Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

[Silhouette]

Children are not recognized parties to the marriage contract of their parents in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one. Nobody is bound by the legal delusions you pull out of your ass.

The USSC in 2015 on page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion recognized that children share benefits of the marriage contract with adults. So in all US jurisdictions, this is enshrined.

They are implicit parties to the marriage contract.

Check out the Obergefell opinion & see page 15. first paragraph they say that marriage imparts direct benefits to kids. So that means the marriage contract is shared with them.

 

[Silhouette]

There are children who have suffered mightily at the hands of father figures in their lives and who would prefer to be raised by lesbians.

For every argument against same sex couples adopting, I can give you strong examples of well adjusted young men raised by lesbian couples. Who had uncles, cousins, and other straight male family members and confidants who mentored their manliness. Who took them hunting and fishing. I had a older brother-in-law, who would have made someone a great Dad but it never happened for him, so I became the kid he never had.

So your argument seems to be that fathers can be made legally irrelevant or equivalent-replaceable. Check the title of the thread here. You might want to change course if you want to change hearts and minds... The VAST majority of Americans do not believe that there is a 100% substitute for a father. You're talking about convincing vastly more than half of America that men's traditional function in human society is irrelevant.

And, good luck with that. 6 of the USSC Justices are men. They'll be glad to know that Dumont seeks to make their demographic irrelevant as fathers.

 

[Dragonlady]

There are children who have suffered mightily at the hands of father figures in their lives and who would prefer to be raised by lesbians.

For every argument against same sex couples adopting, I can give you strong examples of well adjusted young men raised by lesbian couples. Who had uncles, cousins, and other straight male family members and confidants who mentored their manliness. Who took them hunting and fishing. I had a older brother-in-law, who would have made someone a great Dad but it never happened for him, so I became the kid he never had.

So your argument seems to be that fathers can be made legally irrelevant or equivalent-replaceable. Check the title of the thread here. You might want to change course if you want to change hearts and minds... The VAST majority of Americans do not believe that there is a 100% substitute for a father. You're talking about convincing vastly more than half of America that men's traditional function in human society is irrelevant.

And, good luck with that. 6 of the USSC Justices are men. They'll be glad to know that Dumont seeks to make their demographic irrelevant as fathers.

I did not say fathers are irrelevant. Nor did I say mothers are irrelevant. I said where there is no father in the picture, or mother, other family members step up for children in their family, in their church, in their community.

I said that it is more important that a child have a safe and loving home, than a “perfect” home because none of us are guaranteed a perfect home. There is no guarantee that a “perfect” home will last. Marriages end, parents get excluded from children’s lives for a variety of reasons.

You make a huge issue of having both parents in adoption, when a single woman can have a child, a gay couple can have a child so you’re not preventing single sex couples from having and raising children, you’re barring them from adopting children.

With the thousands of children awaiting adoption, this is a cruelty to all those children who will never find forever homes.

You keep talking about the abuse issues in adoption and yet you ignore the very real sexual abuse issue for young girls raised in homes with a father figure with whom they do not share DNA.

You have yet to even respond to my comments about it.

 

[Silhouette]

I did not say fathers are irrelevant. Nor did I say mothers are irrelevant. I said where there is no father in the picture, or mother, other family members step up for children in their family, in their church, in their community.

But the Dumont argument is going to render out in fathers or mothers being legally-irrelevant/watered-down as vital to children from the marriage contract as a new precedent. Such a gigantic proposal requires at a minimum, representation on behalf of Michigan's orphans briefing Dumont.

 

[Dragonlady]

I did not say fathers are irrelevant. Nor did I say mothers are irrelevant. I said where there is no father in the picture, or mother, other family members step up for children in their family, in their church, in their community.

But the Dumont argument is going to render out in fathers or mothers being legally-irrelevant/watered-down as vital to children from the marriage contract as a new precedent. Such a gigantic proposal requires at a minimum, representation on behalf of Michigan's orphans briefing Dumont.

