Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

[Silhouette]

Where are all of those polygamous marriages that you told us were now legal after the Obergefell decision?

Anywhere they would like to be. Because either all of the sex behaviors people object to "as married" get access to the 14th at the same time, or none of them do. You can't create a paradox with the 14th Amendment.. You are aware it's about equality, right?

Okay I want to point out Silhouette logic- to Silhouette-

• Obergefell decision is legally binding- for polygamous marriages but
• Obergefell decision is not legally binding for gay couples marrying
• Even though Obergefell was only about the equal rights of gay couples- not polygamous families.

What sets your behavior aside as "more special" than polygamist's behavior and wishes to marry?

Let me guess, you're objection to polygamy is "for the children" while gay marriage deprives a necessity to children of either a mother or father. Realize that polygamy does not so deprive them. Unless you're talking about gay polygamy, of which I understand a movement is underway, again to the direct demise of children..


Americas
Meet the three gay men who want to get married and have kids together

Meet the three gay men who want to get married and have kids together
They opened up about their three-way relationship

A trio of Canadian men who are in a three-way relationship have caused a storm by saying they plan to have kids together....27-year-old Adam Grant was married to Shayne Curran since 2011 – but the pair decided to divorce last year. It wasn’t because they had grown apart, however – but because a third man, Sebatian Tran, had joined their relationship.

The Nova Scotia threesome have been living together since 2012 – but they didn’t feel right with just two of them being married.

Adam, 27, told the Mail: “We didn’t want Sebastian to be excluded or feel like the third wheel in our relationship.

 

[Syriusly]

Where are all of those polygamous marriages that you told us were now legal after the Obergefell decision?

Anywhere they would like to be. Because either all of the sex behaviors people object to "as married" get access to the 14th at the same time, or none of them do. You can't create a paradox with the 14th Amendment.. You are aware it's about equality, right?

Okay I want to point out Silhouette logic- to Silhouette-

• Obergefell decision is legally binding- for polygamous marriages but
• Obergefell decision is not legally binding for gay couples marrying
• Even though Obergefell was only about the equal rights of gay couples- not polygamous families.

What sets your behavior aside as "more special" than polygamist's behavior and wishes to marry?

My behavior?

What- how I pour my coffee? Whether I drive at the speed limit? I have no idea why you are trying to change the subject to 'behavior' when Obergefell was a decision about State marriage laws- and how they are unconstitutional.

Again- your logic- which is just hilarious

• Obergefell decision is legally binding- for polygamous marriages but
• Obergefell decision is not legally binding for gay couples marrying
• Even though Obergefell was only about the equal rights of gay couples- not polygamous families

 

[Skylar]

Where are all of those polygamous marriages that you told us were now legal after the Obergefell decision?

Anywhere they would like to be. Because either all of the sex behaviors people object to "as married" get access to the 14th at the same time, or none of them do. You can't create a paradox with the 14th Amendment.. You are aware it's about equality, right?

Okay I want to point out Silhouette logic- to Silhouette-

• Obergefell decision is legally binding- for polygamous marriages but
• Obergefell decision is not legally binding for gay couples marrying
• Even though Obergefell was only about the equal rights of gay couples- not polygamous families.

What sets your behavior aside as "more special" than polygamist's behavior and wishes to marry?

My behavior?

What- how I pour my coffee? Whether I drive at the speed limit? I have no idea why you are trying to change the subject to 'behavior' when Obergefell was a decision about State marriage laws- and how they are unconstitutional.

Again- your logic- which is just hilarious

• Obergefell decision is legally binding- for polygamous marriages but
• Obergefell decision is not legally binding for gay couples marrying
• Even though Obergefell was only about the equal rights of gay couples- not polygamous families

Laughing........so all gay marriages under Obergefell are void, per Sil. But Obergefell authorized polygamous marriage?

Wow. She's raising psuedo-legal gibberish to an art form.

 

[Silhouette]

No, I'm using logic to illustrate a point; for those sharp enough to pick it up. Sorry you missed it Skylar. (see, I can weave insults into my posts too, while pretending it's normal discourse). The point was that your group believes Obergefell was done legally. But if Kennedy had used what's left of his brain to deliberate the whole picture, he would've first realized the false premise "behaviors=race" and then from there he would've had the presence of mind to question "which minority repugnant behaviors will want to marry too...and...we cannot legally deny them according to the very Amendment we are citing to "legalize" so-called "gay marriage".

