States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage

[Syriusly]

Which person in the photo at the top will be the mother to children in that "married home"?

Which person in the bottom photo will be the father to children in that "married home"?

Where are the children who are involved in all of this? You never speak of them. Wish you would..

What children?

You don't give a damn about children.

You want to deny the children of gay couples having married parents.

Just because of your hatred of gays.

If you really cared about kids- you would focus on the vast majority of children in single parent households- but like the kids of gay couples- you don't give a damn about kids except as a tool to attack homosexuals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I hope the states do contest it . and not because I care about someone getting married. but about the WAY this was brought down us in the middle of night and then say. take it AND shut the HELL up about it forever. 97% of the people in this country is now being FORCED to bow down to 3% or be accused of all kinds of discriminations and be sued out of your business and now be thrown in jail. 97% of you now have no rights to refuse service to anyone, to refuse to cater something you don't feel comfortable catering it and well, that's just too damn bad now. and it will go and on.
enjoy it. I see many more people in jail in the near future. just hope it's no one you know or a family member.

Why don't you tell your troubles to Linda Harvey? She'll listen. Given how far off the rails she is, she might even think that you're sane:

Linda Harvey: US Must Fight Gay Rights, Not Climate Change Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 9/16/2015 11:55 am

Mission America’s Linda Harvey is furious that President Obama “continues to exalt the climate-change agenda above actual global crises,” namely the “crises” of gay rights and reproductive freedom. “Disease, emotional trauma, mutilation, family division, domestic violence and self-harm follow in the wake of ‘LGBTQ etc.’ identities and ‘reproductive rights,’” Harvey wrote in her WorldNetDaily column today.

“There’s no way to disguise or adequately manage the wreckage left in the wake of these unnatural, life-rejecting behaviors.” Warning that “our culture’s current embrace of sexual license is an environmental disaster,” the Religious Right activist declared that “the Gulf oil spill is pond scum in comparison.” - See more at: Linda Harvey: US Must Fight Gay Rights, Not Climate Change

Read the whole thing! It's a real hoot. You're in good company!!

 

[Silhouette]

What children?

You don't give a damn about children.

You want to deny the children of gay couples having married parents. .

5 posts in a row. Are you trying to spam something into oblivion again?

There is no such thing as "children of gays". There are children caught up in the gay lifestyle, but they do not belong to both gay people. There is always a missing vital parent. Children need both a mother and a father in marriage. The states need children to have this in marriage so their tax breaks are well spent, not handed out to situations gauranteed to produce stunted and dysfunctional adults.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What children?

You don't give a damn about children.

You want to deny the children of gay couples having married parents. .

5 posts in a row. Are you trying to spam something into oblivion again?

There is no such thing as "children of gays". There are children caught up in the gay lifestyle, but they do not belong to both gay people. There is always a missing vital parent. Children need both a mother and a father in marriage. The states need children to have this in marriage so their tax breaks are well spent, not handed out to situations gauranteed to produce stunted and dysfunctional adults.

The missing parent isn't vital, obviously, and with a gay couple at least you have two adults to help support and raise a child...

"Single Parents By the Numbers
According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2009, a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau every two years (and most recently in December 2011), there are approximately 13.7 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 22 million children. This number represents approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today."
The Most Important Statistics About Single Parents

 

[Syriusly]

What children?

You don't give a damn about children.

You want to deny the children of gay couples having married parents. .

5 posts in a row. Are you trying to spam something into oblivion again?

There is no such thing as "children of gays". .

Justice Kennedy disagrees with you.

And he is an actual legal authority-and you are a legal idiot

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What children?

You don't give a damn about children.

You want to deny the children of gay couples having married parents. .

5 posts in a row. Are you trying to spam something into oblivion again?

There is no such thing as "children of gays". There are children caught up in the gay lifestyle, but they do not belong to both gay people. There is always a missing vital parent. Children need both a mother and a father in marriage. The states need children to have this in marriage so their tax breaks are well spent, not handed out to situations gauranteed to produce stunted and dysfunctional adults.

Just a few questions if I may:

Do you advocate the removal by force of law of all children currently in the care of gay individuals and couples so that they can be placed with a "mother and a father"?

