That's nice Skylar. But what does any of that have to do with the sudden gouge Trump took in the polls just after the "Trump is soft on gay marriage/transgender" ads were run in SC? You know, the first gouge that ever landed purchase on Trump's hide?... The polls said his lead shrank from 15 to 5 points. He only rebounded back to a 10 point lead because absentee ballots had been cast already before the ads went out.Single parent homes have the hope of a mother and father. Gay marriage homes eradicate that hope forever. Marriage is a contract that doesn't involve singles. And the contractual terms which children enjoyed for over a thousand years were changed to their immediate demise; for life...
Except that none of that is true either. Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which hurts children by the 10s of thousands and helps no child.
Making your proposal worse than useless. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't remedy any of the 'problems' you cite. While your proposal does cause serious harm to children. Which the courts go into elaborate detail describing:
Windsor v. US said: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 samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses.And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
All these harms but no benefits? Why would we ever do this? Obviously, we wouldn't.
Worse for you, the Supreme Court already found that the right to marry has nothing to do with kids:
Obergefell v. Hodges said: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.
Just destroying your entire argument. Your 'argument' has been reduced to ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and making up your own.
That's not a legal argument.
...and...worst of all...they had NO SAY in the Hearing to change the contractual terms. They had no representation there for their stake in their unique enjoyment of the marriage contract at Obergefell..
Show us any Supreme Court hearing where 'all children' have had a 'representative'.
Its never happened. Your 'requirement' is just another piece of pseudo-legal gibberish that has no relevance to our law or the outcome of any case.
If this keeps up Trump will be harmed so much- he will end up with the GOP nomination.