No child is ever guaranteed of one father or one mother in the marriage contract. The marriage contract sets out familial responsibilities in the event a child is born/adopted in the marriage using common law principles.

You keep making legal false assertions to a child’s right to an “ideal home”. There are lots of “ideals” that were overlooked in my adoption. My adoptive father was a 59 year-old lifelong smoker with a heart condition. My mother had been a stay at home wife and mother all her life, except when she was the cook at our family’s restaurant and over night went from cooking for our family, to cooking for up to 30 customers at a time during peak periods. She was in her late 50’s and would be dependent on my Dad’s estate and pensions for her income. She had arthritis, which prevented her from standing or lifting.

My father died less than a year after my adoption. My mother never remarried. The CAS overlooked my parents’ ages, my father’s health, and their financial circumstances and went on, they both loved me and I loved them. With my parents, I would have a good shot at growing up strong and well loved, without them, I would be at risk.

And you still have not addressed the risk to young girls being raised with a male father figure with whom they do not share DNA.

 

[Silhouette]

No child is ever guaranteed of one father or one mother in the marriage contract.

You mean, post Obergefell. With children having no unique representation briefing that Hearing; even while the Opinion says they share the benefits (and therefore the contract) of marriage... (and with at least one of the Justices declaring to the media a month before the Hearing how she would cast).

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No child is ever guaranteed of one father or one mother in the marriage contract.

You mean, post Obergefell. With children having no unique representation briefing that Hearing; even while the Opinion says they share the benefits (and therefore the contract) of marriage... (and with at least one of the Justices declaring to the media a month before the Hearing how she would cast).

In New Jersey, all children who are the subject of a family court proceeding on matters of custody, placement, guardianship or adoption have a Law Guardian appointed by the court . The Law Guardian is an attorney who represents the child independent of any other interests. In addition, the court may appoint a Court Appointed Special Advocate ( CASA) who performs field investigations and reports back to the court with a recommendation as to the child's best interest

Furthermore, all placements are reviewed by the Child Placement Review Board -a panel made up of citizen volunteers and child welfare professionals which reviews each case and makes recommendations to a second judge who oversees the board. All of this has to come together before a placement is finalized.

I acted as the states liaison to the board for a number of years in addition to my other experience in child welfare. I never, ever heard an objection to a child being placed in a "non traditional" family -including families that consisted of a same sex couple -simply on the grounds of there not being a mother and a father in the home.

You're just embarrassing yourself with this hysteria over the need for a mother and a father- although you are not quite bright enough to know it.

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks progressive patriot. Obergefell & Dumont were/are family law cases as well. Yet children with a stake in the precedent had/have no lawyers briefing those.

Here's where Syriusly would chime in and say "that's because there was no specific child". Yet the precedent was set for gays in general. I would retort "did each & every gay person in America have counsel briefing Obergefell?" Sweeping precedent must have All concerned parties in family law. Especially ones like marriage or adoption where kids share contractual benefits with adults.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thanks progressive patriot. Obergefell & Dumont were/are family law cases as well. Yet children with a stake in the precedent had/have no lawyers briefing those.

Here's where Syriusly would chime in and say "that's because there was no specific child". Yet the precedent was set for gays in general. I would retort "did each & every gay person in America have counsel briefing Obergefell?" Sweeping precedent must have All concerned parties in family law. Especially ones like marriage or adoption where kids share contractual benefits with adults.

Feel free to continue to embarrass yourself with your histrionics . I find it entertaining -to a point

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thanks progressive patriot. Obergefell & Dumont were/are family law cases as well. Yet children with a stake in the precedent had/have no lawyers briefing those.

Here's where Syriusly would chime in and say "that's because there was no specific child". Yet the precedent was set for gays in general. I would retort "did each & every gay person in America have counsel briefing Obergefell?" Sweeping precedent must have All concerned parties in family law. Especially ones like marriage or adoption where kids share contractual benefits with adults.