Do you have any credible evidence in the form of peer reviewed research that shows that children who do not have both a biological mother and a father become stunted and dysfunctional adults?

How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Thank you.

The state doesn't "insure" (sic), it entices. States want to dangle a goody out there to entice the minimal number possible of children born to single people or to be in homes where either their mother or father are not present. And the reason states entice people this way is for the state's fiscal interest. States know statistically (not in each and every single case, but predominanty) that children grow up best and into the most well-rounded adult and productive citizens if they are raised in a home with both their mother and father present. Boys need a dad. Girls need a mom. It's all in the Prince's Trust link in the OP.

So a state throwing money breaks to a gay couple gets nothing but its own assured fiscal doom, statistically-speaking. You will counter with rare exceptions to the rule but the state when weighing its future finances is not going to be interested in looking at rare exceptions. It will do its calculations off of the preponderance of fact, not the rare exceptions to it.

So a state therefore has a direct, manifest and concrete interest in being able to regulate marriage so that its enticements do not have to be "legally forced" (by the fed) to go to fiscal pissing in the wind.

And that's just the emotionless fiscal argument. The psychological-stunting issue of kids raised in gay homes is an issue also of a state mandate in order to 1. Protect children from an anticipated harm (a thing they are required by federal law to do) and 2. To keep getting federal CAPTA money for insuring that children do not come to predictable and foreseeable harm.

There is nothing I can think of that is more damaging to a child than to live the daily example and message to them that "not only do you not have a mom (or dad), but that there is never ever even the remotest hope that you will ever have one: we are going to make sure of that." ....by the very structure of their relationship. Adults are free to have their sexual kinks. Only they cannot force a child-protecting state to play along to the absolute predictable psychological harm to children..

One of the number 1 issues of boys raised without a father or girls without a mother is indigency when they become young adults. And this rises from esteem issues of not seeing "themselves" represented in the daily adult world they grew up in. If they figure they don't matter, then applying for a job doesn't matter because who would hire a third wheel? etc. Imagine a boy raised in a lesbian home. How much do you think he would internalize "mattering in the functioning adult world" by the time he was 25?

There is a conflict, a direct conflict between the federal CAPTA guidelines and the mandate of "gay marriage" across the 50 states. It's right in the OP. Even a half wit lawyer could read the fine print and have a case.

 

[Silhouette]

I hope that answered your question Patriot?

 

[Syriusly]

How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Thank you.

. Boys need a dad. Girls need a mom. It's all in the Prince's Trust link in the OP..

Silhouette is posting- hence lying again.

The Prince's study doesn't mention boys needing a dad or girls needing a mom.

Not once.

 

[Syriusly]

How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Thank you.

. Imagine a boy raised in a lesbian home. How much do you think he would internalize "mattering in the functioning adult world" by the time he was 25?.

As well or better than any boy raised by a single mom.

Isn't it odd that you want to deny that boy married mom's but pretend to care about him?

Or do you really want to have the state remove the boy from his mom's household?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?

Thank you.

The state doesn't "insure" (sic), it entices. States want to dangle a goody out there to entice the minimal number possible of children born to single people or to be in homes where either their mother or father are not present. And the reason states entice people this way is for the state's fiscal interest. States know statistically (not in each and every single case, but predominanty) that children grow up best and into the most well-rounded adult and productive citizens if they are raised in a home with both their mother and father present. Boys need a dad. Girls need a mom. It's all in the Prince's Trust link in the OP.

So a state throwing money breaks to a gay couple gets nothing but its own assured fiscal doom, statistically-speaking. You will counter with rare exceptions to the rule but the state when weighing its future finances is not going to be interested in looking at rare exceptions. It will do its calculations off of the preponderance of fact, not the rare exceptions to it.

So a state therefore has a direct, manifest and concrete interest in being able to regulate marriage so that its enticements do not have to be "legally forced" (by the fed) to go to fiscal pissing in the wind.

And that's just the emotionless fiscal argument. The psychological-stunting issue of kids raised in gay homes is an issue also of a state mandate in order to 1. Protect children from an anticipated harm (a thing they are required by federal law to do) and 2. To keep getting federal CAPTA money for insuring that children do not come to predictable and foreseeable harm.

