Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No you don't. You want to do away with marriage as we know it. You want a system in which there is no legal distinction - and no benefits - fir being married vs. not married. YOU said so. ! Are you crazy!!??I believe marriage is an important cornerstone to civilized society and family structure and this is what Socialists such as yourself seek to destroy through power of the state over the individual.
And I documented the reasons why we can'tAs I said, there is no reason we couldn't simply replace "marriage" with civil union contracts, with regard to governmental recognition. This would return "marriage" to the individual and remove it from government sanction forever.
Individual liberty in the absence of a legal framework that sets parameters and limits on that liberty is anarchy. Is that what you are? An anarchist?That is the only position that guarantees individual liberty. But you don't give one solitary shit about individual liberty OR gay rights... this is about government power over the people, because you're a Socialist.
Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts that adults implicitly share with children. So, with ignorance abounding, they found for Obergefell. That will be overturned on any of a host of fundamental flaws. Enjoy forced-gay marriage on states while it lasts. If I were a gay person looking to get "legally married", I'd still do so only in a state that originally enacted it in the first place. I wouldn't do it in California for example, where gay marriage is still not legal in their Constitution to this day.
So I'll repeat this warning to you: Your lawyers have to demonstrate and get written into judicial-legislation (ahem) that fathers and mothers are not psychological necessities to children, or face defeat via the Infancy Doctrine. You CERTAINLY cannot argue with a straight face that marriage isn't a contract, or "isn't a contract that implicitly anticipates children". Your best bet is to argue that fathers and mothers aren't important psychological necessities to children. That's the only area where you could potentially find a micron of wiggle room to do your creative false-premise style arguing.
Give it a fucking rest!!
I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .
The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support
Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.
Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them
A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.
The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.
Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.
To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!
Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.
Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.
So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why
Personally, I don't believe there should be any governmental advantage or benefit for "married" couples or any other domestic partnership. Taxes should be the same for all. That said, there are instances where legal instruments require such distinction and there is no reason this couldn't be transitioned to civil union partnerships from traditional marriage.
The reasons states used to give benefits to men and women to marry was to secure the best possible child-raising environment for their future citizens.it.
Sure Bossman, destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it .
Well the states no longer get what they pay for. The states paid benefits to men and women to marry to get fathers and mothers stabilized in children's lives to produce the best citizens who are not statistically prone to drug abuse, depression,crime, indigence and filling the prisons..
Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts
I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .
The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support
Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.
Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them
A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.
The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.
Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.
To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!
Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.
Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.
So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why
Leaving children at the mercy of the state is never in their best interests, and I have to wonder why their mother, whose responsibility it was to look out for their best interests, did not make arrangements to prevent this.
.[/QUOTE], or face defeat via the Infancy Doctrine. !
I wish that one of the lawyers trying to defend a state's bigoted ban on same sex marriage invoked the Infancy Doctrine. Even Scalia and Thomas would have laughed !Yes the Justices were unaware at the time of the Infancy Doctrine and its prohibitions on contracts
LOL- the Justices of the Supreme Court was 'unaware of the Infancy Doctrine'?
Do you not realize how insane that sounds? Of course you don't.
You are arguing that 9 of the top legal experts in the United States- don't know of this 'doctrine'- but you do?
Think about that.
What law school did you go to again?
More horseshit that you pulled out of your pie hole. Dumont v Lyons is about religious discrimination and exclusion in adoption based on sexual orientation. It's is not about "contracts" or the fitness of same sex couples to adopt.Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.
The question of Dumont v Lyon will render down to "Are the rights , needs & liberties of children dominant; or are the "rights" needs & liberties of deviant sex addict adults dominant?"
Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.
The question of Dumont v Lyon will render down to "Are the rights , needs & liberties of children dominant; or are the "rights" needs & liberties of deviant sex addict adults dominant?"
Have you studied the Infancy Doctrine and understand that it is a doctrine about protecting children from adults exploiting their rights to protection, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is what the Doctrine is about at its core and its whole. Might be worth you taking a look into it before you accuse people debating its contents of "pulling it out of their hole". I think your protests about my discussion of it is pulling it out of your hole actually.More horseshit that you pulled out of your pie hole. Dumont v Lyons is about religious discrimination and exclusion in adoption based on sexual orientation. It's is not about "contracts" or the fitness of same sex couples to adopt.
Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.
The question of Dumont v Lyon will render down to "Are the rights , needs & liberties of children dominant; or are the "rights" needs & liberties of deviant sex addict adults dominant?"Have you studied the Infancy Doctrine and understand that it is a doctrine about protecting children from adults exploiting their rights to protection, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is what the Doctrine is about at its core and its whole. Might be worth you taking a look into it before you accuse people debating its contents of "pulling it out of their hole". I think your protests about my discussion of it is pulling it out of your hole actually.More horseshit that you pulled out of your pie hole. Dumont v Lyons is about religious discrimination and exclusion in adoption based on sexual orientation. It's is not about "contracts" or the fitness of same sex couples to adopt.
Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.
I have a feeling they're going to know about it pretty soon. It's an easy oversight to make. Not all lawyers are scholars on children's legal issues in case law. It's an obscure area of focus in law. All it takes is a nice brief to remind them. No worries. Better late than never.
Yeah. Scalia laughed so hard about Obergefell that he died.
Scalia wasn't a children's legal issues expert. None of them are on the USSC. But they can be briefed by those who are scholars on the Infancy Doctrine.
The question of Dumont v Lyon will render down to "Are the rights , needs & liberties of children dominant; or are the "rights" needs & liberties of deviant sex addict adults dominant?"Have you studied the Infancy Doctrine and understand that it is a doctrine about protecting children from adults exploiting their rights to protection, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is what the Doctrine is about at its core and its whole. Might be worth you taking a look into it before you accuse people debating its contents of "pulling it out of their hole". I think your protests about my discussion of it is pulling it out of your hole actually.More horseshit that you pulled out of your pie hole. Dumont v Lyons is about religious discrimination and exclusion in adoption based on sexual orientation. It's is not about "contracts" or the fitness of same sex couples to adopt.
