Gay Marriage v Windsor Part II: "Separate But Equal!"

[Silhouette]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

faLSE KIDS HAVE NO RIGHTS
Also you post the above pics so often ,do you masturbate to them?

There you have it. The gay opinion in a nutshell: "Kids have no rights".

However they do. They are protected vigorously by federal and state statutes where just suspicion of impending harm compels you legally to act to prevent it. The perps or anticipated-perps don't even need to be convicted if you fail to act and "should have known".

And to that point, the pictures above make anyone who views them part of the "should have known" crowd who are legally compelled to act to prevent child abuse. If this subculture is doing these things as a matter of sober pride down a public thoroughfare in the middle of the day with bright rainbow colors, anticipating and hoping children will be in attendence, alarm bells should be ringing loudly about what we can anticipate they will do behind closed doors with kids.

 

[daws101]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

faLSE KIDS HAVE NO RIGHTS
Also you post the above pics so often ,do you masturbate to them?

There you have it. The gay opinion in a nutshell: "Kids have no rights".

However they do. They are protected vigorously by federal and state statutes where just suspicion of impending harm compels you legally to act to prevent it. The perps or anticipated-perps don't even need to be convicted if you fail to act and "should have known".

And to that point, the pictures above make anyone who views them part of the "should have known" crowd who are legally compelled to act to prevent child abuse. If this subculture is doing these things as a matter of sober pride down a public thoroughfare in the middle of the day with bright rainbow colors, anticipating and hoping children will be in attendence, alarm bells should be ringing loudly about what we can anticipate they will do behind closed doors with kids.

another pointless rant ...

 

[Silhouette]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

faLSE KIDS HAVE NO RIGHTS
Also you post the above pics so often ,do you masturbate to them?

There you have it. The gay opinion in a nutshell: "Kids have no rights".

However they do. They are protected vigorously by federal and state statutes where just suspicion of impending harm compels you legally to act to prevent it. The perps or anticipated-perps don't even need to be convicted if you fail to act and "should have known".

And to that point, the pictures above make anyone who views them part of the "should have known" crowd who are legally compelled to act to prevent child abuse. If this subculture is doing these things as a matter of sober pride down a public thoroughfare in the middle of the day with bright rainbow colors, anticipating and hoping children will be in attendence, alarm bells should be ringing loudly about what we can anticipate they will do behind closed doors with kids.

another pointless rant ...

No, I said you speak of children like they are some sort of country club membership access. Then I affirmed their rights are superior because they cannot vote and as such must take precedent in protection.

Your response was that they have no rights. My contention is that they do and that those pictures point out exactly why people must act to protect what they know is coming to any kid placed with such people.

Talking about the rights of children's wellbeing has now been labelled by an LGBT activist as "a pointless rant".

I hope you know I'm keeping track of this trend in LGBT thinking with respect to children's intrinsic and separate personhood....

 

[daws101]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

faLSE KIDS HAVE NO RIGHTS
Also you post the above pics so often ,do you masturbate to them?

There you have it. The gay opinion in a nutshell: "Kids have no rights".

However they do. They are protected vigorously by federal and state statutes where just suspicion of impending harm compels you legally to act to prevent it. The perps or anticipated-perps don't even need to be convicted if you fail to act and "should have known".

And to that point, the pictures above make anyone who views them part of the "should have known" crowd who are legally compelled to act to prevent child abuse. If this subculture is doing these things as a matter of sober pride down a public thoroughfare in the middle of the day with bright rainbow colors, anticipating and hoping children will be in attendence, alarm bells should be ringing loudly about what we can anticipate they will do behind closed doors with kids.

another pointless rant ...

No, I said you speak of children like they are some sort of country club membership access. Then I affirmed their rights are superior because they cannot vote and as such must take precedent in protection.

Your response was that they have no rights. My contention is that they do and that those pictures point out exactly why people must act to protect what they know is coming to any kid placed with such people.

Talking about the rights of children's wellbeing has now been labelled by an LGBT activist as "a pointless rant".

I hope you know I'm keeping track of this trend in LGBT thinking with respect to children's intrinsic and separate personhood....

you need to get a life! keeping track? how many sick fucks with no lives are on this site?.

 

[Silhouette]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

faLSE KIDS HAVE NO RIGHTS
Also you post the above pics so often ,do you masturbate to them?

There you have it. The gay opinion in a nutshell: "Kids have no rights".

However they do. They are protected vigorously by federal and state statutes where just suspicion of impending harm compels you legally to act to prevent it. The perps or anticipated-perps don't even need to be convicted if you fail to act and "should have known".