There is nothing I can think of that is more damaging to a child than to live the daily example and message to them that "not only do you not have a mom (or dad), but that there is never ever even the remotest hope that you will ever have one: we are going to make sure of that." ....by the very structure of their relationship. Adults are free to have their sexual kinks. Only they cannot force a child-protecting state to play along to the absolute predictable psychological harm to children..

One of the number 1 issues of boys raised without a father or girls without a mother is indigency when they become young adults. And this rises from esteem issues of not seeing "themselves" represented in the daily adult world they grew up in. If they figure they don't matter, then applying for a job doesn't matter because who would hire a third wheel? etc. Imagine a boy raised in a lesbian home. How much do you think he would internalize "mattering in the functioning adult world" by the time he was 25?

There is a conflict, a direct conflict between the federal CAPTA guidelines and the mandate of "gay marriage" across the 50 states. It's right in the OP. Even a half wit lawyer could read the fine print and have a case.

This stuff about taxes and state fiscal issues is nothing more than incoherent, uniformed, nonsensical jabbering. It makes no ******* sense at all. Is the issue single parenting , or is it gay parenting? Make up your mind . While you’re at it, try to explain what any of that has to do with marriage. People get tax credits for dependents. Period. They get the credits whether they are single or married, gay or straight.

Furthermore, no one automatically get additional tax breaks just for being married. They get to file a joint return if they so choose which may result in lower total taxes than if they filed individually, but not necessarily.

In addition, same sex marriage and gay parenting costs the state NOTHING and in fact marriage equality is a boon to the economy.

8 Ways Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Is Good For The Economy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/same-sex-marriage-economy_n_3267725.html

My only question is , do you knowingly make up this horseshit or is it the voices in your head telling you this?

As for your hateful rhetoric and outright lies, you have yet to provide a shred of credible evidence that same sex marriage is harmful or even that it puts children at any sort of disadvantage. Where is this Prince's Trust link in the OP.?? This is the kind of bogus crap that is out there. ……….if you have any interest or ability to learn anything-which I doubt-you’ll read this

Here is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/u...-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

No get out of my face with your hateful stupidity

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I hope that answered your question Patriot?

You have not answered a damned thing .

 

[Silhouette]

I hope that answered your question Patriot?

You have not answered a damned thing .

Yes I did. You asked this:

How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?
Thank you.

And I answered you this in intricate detail:
****
The state doesn't "insure" (sic), it entices. States want to dangle a goody out there to entice the minimal number possible of children born to single people or to be in homes where either their mother or father are not present. And the reason states entice people this way is for the state's fiscal interest. States know statistically (not in each and every single case, but predominanty) that children grow up best and into the most well-rounded adult and productive citizens if they are raised in a home with both their mother and father present. Boys need a dad. Girls need a mom. It's all in the Prince's Trust link in the OP.

So a state throwing money breaks to a gay couple gets nothing but its own assured fiscal doom, statistically-speaking. You will counter with rare exceptions to the rule but the state when weighing its future finances is not going to be interested in looking at rare exceptions. It will do its calculations off of the preponderance of fact, not the rare exceptions to it.
So a state therefore has a direct, manifest and concrete interest in being able to regulate marriage so that its enticements do not have to be "legally forced" (by the fed) to go to fiscal pissing in the wind.

And that's just the emotionless fiscal argument. The psychological-stunting issue of kids raised in gay homes is an issue also of a state mandate in order to 1. Protect children from an anticipated harm (a thing they are required by federal law to do) and 2. To keep getting federal CAPTA money for insuring that children do not come to predictable and foreseeable harm.

There is nothing I can think of that is more damaging to a child than to live the daily example and message to them that "not only do you not have a mom (or dad), but that there is never ever even the remotest hope that you will ever have one: we are going to make sure of that." ....by the very structure of their relationship. Adults are free to have their sexual kinks. Only they cannot force a child-protecting state to play along to the absolute predictable psychological harm to children..

One of the number 1 issues of boys raised without a father or girls without a mother is indigency when they become young adults. And this rises from esteem issues of not seeing "themselves" represented in the daily adult world they grew up in. If they figure they don't matter, then applying for a job doesn't matter because who would hire a third wheel? etc. Imagine a boy raised in a lesbian home. How much do you think he would internalize "mattering in the functioning adult world" by the time he was 25?

There is a conflict, a direct conflict between the federal CAPTA guidelines and the mandate of "gay marriage" across the 50 states. It's right in the OP. Even a half wit lawyer could read the fine print and have a case.

 

[Montrovant]

I hope that answered your question Patriot?

You have not answered a damned thing .

Yes I did. You asked this:

How, exactly would prohibiting same sex marriage ensure that all-or most children will have both a mother and a father?
Thank you.

And I answered you this in intricate detail:
****
The state doesn't "insure" (sic), it entices. States want to dangle a goody out there to entice the minimal number possible of children born to single people or to be in homes where either their mother or father are not present. And the reason states entice people this way is for the state's fiscal interest. States know statistically (not in each and every single case, but predominanty) that children grow up best and into the most well-rounded adult and productive citizens if they are raised in a home with both their mother and father present. Boys need a dad. Girls need a mom. It's all in the Prince's Trust link in the OP.

So a state throwing money breaks to a gay couple gets nothing but its own assured fiscal doom, statistically-speaking. You will counter with rare exceptions to the rule but the state when weighing its future finances is not going to be interested in looking at rare exceptions. It will do its calculations off of the preponderance of fact, not the rare exceptions to it.
So a state therefore has a direct, manifest and concrete interest in being able to regulate marriage so that its enticements do not have to be "legally forced" (by the fed) to go to fiscal pissing in the wind.

And that's just the emotionless fiscal argument. The psychological-stunting issue of kids raised in gay homes is an issue also of a state mandate in order to 1. Protect children from an anticipated harm (a thing they are required by federal law to do) and 2. To keep getting federal CAPTA money for insuring that children do not come to predictable and foreseeable harm.

There is nothing I can think of that is more damaging to a child than to live the daily example and message to them that "not only do you not have a mom (or dad), but that there is never ever even the remotest hope that you will ever have one: we are going to make sure of that." ....by the very structure of their relationship. Adults are free to have their sexual kinks. Only they cannot force a child-protecting state to play along to the absolute predictable psychological harm to children..

One of the number 1 issues of boys raised without a father or girls without a mother is indigency when they become young adults. And this rises from esteem issues of not seeing "themselves" represented in the daily adult world they grew up in. If they figure they don't matter, then applying for a job doesn't matter because who would hire a third wheel? etc. Imagine a boy raised in a lesbian home. How much do you think he would internalize "mattering in the functioning adult world" by the time he was 25?

There is a conflict, a direct conflict between the federal CAPTA guidelines and the mandate of "gay marriage" across the 50 states. It's right in the OP. Even a half wit lawyer could read the fine print and have a case.

If you truly can think of nothing more damaging to a child than to be raised by gay parents, you are a sick individual with no imagination. Gay parents are more damaging than drunk or drug abusing parents? More damaging than physically abusive parents? More damaging than sexually abusive parents? More damaging than having no parents? On and on and on, there are so many things that could be more damaging to a child, even if one were to assume being raised by gay parents caused issues like in your beloved Prince's Trust Youth Index. But you cannot acknowledge anything worse because it might soften your anti-gay rhetoric.

 

[Syriusly]

There is nothing I can think of that is more damaging to a child than to live the daily example and message to them that "not only do you not have a mom (or dad), but that there is never ever even the remotest hope that you will ever have one: we are going to make sure of that." .....

Really?

Nothing?

Not all of the children sexually molested by their own father or step father? You don't think that might be more damaging?

How about the children who are beaten and burned and scarred by their own mother or father? You don't think that might be more damaging?

How about the child being raised by a junkie single mom who is too stoned out to even keep her child fed- or who pimps out her own child?

Or how about the child abandoned by both of his or her biological parents and left with no parents at all?

No- the worst you think you can' think of is a child having gay parents.

