Conservative State Challenge: "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act"

[Sun Devil 92]

'There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.'

Incorrect.

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; indeed, the Constitution itself is codification of the Court's authority to determine what the Constitution means, to review the constitutionality of various laws and measures, and invalidate those laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Cases from 1978 and 1987.

When was the Constitution written ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The OP sure bit off a rather complex argument.

There is a lot there.

 

[mdk]

Sil's nonsense should be changed from "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act" to NGTHA "Never Going To Happen Act" as that is a far more fitting name.

 

[JakeStarkey]

'There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.'

Incorrect.

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; indeed, the Constitution itself is codification of the Court's authority to determine what the Constitution means, to review the constitutionality of various laws and measures, and invalidate those laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Cases from 1978 and 1987.

When was the Constitution written ?

The OP is simply ludicrous, and the dates are immaterial to the discussion.

 

[Silhouette]

Since your premise is false, your conclusion is ludicrous.

You mean like "race = (just some of the Court's favorite, but not other) behaviors" when it comes to the 14th?

There is no false premise. The marriage contract is still a contract. That's why divorces have to be done legally to dissolve the contract. One of the parties to the contract, children, had no legal presence when the discussion of drastically undoing some of its vital terms were discussed in court. Ergo: court was improperly done.

At the very least the case must be reheard with attorneys present for the interests of children's part in the contract. If the result is the same after long and careful deliberation of their interest in what they get out of the contract, then fine. But I don't think the result will be the same when we start talking about the Prince's Trust Survey..

Moreover, the entire premise of your thread fails, as there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever that children with same-sex parents – married or not – are in anyway 'disadvantaged.'

That's just you guessing that it is so. But this has become a discussion of the marriage contract, child protection and advocacy and how children as valid parties to the marriage contract were not given a voice in court to discuss the fundamental dismantling of the word "marriage" in the contract to systematically deprive them of either a mother or a father.

Sorry, but some dick on the internet named "C_Clayton_Jones" is not a viable substitution for children's rights to have their attorneys and a gaurdian ad litem or ten present at the Hearing last spring that resulted in the total contract overhaul to their demise June 2015.

 

[mdk]

And now Sil is spamming her own thread. lol. Control+Shift+C and Control+Shift+P does not make for a very compelling argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Race and marriage equality are not behaviors, so yes, the OP is ludicrous. There is nothing of worth to debate. The courts would find it so as well.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

'There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.'

Incorrect.

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Those are not the Constitution. Those are court rulings,based on [often incorrect] extrapolations from the Constitution.

In order to reefute the statement that “There is no ‘right to marry’ in the US Constitution.”, you need to show where, in the Constitution itself, it says anything about marriage.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it's not. Only the Constitution itself is a valid source for what is in the Constitution itself. It doesn't matter what anyone, no matter what authority you attribute thereto, claims is in the Constitution, if you cannot quote the exact text from the Constitution itself that says what it is claimed it says.

Where does it say anything about marriage, in the Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bob does not understand how the Constitution and our legal system work.

SCOTUS does not have to find the word 'marriage' in the document.

However, if some of you feel as does Bob, then send a group petition to SCOTUS.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards for defining physical child abuse, child neglect, and sexual abuse that States must incorporate in their statutory definitions to receive Federal funds. Under CAPTA, child abuse and neglect means:

• • An act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foundation.pdf#page=16&view=Chapter 2. What Are The Philosophical Tenets Of Child Protection? (Page 20)

Predictable depression, suicidal thoughts, drug abuse or self-nihilism is serious harm to kids. Nobody disputes that. So why do we have the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, telling us that boys without a father and girls without a mother come to this harm, and we went ahead an institutionalized "harmful marriage"?

Just look at this boy suffering, his body language screming out 'HELP ME!!" while he sits there clasping his hands over his gentials he is preparing to hack off in order to "finally matter to my family structure"....all while California does nothing to stop it, & still receives CAPTA funding. Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I was looking for that picture. It seems the fag militia had the hot link taken down and it was nowhere to be found. There is no doubt this is a boy being victimized by two sick lezdikes and he is looking miserable and clutching his genitals to protect them from their demonic scheme.

 

[Silhouette]

Only the Constitution itself is a valid source for what is in the Constitution itself. It doesn't matter what anyone, no matter what authority you attribute thereto, claims is in the Constitution, if you cannot quote the exact text from the Constitution itself that says what it is claimed it says.

Where does it say anything about marriage, in the Constitution?

The church of LGBT claims that they cannot be denied any of the priveleges extended to other citizens. If that was the case, the blind could drive. After all, driving is a privelege, regulated by the states and you need a license in order to drive. Yet blind people are incapable of driving where others would be safe who implicitly share the venue of the road with them. Likewise, gays can't "drive marriage" because it isn't safe or wise to deprive children (who implicitly share the the marriage contract with adults) of either a mother father. Both priveleges if not met for the wellbeing of others, most certainly can be denied to people applying who don't qualify.

Your right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ends abruptly if those pursuits put others in danger or at risk of peril or harm....most especially if those others are children. So says CAPTA and the laws of virtually every state in the nation.

The kids were unrepresented at the "let's fundamentally change the contract" Hearing last Spring. Yet they share the contract's terms and enjoyments. So the Hearing was not proper and must be vacated until such time as all parties to the marriage contract can be represented at a Hearing set to debate whether its vital terms should be wholesale discarded.

 

[David_42]

The homophobia and bigotry of the Christian Right is demonstrated by the OP.

 

[Silhouette]

The hatred and utter unconcern for children's wellbeing was demonstrated by the church of LGBT and the SCOTUS by not having children's interests in the marriage contract represented at last Spring's Hearing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has created an unreal concept out of torn fabric of her mind.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The hatred and utter unconcern for children's wellbeing was demonstrated by the church of LGBT and the SCOTUS by not having children's interests in the marriage contract represented at last Spring's Hearing.

It's LGBTWTF? that's trying to groom boys for sex with men by teaching them "fisting" in sex ed.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil has created an unreal concept out of torn fabric of her mind.

Contract law is not an "unreal concept". When a contract is revised, all parties to it have a seat at the table to discuss the new terms and how they will affect them. This was not done. There is a truckload of caselaw about contract law. This would set a precedent to fundamentally revise a contract by judicial decree in the absence of one of the parties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contract law is real, yes, but your concept is unreal and will not be touched by the legislatures with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Silhouette]

Contract law is real, yes, but your concept is unreal and will not be touched by the legislatures with a 10 foot pole.

Which ones? The challenge could be just one state. Has your cult blackmailed or buffaloed each and every single state into submission to the detriment of children? Or are there a few still holding out for decency and protecting kids? You're aware of the CAPTA regulations and qualifications for each state to receive funding I assume?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not one state. You know it, I know it. And if one did, the courts would end it as you well know.

 

[Silhouette]

Not one state. You know it, I know it. And if one did, the courts would end it as you well know.

The 6th circuit might not stop it. But can you imagine the judges writing their opinions? How would they word that? We deny the rights of children's wellbeing as to the contract of marriage because "___________". Can you imagine the way our legal system is set up to favor children's wellbeing, arguing that that legal system isn't valid anymore because "some adults want to do some stuff and the kids just have to suffer through it".

I mean really, that would have to be the ending statement.