And if Kennedy really really had his Wheaties that day, his brain would've geared up to the fact that children implicitly share the marriage contract's terms and have for over a thousand years. I mean, they danced around this in the language of the Opinions of both Windsor and Obergefell. But then they just left off as if that was enough. "We'll just mention these couple of glaring elephants in the living room, and then keep pretending like they don't exist...so that when accused later, we can say..."we talked about that already!". When in fact, talking also includes THINKING.

 

[Montrovant]

No, I'm using logic to illustrate a point; for those sharp enough to pick it up. Sorry you missed it Skylar. (see, I can weave insults into my posts too, while pretending it's normal discourse). The point was that your group believes Obergefell was done legally. But if Kennedy had used what's left of his brain to deliberate the whole picture, he would've first realized the false premise "behaviors=race" and then from there he would've had the presence of mind to question "which minority repugnant behaviors will want to marry too...and...we cannot legally deny them according to the very Amendment we are citing to "legalize" so-called "gay marriage".

And if Kennedy really really had his Wheaties that day, his brain would've geared up to the fact that children implicitly share the marriage contract's terms and have for over a thousand years. I mean, they danced around this in the language of the Opinions of both Windsor and Obergefell. But then they just left off as if that was enough. "We'll just mention these couple of glaring elephants in the living room, and then keep pretending like they don't exist...so that when accused later, we can say..."we talked about that already!". When in fact, talking also includes THINKING.

No one but you ever describes behaviors as race.

Homosexual sex is not homosexuality. One can be homosexual without having sex.

Children do not 'implicitly share in the marriage contract's terms'. The legality of children is separate from marriage. Questions of custody are not exclusive to married couples. Nor are children in any way required for marriage. You wish to tie children to marriage to try and make a point about same sex marriage being bad, not because children are actually directly involved in marriage.

As shown by every prediction you've made, your grasp of the legality of marriage is flawed at best.

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm using logic to illustrate a point; for those sharp enough to pick it up. Sorry you missed it Skylar. (see, I can weave insults into my posts too, while pretending it's normal discourse).

You're not using logic. You're using your imagination. As nothing you've claimed is actually in the law. You'll note that *none* of your sources on contracts cite marriage as a 'minor contract' nor recognize that children are married to their parents.

You've made all that up. And your inventions have no legal relevance. Making your citation of your imagination *as* the law the epitome of illogical clap trap. As demonstrated by your perfect record of failure in predicting any legal outcome.

That's not an insult. That's the results of the process you're using: failure. They don't work. They predict nothing, define nothing. And yet you keep using them.

That's not logical.

The point was that your group believes Obergefell was done legally. But if Kennedy had used what's left of his brain to deliberate the whole picture, he would've first realized the false premise "behaviors=race" and then from there he would've had the presence of mind to question "which minority repugnant behaviors will want to marry too...and...we cannot legally deny them according to the very Amendment we are citing to "legalize" so-called "gay marriage".

And predictably your argument has devolved into you insisting that you know the law better than Kennedy or the majority of the Supreme Court.

Um, Sil......you don't even know the law better than me. And I'm just some schmo on the internet. Making your claims that you know the law better than Kennedy or the Supreme Court little more than desperate, hopeful self delusion.

You don't. Nor is citing yourself a replacement for the judgment of the supreme court.

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm using logic to illustrate a point; for those sharp enough to pick it up. Sorry you missed it Skylar. (see, I can weave insults into my posts too, while pretending it's normal discourse). The point was that your group believes Obergefell was done legally. But if Kennedy had used what's left of his brain to deliberate the whole picture, he would've first realized the false premise "behaviors=race" and then from there he would've had the presence of mind to question "which minority repugnant behaviors will want to marry too...and...we cannot legally deny them according to the very Amendment we are citing to "legalize" so-called "gay marriage".

And if Kennedy really really had his Wheaties that day, his brain would've geared up to the fact that children implicitly share the marriage contract's terms and have for over a thousand years. I mean, they danced around this in the language of the Opinions of both Windsor and Obergefell. But then they just left off as if that was enough. "We'll just mention these couple of glaring elephants in the living room, and then keep pretending like they don't exist...so that when accused later, we can say..."we talked about that already!". When in fact, talking also includes THINKING.