Children Will Win the Fight For Same Sex Marriage by Progressive Patriot ( written prior to Obergefell- history has proven me right)

While marriage equality for gay and lesbian people is making astounding advances and is likely to be the law of the land by next June, there are still many who are resisting the inevitable. Opponents of equality are at the end of their legal rope, with every argument ever devised having been decimated by the courts.

The most egregious of those arguments is that gay people make bad parents, that children should have a mom and a dad, and that they do less well when they don’t. All of that has been debunked numerous times and that is not the focus of this post. Rather, it is that like it or not, for better or worse, gay people do and will continue to have children in their care and when we allow discrimination against those gay parents, we penalize the children.

Extract from Kennedy's Windsor Opinion - The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558 , and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. ... DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 199 . And it denies or re- duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

Marriage Equality and adoption…The Right Thing to do For The Children By Progressive Patriot 9.12.14

People who use children to assail gay marriage and adoption either have not given much thought to the down side of these bans-or – are being intellectually dishonest in saying that they take their position on behalf of the children which they really care little about.

It is a logical fallacy-an appeal to ignorance if you will to insist that same sex marriage and of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and that society as a whole, will somehow be harmed by these arrangements. Many will take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, then to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else. Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy.

Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and opprobrious to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of having two parents is undeniable

The benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks progressive patriot. Obergefell & Dumont were/are family law cases as well. Yet children with a stake in the precedent had/have no lawyers briefing those.

Here's where Syriusly would chime in and say "that's because there was no specific child". Yet the precedent was set for gays in general. I would retort "did each & every gay person in America have counsel briefing Obergefell?" Sweeping precedent must have All concerned parties in family law. Especially ones like marriage or adoption where kids share contractual benefits with adults.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures.

So like Dragonlady, you're arguing that either mothers or fathers be enshrined in law (Obergefell/Dumont) as irrelevant, watered-down, replaceable with other roles.

Yet studies (the courts have never even cracked open or discussed) exist in volumes of tomes to show that there is no replacement for a father in a boy's life, nor a mother in a girl's life. We all realize some unfortunate children wind up in homes that are fatherless or motherless. But Obergefell/Dumont is the first time we've ever stood forward and said "you know what, let's just toss the idea of incentivizing even hope that there will be the missing father or mother in the home". And we did so without consulting children about that key and primary benefit they got from marriage.

Remember, Obergefell said children share the benefits (and therefore the contract) of marriage with adults. Yet they allowed no discussion of any studies showing boys need fathers and girls need mothers; that without them, the boys and girls fall behind their peers and are predisposed to depression, suicide, drug use and indigency.

If a competent attorney was allowed in Obergefell to brief the court on behalf of children's ancient benefits as to marriage, those arguments would had to have been painstakingly gone through and the deliberations of the Justices would have been far more agonizing. To spare themselves that grief, they simply eliminated the main beneficiaries of marriage from the conversation altogether. Which is, of course, a mistrial. Now Dumont seeks to have the same type of mistrial; unless Dumont allows intervention of orphans to have a say in the case... Luckily, there's still time.

With boys especially, this youth survey, the largest of its kind, found all those bad statistics of fatherless homes (permanent and immutable in lesbian marriage) and one more:

Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
(page 6, left hand column)

More than one in three say they lack a sense of identity.

Imagine lacking a sense of identity raised by two lesbians? You might want to abandon every part of yourself just to fit in. Like this scenario: Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl

On the surface, your glib, progressive utopian outlook sounds reasonable. Peel back the lid and look inside however, and an ugly can of worms presents itself. There are solid reasons we hold up certain social icons as timeless. A father to a boy is timeless. A mother to a girl is timeless. Yet they were erased, bastardized and diluted in 2015. Now the LGBT cult in Dumont seeks to drive the final nail home in that coffin.

