Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- Thread starter
- #41
the idiot doesn't even have a clue about the nature of a supreme court decision or why the case was decided the way it was.
I still can't believe the wingers are ranting about it.
Don't know who you're talking about. I'm a democrat, for now... Marriage is a contract. The contract's terms were decided by the separate states to define two key elements up until last June. Those elements are 1. a man and 2. a woman. But in some states they involved the democratic process to change that to two men or two women. But the democratic process determined those changes after deliberation of the Many. And even those were in error because they ostensibly did not bring the third party to the contract to the table: Children.
Instead, just 5 people in DC have decided to create entire family lines where there are generations of only men. Gay men over 90% of the time only want to adopt boys; since they cannot make children on their own. Lesbians just get pregnant and have what they have. 5 people just told 300 million "you have to accept this lot as normal now". Children's voices at the table be damned.
In fact, several adult children who were raised in gay homes tried to submit their voice to the Hearings and were systematically barred from the radical revision talks of the marriage contract. That would be like hiring a crew to construct a building under a contract that consisted of carpenters, plumbers and electricians (all implicit parts of a construction) and then holding a contract-revision meeting on relaxing safety standards around the installation of electrical ground fault interrupters, but barring the electricians from having any input at all on something that will affect them (and all the residents who use the building) the most into the future...
I'm telling you, contract case law will save the day here. Nobody can argue convincingly that children are not implicit and even the most important parties to the marriage contract. No tribunal, not even Kennedy would buy that argument. Of course children are implicit parties to that contract. And it was revised without them even having representation at the table. In fact, the Decision was to sever the relationship of states acting as children's guardians on the question of who may marry: which is why states even became involved in marriage at all: to protect children; the most important parts of the word "marriage".
June's decision severed states' abilities to set standards for children in marriage; or to even have a voice as guardians for children in their borders at all in that regard.. That is the argument I would use if I was a polygamist or incest person wanting to be legally married now. States no longer can set standards in the contract for the best regard for their wards. And since the only arguments in the past for keeping polygamy and incest illegal were "what it will do to the children involved"; they are both now also de facto legal marriages. All it will take is one lawsuit and an easy win.
Unless June's Decision, using two Justices in violation of Massey Coal 2009 to Uphold, is oveturned on some legal technicality...like that...or that the Judicial just created new federal legislation which makes marriage and who may marry up to the federal government. Because under the same clause they cited to Decide in June, the 14th Amendment, if one sexual kink behavior can marry, they all can. Anything else would be arbitrary and discriminatory based on June's Decisions..
..and y'all thought this was only about gay marriage... It's about much, much more than that...
Last edited: