Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
Inspired from here: Enough of this transgender nonsense. Post #1042
So, the rights going forward in New York vs Ferber will square off with the "rights going forward" in Obergefell. Like the 17 million rape survivors in this shower/bathroom debate, untold millions of children will have their day in court on whether or not it is cruel and unusual to divorce them from even hope of having a mother or father for life.
This is how gay marriage is in no way, shape or form like interracial marriage. It bears a physical defect to the detriment of children that interracial marriage does not.
New York vs Ferber (USSC1982) Found that if a person's "rights" interfere with the physical or mental well being of children, those rights cannot be exercised in that way. The only question left to answer in the Obergefell challenge, after we clarify that "gay" and "transgender" are mere behavioral aberrations, is "is divorcing a child via contract of even the hope of a mother or father for life either mentally or physically harmful to them?"
When the dust has settled from the men-pretending-to-be women using women's showers lawsuit has been clarified and settled, revisiting Obergefell from a child's perspective is next..
Yes, the rights granted in New York vs Ferber go forward. Gay marriage is not anything like interracial marriage where New York vs Ferber's conclusion is concerned. Interracial marriage still provided a mother and father to children. Gay marriage is the first type of marriage EVER to divorce children of either a mother or father...for life...Rights granted go forwards, not backwards. Gay marriage is like legal interracial marriage....
So, the rights going forward in New York vs Ferber will square off with the "rights going forward" in Obergefell. Like the 17 million rape survivors in this shower/bathroom debate, untold millions of children will have their day in court on whether or not it is cruel and unusual to divorce them from even hope of having a mother or father for life.
This is how gay marriage is in no way, shape or form like interracial marriage. It bears a physical defect to the detriment of children that interracial marriage does not.
New York vs Ferber (USSC1982) Found that if a person's "rights" interfere with the physical or mental well being of children, those rights cannot be exercised in that way. The only question left to answer in the Obergefell challenge, after we clarify that "gay" and "transgender" are mere behavioral aberrations, is "is divorcing a child via contract of even the hope of a mother or father for life either mentally or physically harmful to them?"
When the dust has settled from the men-pretending-to-be women using women's showers lawsuit has been clarified and settled, revisiting Obergefell from a child's perspective is next..