their children change when they marry?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is not a contractual obligation to infants. The obligations that parents have to their children under the law exist whether or not those parents are married.

Using tax incentives, states encourage marriage to bond mothers and fathers in a permanent way (an incentive program). No incentive program is 100% successful, but it is better than sentencing children to life without the possibility of having either a mother or father. (gay marriage). Even single parents present the hope of one day providing the missing parent.

Why do states incentivize it with tax breaks? So that adults can shack up and escape paying taxes; all for stripping children even of the hope of the missing parent in their lives? No, the states incentivize mother/father marriage because they get something in return. They get boys with fathers and girls with mothers so that these poor souls don't grow up to be statistically "lost" in their formative years and turn to drugs, depression, suicide, indigency and prison as result.. PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[Montrovant]

Marriage is not a contractual obligation to infants. The obligations that parents have to their children under the law exist whether or not those parents are married.

Using tax incentives, states encourage marriage to bond mothers and fathers in a permanent way (an incentive program). No incentive program is 100% successful, but it is better than sentencing children to life without the possibility of having either a mother or father. (gay marriage). Even single parents present the hope of one day providing the missing parent.

Why do states incentivize it with tax breaks? So that adults can shack up and escape paying taxes; all for stripping children even of the hope of the missing parent in their lives? No, the states incentivize mother/father marriage because they get something in return. They get boys with fathers and girls with mothers so that these poor souls don't grow up to be statistically "lost" in their formative years and turn to drugs, depression, suicide, indigency and prison as result.. PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

None of what you just posted makes marriage a contractual obligation to infants. Nor does it address the fact that the legal obligations of parents to their children exist whether or not those parents are married; nor does it address the fact that tax incentives for children exist whether or not the parents are married; nor does repeating your lies about the Prince's Trust survey make them any more true than in the past.