That is because the time you pretend to care about children is when you do so to attack homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

If you truly can think of nothing more damaging to a child than to be raised by gay parents, you are a sick individual with no imagination. Gay parents are more damaging than drunk or drug abusing parents? More damaging than physically abusive parents? More damaging than sexually abusive parents? More damaging than having no parents? On and on and on, there are so many things that could be more damaging to a child, even if one were to assume being raised by gay parents caused issues like in your beloved Prince's Trust Youth Index. But you cannot acknowledge anything worse because it might soften your anti-gay rhetoric.

If you will read my last post, states aren't in the business of doing fiscal projections off of exceptions to the rules. They follow statistical trends. I warned that you would give your rare exceptions as "arguments that the rule must be changed" But they are falling on deaf ears.

Boys raised without fathers and girls without mothers statistically feel a lack of self worth, a lack of belonging, indigency, alcohol and drug abuse; even suicidal tendencies as young adults. For a state, this is not where one want to invest one's tax incentives. It is madness to require states to incentivize their own financial doom with tax breaks for deviants who stunt children raised in their home; whom you can set your watch by will STATISTICALLY become burdens to the state.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have to take a minute to express my profound disgust and dismay at the way this thread has deteriorated in a vile swill of hatred and lies about gay and lesbian people and their fitness as parents. The people who are responsible for this have no shame and will stop at nothing, however bizarre and hateful to thwart the advancement of gay rights and have no qualms about using children as pawn in their failed fight against equality. Some of you are knowingly lying, while others have whipped themselves into a delusional frenzy. Either way, it is equally despicable because anyone who believes the bovine excrement that has been bandied about here had to have hatred in their hearts to begin with, and have seized on the lies that have been spoon fed to them to validate their bigotry. I will not be wasting my time and energy by responding further. Feel free to wallow in your ignorance and hatred until your ******* heads explode.

I sincerely believe that gay and lesbian people make fine parents, and that the children who are in their care suffer when the parents are discriminated against and not allowed to marry. This belief is not only based on a review of credible and peer reviewed literature, but also my personal, professional experience working in a child welfare agency where I not only investigated child abuse-including sexual abuse, but placed children into foster and adoptive homes. And, some of those foster and adoptive parents were gay.

Gay people have been a valuable resource and have taken in older and hard to place children with a good deal of success. My state of New Jersey was the first to allow joint adoption by gay couples some 28 years ago. Most states now allow adoption by gays. The only problems that are cited are anecdotal accounts of occasional abuse or a child who is unhappy about not having a mom and a dad, or propaganda from right wing hate groups. Let me remind you people that children who are placed for adoption have NO PARENTS, and, regardless of what they want or need, and regardless of whether we allow same sex marriage, there will always be children who do not have a mother and a father. My opening post represents an airtight case for this, and no one has been able to refute it. The only thing that they have is lies and myths to promote fear about gay people and gay parenting, not out of any real concern for the children but to advance their bigoted religious and political agenda. We are done here.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no more venom towards gays in this secular argument of why they don't qualify as parents than there is towards blind people as to why they don't qualify to drive. Gays by their very physical structure harm children "as parents". Blind people by their very physical structure are a danger to others "as drivers".

Your rare exceptions to the boys need a dad and girls need a mom statistical rule does not change the rule. It''s a plain and also instinctive fact. Instead of being "done here"...we're just gearing up. The safety and psychological wellbeing of children is not "some little collateral issue" you're going to be allowed to just sweep under the foetid rainbow rug...as your litigious steam roller crushes everything in its path.

 

[SwimExpert]

Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.

All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes their vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.

From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

You better hope that states don't have a legally valid way to deny gay marriage. Seeing as no mentally healthy man would put his penis inside you, gay marriage and beastiality are your only hopes of not dying lonely.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.

All it would take is an authority figure, or even a lone voter who wishes their vote to have counted on any marriage statute limiting who may marry in their state to make this challenge go straight to the US Supreme Court.

From a conversation started here: Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 183 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

You better hope that states don't have a legally valid way to deny gay marriage. Seeing as no mentally healthy man would put his penis inside you, gay marriage and beastiality are your only hopes of not dying lonely.

Thank you for that thoughtful, helpful and articulate contribution to an important topic.