All without children being able to brief at either Hearing. That's how fascist states operate, not American law.

 

[Syriusly]

Children are not recognized parties to the marriage contract of their parents in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one. Nobody is bound by the legal delusions you pull out of your ass.

The USSC in 2015 on page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion recognized that children share benefits of the marriage contract with adults. So in all US jurisdictions, this is enshrined.

They are implicit parties to the marriage contract.

Check out the Obergefell opinion & see page 15. first paragraph they say that marriage imparts direct benefits to kids. So that means the marriage contract is shared with them.

Nope- again you are just lying.

Obergefell did note that that marriage can provide benefits to children- and Obergefell says that denying marriage to gay couples- would harm their children.

a) Obergefell never says that children are part of the marriage contract and
b) Why do you continue to advocate for policies that Obergefell legally cites as harming children?

 

[Syriusly]

Children are not recognized parties to the marriage contract of their parents in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one. Nobody is bound by the legal delusions you pull out of your ass.

They are implicit parties to the marriage contract.

Nope- but what Obergefell did note was that denying marriage to their parents harms their children.

Why do you keep advocating for harm to children?

 

[Syriusly]

Let's see, three posts in a row, all responding to the same poster. As usual, content-less veiled or outright ad hominems. ...

I think what I'll do is save post #284 if Syriusly bleeds another page out, and repost it awaiting DRAGONLADYS reply.

And of course that is not what the Supreme Court said- but you know that- but I am glad to provide what the Supreme Court actually said:

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510.

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

So what the Supreme Court recognized is that denying marriage to gay couples hurts their children.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

You keep moving the goal posts because it’s not about having two opposite sex parents in the home, it about keeping children from being adopted. That is the result of your wishes. Fewer children will find forever homes.

Talk about moving the goal posts! I was discussing a contract that banishes children involved with adults from a father in their home for life. Which is FAR different than adopting out to single parents or married hetero parents. Vastly different. Fundamentally different.

As I have repeatedly pointed out and you repeatedly ignore- that is another of your bald faced lies.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school.

You are just lying in order to harm children.

 

[Syriusly]

Thanks progressive patriot. Obergefell & Dumont were/are family law cases as well. Yet children with a stake in the precedent had/have no lawyers briefing those.

Here's where Syriusly would chime in and say "that's because there was no specific child". Yet the precedent was set for gays in general. I would retort "did each & every gay person in America have counsel briefing Obergefell?" Sweeping precedent must have All concerned parties in family law. Especially ones like marriage or adoption where kids share contractual benefits with adults.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures.

Remember, Obergefell said children share the benefits (and therefore the contract) of marriage with adults. .

Except Obergefell didn't say that.

Here is what Obergefell did say

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510.

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

 

[Syriusly]

[
With boys especially, this youth survey, the largest of its kind, found all those bad statistics of fatherless homes (permanent and immutable in lesbian marriage) and one more:

Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
(page 6, left hand column).

That 'study' from 8 years ago- never mentions 'lesbian marriage' nor does it mention gays anywhere.

Nor did it say 'fatherless homes' - it talked about children without father figures in their lives- and specifically noted those father figures can be men outside of the family- coaches, ministers, teachers, uncles.

As always- you are just lying.

In order to promote policies that you know will harm children.

 

[Syriusly]

Thanks progressive patriot. Obergefell & Dumont were/are family law cases as well. Yet children with a stake in the precedent had/have no lawyers briefing those.

Here's where Syriusly would chime in and say "that's because there was no specific child". Yet the precedent was set for gays in general. I would retort "did each & every gay person in America have counsel briefing Obergefell?" Sweeping precedent must have All concerned parties in family law. Especially ones like marriage or adoption where kids share contractual benefits with adults.

There were lawyers representing the plaintiffs and representing the states.

There were not lawyers representing anonymous children because they were not party to the lawsuits.