No one but you ever describes behaviors as race.

Homosexual sex is not homosexuality. One can be homosexual without having sex.

Children do not 'implicitly share in the marriage contract's terms'. The legality of children is separate from marriage. Questions of custody are not exclusive to married couples. Nor are children in any way required for marriage. You wish to tie children to marriage to try and make a point about same sex marriage being bad, not because children are actually directly involved in marriage.

As shown by every prediction you've made, your grasp of the legality of marriage is flawed at best.

Nope. Sil's argument is a long series of pseudo-legal gibberish.

Speech, assembly, religion, keeping and bearing arms, etc.....all behaviors. All protected. Making the 'no behaviors are protected' debunked nonsense. But she still repeats it.

No law nor court recognize children as married to their parents. Rendering Sil's gibberish about the marriage contract including children more nonsense.

Worse, the Obergefell court found that laws barring marriage for same sex parents hurts thier children, explicitly contradicting her assertions:

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.

So Sil just straight up ignores the USSC. But the court's won't. The law won't. Making Sil's willful ignorance legally irrelevant.

And the Obergefell decision explicitly separates the right to marry from children.

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.

Eliminating even the *concept* of Sil's argument from being legally applicable. So Sil ignores the Obergefell decision again. Insisting it wasn't 'legal'. Which is a meaningless determination, as the 'legality' of a Supreme Court decision isn't predicated on agreement with Sil. Making her conclusion more pseudo-legal gibberish.

There's a reason her legal predictions have a perfect record of failure: she ignores the law.

 

[Silhouette]

No one but you ever describes behaviors as race.

Homosexual sex is not homosexuality. One can be homosexual without having sex.

.

Sure, just as one can be thirsty but never drink. To what lengths will you stretch language to keep your systems of denial in place and the Agenda's momentum going forward without even a tiny hiccup?

 

[Syriusly]

No, I'm using logic to illustrate a point; for those sharp enough to pick it up. .... The point was that your group believes Obergefell was done legally..

Logic? LOL

Obergefell is settled law. I believe in Obergefell like i believe in Citizen's United and Roe v. Wade.

 

[Syriusly]

No one but you ever describes behaviors as race.

Homosexual sex is not homosexuality. One can be homosexual without having sex.

.

Sure, just as one can be thirsty but never drink. To what lengths will you stretch language to keep your systems of denial in place and the Agenda's momentum going forward without even a tiny hiccup?

To what lengths will you lie in order to keep your anti-homosexual agenda going?

We know the answer to that- any lengths.

Homosexuality is not behavior- it is sexual attraction. Having sex is a behavior.

Neither of which was part of the Obergefell decision.

 

[Skylar]

No one but you ever describes behaviors as race.

Homosexual sex is not homosexuality. One can be homosexual without having sex.

.

Sure, just as one can be thirsty but never drink. To what lengths will you stretch language to keep your systems of denial in place and the Agenda's momentum going forward without even a tiny hiccup?

'Stretch language'? The USSC is clear as a bell: your proposal hurts children:

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.

With the same ruling affirming that the right to marriage isn't tied to kids or the ability to have them:

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.

I'm not 'stretching' a single word. I'm quoting them. And you're ignoring them.

Ignore as you will. Its not like the Obergefell ruling changes just because you pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Montrovant]

No one but you ever describes behaviors as race.

Homosexual sex is not homosexuality. One can be homosexual without having sex.

.

Sure, just as one can be thirsty but never drink. To what lengths will you stretch language to keep your systems of denial in place and the Agenda's momentum going forward without even a tiny hiccup?

I'm not stretching language, I'm using definitions. You know, in the way that being thirsty and drinking are not the same? If someone is parched, they aren't going to say, "I'm drinking".

Homosexuality is being attracted to the same gender. Whether or not one is engaging in sex is irrelevant to that definition.

Not that it matters, as behaviors can certainly define a legally protected class, but it is an example of the weakness of your arguments.

 

[Silhouette]

Not that it matters, as behaviors can certainly define a legally protected class, but it is an example of the weakness of your arguments.

Correct, "not that it matters". It doesn't here. Because as you know, my argument is that gay marriage violates a necessity to the implicit parties in marriage for over a thousand years, to children's detriment. Depriving a child of a necessity is a contract that is void upon its face. What say you to that and not some other strawman and diversion?