Obergefell was not a 'family law' case- it was a civil rights case regarding marriage.

The same reason why children were not represented at Obergefell is the same reason children were not represented at Loving.

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks progressive patriot. Obergefell & Dumont were/are family law cases as well. Yet children with a stake in the precedent had/have no lawyers briefing those.

Here's where Syriusly would chime in and say "that's because there was no specific child". Yet the precedent was set for gays in general. I would retort "did each & every gay person in America have counsel briefing Obergefell?" Sweeping precedent must have All concerned parties in family law. Especially ones like marriage or adoption where kids share contractual benefits with adults.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures.

So like Dragonlady, you're arguing that either mothers or fathers be enshrined in law (Obergefell/Dumont) as irrelevant, watered-down, replaceable with other roles.

Yet studies (the courts have never even cracked open or discussed) exist in volumes of tomes to show that there is no replacement for a father in a boy's life, nor a mother in a girl's life. We all realize some unfortunate children wind up in homes that are fatherless or motherless. But Obergefell/Dumont is the first time we've ever stood forward and said "you know what, let's just toss the idea of incentivizing even hope that there will be the missing father or mother in the home". And we did so without consulting children about that key and primary benefit they got from marriage.

Remember, Obergefell said children share the benefits (and therefore the contract) of marriage with adults. Yet they allowed no discussion of any studies showing boys need fathers and girls need mothers; that without them, the boys and girls fall behind their peers and are predisposed to depression, suicide, drug use and indigency.

If a competent attorney was allowed in Obergefell to brief the court on behalf of children's ancient benefits as to marriage, those arguments would had to have been painstakingly gone through and the deliberations of the Justices would have been far more agonizing. To spare themselves that grief, they simply eliminated the main beneficiaries of marriage from the conversation altogether. Which is, of course, a mistrial. Now Dumont seeks to have the same type of mistrial; unless Dumont allows intervention of orphans to have a say in the case... Luckily, there's still time.

With boys especially, this youth survey, the largest of its kind, found all those bad statistics of fatherless homes (permanent and immutable in lesbian marriage) and one more:

Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
(page 6, left hand column)

More than one in three say they lack a sense of identity.

Imagine lacking a sense of identity raised by two lesbians? You might want to abandon every part of yourself just to fit in. Like this scenario: Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl

On the surface, your glib, progressive utopian outlook sounds reasonable. Peel back the lid and look inside however, and an ugly can of worms presents itself. There are solid reasons we hold up certain social icons as timeless. A father to a boy is timeless. A mother to a girl is timeless. Yet they were erased, bastardized and diluted in 2015. Now the LGBT cult in Dumont seeks to drive the final nail home in that coffin.

All without children being able to brief at either Hearing. That's how fascist states operate, not American law.

*********

As usual, when Syriusly spams a page into oblivion, I repost it on a new page. 8 posts in a row, 7 addressed to me. That's getting a but much.

Syriusly, for your information, Obergefell said children share marital benefits (the contract) with adults on page 15 of the Opinion. You saying "they didn't say that, they said this!" is absurd. There are many paragraphs. Read the one at the top of the page, not just your favorites.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q********

As usual, when Syriusly spams a page into oblivion, I repost it on a new page. 8 posts in a row, 7 addressed to me. That's getting a but much.

Syriusly, for your information, Obergefell said children share marital benefits (the contract) with adults on page 15 of the Opinion. You saying "they didn't say that, they said this!" is absurd. There are many paragraphs. Read the one at the top of the page, not just your favorites.

I can keep quoting Obergefell over and over to demonstrate how intellectually dishonest you are about what it says

Once again:
1) Obergefell never says that 'children share marital benefits' and
2) Obergefell does specifically say that denying gay parents legal marriage harms their children.
Here is the quote:
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510.

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

So what the Supreme Court recognized is that denying marriage to gay couples hurts their children.

Why do you want to harm children?