 

[Skylar]

Not that it matters, as behaviors can certainly define a legally protected class, but it is an example of the weakness of your arguments.

Correct, "not that it matters". It doesn't here. Because as you know, my argument is that gay marriage violates a necessity to the implicit parties in marriage for over a thousand years, to children's detriment.

And your argument isn't reflected in any of our laws. While being contradicted by our court rulings.

Rendering it legally meaningless.

 

[Syriusly]

Not that it matters, as behaviors can certainly define a legally protected class, but it is an example of the weakness of your arguments.

Correct, "not that it matters". It doesn't here. Because as you know, my argument is that gay marriage violates a necessity to the implicit parties in marriage for over a thousand years, to children's detriment.

And your argument isn't reflected in any of our laws. While being contradicted by our court rulings.

Rendering it legally meaningless.

Like every single 'legal' claim Silhouette has ever posted.

 

[Syriusly]

Not that it matters, as behaviors can certainly define a legally protected class, but it is an example of the weakness of your arguments.

Correct, "not that it matters". It doesn't here. Because as you know, my argument is that gay marriage violates a necessity to the implicit parties in marriage for over a thousand years, to children's detriment. Depriving a child of a necessity is a contract that is void upon its face. What say you to that and not some other strawman and diversion?

Your argument was implicitly denied by the courts.

Which leaves you in the same puddle of arguments as all of the other failed arguments against same gender marriage.

Meanwhile- Americans in love continue to get married, and their children get to have married parents- protecting children across America.

 

[Silhouette]

Your argument was implicitly denied by the courts.

Which leaves you in the same puddle of arguments as all of the other failed arguments against same gender marriage.

Meanwhile- Americans in love continue to get married, and their children get to have married parents- protecting children across America.

Can you point me to the link of any court hearings or transcripts where the question of infants/necessities/contract law vs "gay marriage" was deliberated and decided upon? Not vague statements woven into Opinions that didn't talk about infants/necessities/contract law. ONLY those cases which discussed specifics of infants/necessities/contract law.

Thanks! I'll wait for those links. I'd love to see which judge signed his/her name to a document that strips infants of a necessity by declaring "our society no longer consider both a mother and father to a child a necessity re: marriage"...LOVE to see someone with the brass balls to write that down and sign their name to it..

 

[Syriusly]

Your argument was implicitly denied by the courts.

Which leaves you in the same puddle of arguments as all of the other failed arguments against same gender marriage.

Meanwhile- Americans in love continue to get married, and their children get to have married parents- protecting children across America.

Can you point me to the link of any court hearings or transcripts where the question of infants/necessities/contract law vs "gay marriage" was deliberated and decided upon? .

Yes I can.

 

[Montrovant]

Not that it matters, as behaviors can certainly define a legally protected class, but it is an example of the weakness of your arguments.

Correct, "not that it matters". It doesn't here. Because as you know, my argument is that gay marriage violates a necessity to the implicit parties in marriage for over a thousand years, to children's detriment. Depriving a child of a necessity is a contract that is void upon its face. What say you to that and not some other strawman and diversion?

I have already said that having two opposite gender parents is clearly not a necessity. Plenty of children have been raised by single parents, whether through dissolution of the parents' relationship or death of a parent, and those children have turned out fine in general.

I would guess that the 'necessities' for children that could render a contract void are more along the lines of clothing, shelter, and food. You certainly have never shown any court decisions, precedents, or any evidence at all, really, that the US legal system considers two opposite gender parents to be a necessity for a child. Without such evidence your argument that same sex marriages are void based on contract law regarding children's necessities is worthless.

Marriage has not remained static over thousands of years, nor have the rights and treatment of children. That being the case, and again with you providing no evidence to back up your claims, the idea that 'gay marriage violates a necessity to the implicit parties in a marriage for over a thousand years' also falls flat. More, the modern US legal framework of marriage is not required to maintain any sort of connection to the various forms marriage has taken in history.

Finally, as I was replying to things you said, I was not creating a strawman. You said that behaviors are equated to race. You made the argument that a type of behavior cannot be protected. Pointing out your errors is not creating a strawman.

 

[Silhouette]

"I have already said that having two opposite gender parents is clearly not a necessity. You said that. But unfortunately there are billions of people who solidly and flatly disagree with you.