And to that point, the pictures above make anyone who views them part of the "should have known" crowd who are legally compelled to act to prevent child abuse. If this subculture is doing these things as a matter of sober pride down a public thoroughfare in the middle of the day with bright rainbow colors, anticipating and hoping children will be in attendence, alarm bells should be ringing loudly about what we can anticipate they will do behind closed doors with kids.

another pointless rant ...

No, I said you speak of children like they are some sort of country club membership access. Then I affirmed their rights are superior because they cannot vote and as such must take precedent in protection.

Your response was that they have no rights. My contention is that they do and that those pictures point out exactly why people must act to protect what they know is coming to any kid placed with such people.

Talking about the rights of children's wellbeing has now been labelled by an LGBT activist as "a pointless rant".

I hope you know I'm keeping track of this trend in LGBT thinking with respect to children's intrinsic and separate personhood....

you need to get a life! keeping track? how many sick fucks with no lives are on this site?.

Yes, I am keeping track of how may gay activists declare that children are not part of the marriage debate and how children "have no rights" as such when it comes to the definition of marriage. You betcha I'm keeping track of that. Look at the pictures for insights as to WHY. Shouldn't be a stunner really, for those with very basic cognitive functioning..

 

[daws101]

If two homosexuals want to get married and/or adopt, let them. They have every right to be happy, just like the heterosexuals and closet homosexuals. If we try to stop them, we are infringing on their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, the kids involved in that situation have dominant civil rights because they aren't allowed to vote. So their rights take precedence.

You speak about adoption as if it's some sort of country club membership and not about the pyschological and physical wellbeing of children:

faLSE KIDS HAVE NO RIGHTS
Also you post the above pics so often ,do you masturbate to them?

There you have it. The gay opinion in a nutshell: "Kids have no rights".

However they do. They are protected vigorously by federal and state statutes where just suspicion of impending harm compels you legally to act to prevent it. The perps or anticipated-perps don't even need to be convicted if you fail to act and "should have known".

And to that point, the pictures above make anyone who views them part of the "should have known" crowd who are legally compelled to act to prevent child abuse. If this subculture is doing these things as a matter of sober pride down a public thoroughfare in the middle of the day with bright rainbow colors, anticipating and hoping children will be in attendence, alarm bells should be ringing loudly about what we can anticipate they will do behind closed doors with kids.

another pointless rant ...

No, I said you speak of children like they are some sort of country club membership access. Then I affirmed their rights are superior because they cannot vote and as such must take precedent in protection.

Your response was that they have no rights. My contention is that they do and that those pictures point out exactly why people must act to protect what they know is coming to any kid placed with such people.

Talking about the rights of children's wellbeing has now been labelled by an LGBT activist as "a pointless rant".

I hope you know I'm keeping track of this trend in LGBT thinking with respect to children's intrinsic and separate personhood....

you need to get a life! keeping track? how many sick fucks with no lives are on this site?.

Yes, I am keeping track of how may gay activists declare that children are not part of the marriage debate and how children "have no rights" as such when it comes to the definition of marriage. You betcha I'm keeping track of that. Look at the pictures for insights as to WHY. Shouldn't be a stunner really, for those with very basic cognitive functioning..

+so you're admitting you have no higher cognitive function!
there is nothing in those pictures that any thinking parent, who understands age appropriateness would be offended by .
they would deal with it their own way

 

[Silhouette]

...there is nothing in those pictures that any thinking parent, who understands age appropriateness would be offended by .
they would deal with it their own way

I would argue that you'd have to suspend the art of thinking in order to consider those people fit to parent. So we are at loggerheads on that point.

What the eyes relay directly to the brain cannot go through a PC-filter when it comes to child-welfare.

And I would argue that any adoption agent will be looking at those pictures and thinking that those people are not fit to be around children behind closed doors if this is what they're soberly-proud of in a parade down main street.

Since there are laws state and federal in place that require a person to anticipate danger to a child and then ACT to protect them, adoption agencies and any other adult in a position to oversee child welfare [that's all of us really] are mandated to keep children away from people doing things like that in public. How an adoption agent would "deal with it" [unless gays get the shoehorn of marriage in place legally] would be to rightly deny such people access to adopt our nation's most vulnerable citizens: orphans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The hetero-fascist cult continues to mumble and fumble. Windsor reinforces the likelihood SCOTUS will interven on the side of marriage equality.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55 May 21, 2014 - In the latest May 8-11 poll, there is further evidence that support for gay marriage has solidified above the majority level. This comes on the ...

The hetero-fascist cult of cultural McCarthyism will not be allowed to get away with distorting and misrepresentation of the issue.

 

[Silhouette]

The hetero-fascist cult continues to mumble and fumble. Windsor reinforces the likelihood SCOTUS will interven on the side of marriage equality.

1. Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
   
   
   Gallup.Com - Daily News Polls Public Opinion on Politics Economy Wellbeing and Worldpoll/.../sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.asp...
   Gallup
   
   May 21, 2014 - In the latest May 8-11 poll, there is further evidence that support for gay marriage has solidified above the majority level. This comes on the ...

The hetero-fascist cult of cultural McCarthyism will not be allowed to get away with distorting and misrepresentation of the issue.

Really? Because 82% of responders to this huge poll here at USMB said they don't think gay marriage should be forced on churches. That kind of fucks with your poll data a bit on the "same-sex marriage support". At the very least it paints that support to be very lukewarm indeed: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 130 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And if Windsor was so supportive and indicative of SCOTUS intervening on behalf of gay marriage, why recently twice now has SCOTUS intervened to stop gay marriage while cases pend appeal there when Windsor was cited as the reason to halt gay marriage in favor of state's democratic rule?

 

[SixFoot]

...Notwithstanding, that is now the current law via judicial review. But make no mistake about it, this is the stuff of the living Constitution whereby judges have effectively amended the Constitution unilaterally in defiance of the people's prerogative in accordance with the prescribed method of amending the Constitution in Article V. It has never been up to the several states to variously define marriage among themselves. In fact, the federal government has no legitimate power to redefine marriage against the natural order of things either, though it does have the constitutional authority to universally enforce the natural order of things in that regard. Sexual relativism and the imperatives of natural law regarding inalienable human rights are not compatible! Sexual relativism is tyranny. The Court's Fifth Amendment argument, once again, is bogus.

In other words, the Court's responsibility in Windsor was to explain to the people by way of its decision that neither the federal government nor the governments of the several states can redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution specifically granting them that power! In other words, the only sense in which DOMA was unconstitutional is that is it fallaciously lent credence to the notion that the several states could legitimately redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution. All DOMA did was prohibit any one state from imposing its redefinition of marriage or the terms of civil unions on any other via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Yes or No?

Well then you should re-read Windsor because the Court in the Opinion states over and over and over and over how the definition of marriage rests within the separate states from the dawn of our country no less and the only exception to that Finding is who is covered under the 14th Amendment [they cite Loving v Virginia]. To date, no precedent has been set where a sexual subculture's behaviors and fadism has gotten special protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Windsor Found:

1. That gay marriage is weird and new [read it, it's there. They compare it to 13 year olds in New Hampshire marrying and 1st cousins in some states. They say it is in defiance of tradition/the definition that is 1,000s of years old.]

2. That states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves.

3. That 1 and 2 taken together they Found that the widest possible weigh-in from members of each sovereign state's "discreet community" was how marriage should be defined.

4. That once it is defined within a state, the fed has to respect that definition and I believe...

5....that not all states have to recognize gay marriage from other states.

Its not often I find someone posting exactly what I'm thinking on any particular topic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

...Notwithstanding, that is now the current law via judicial review. But make no mistake about it, this is the stuff of the living Constitution whereby judges have effectively amended the Constitution unilaterally in defiance of the people's prerogative in accordance with the prescribed method of amending the Constitution in Article V. It has never been up to the several states to variously define marriage among themselves. In fact, the federal government has no legitimate power to redefine marriage against the natural order of things either, though it does have the constitutional authority to universally enforce the natural order of things in that regard. Sexual relativism and the imperatives of natural law regarding inalienable human rights are not compatible! Sexual relativism is tyranny. The Court's Fifth Amendment argument, once again, is bogus.

In other words, the Court's responsibility in Windsor was to explain to the people by way of its decision that neither the federal government nor the governments of the several states can redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution specifically granting them that power! In other words, the only sense in which DOMA was unconstitutional is that is it fallaciously lent credence to the notion that the several states could legitimately redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution. All DOMA did was prohibit any one state from imposing its redefinition of marriage or the terms of civil unions on any other via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Yes or No?

Well then you should re-read Windsor because the Court in the Opinion states over and over and over and over how the definition of marriage rests within the separate states from the dawn of our country no less and the only exception to that Finding is who is covered under the 14th Amendment [they cite Loving v Virginia]. To date, no precedent has been set where a sexual subculture's behaviors and fadism has gotten special protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Windsor Found:

1. That gay marriage is weird and new [read it, it's there. They compare it to 13 year olds in New Hampshire marrying and 1st cousins in some states. They say it is in defiance of tradition/the definition that is 1,000s of years old.]

2. That states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves.

3. That 1 and 2 taken together they Found that the widest possible weigh-in from members of each sovereign state's "discreet community" was how marriage should be defined.

4. That once it is defined within a state, the fed has to respect that definition and I believe...

5....that not all states have to recognize gay marriage from other states.

Its not often I find someone posting exactly what I'm thinking on any particular topic.

Actually, Silhouette's reading and my reading of Windsor are the same. He simply mistook my critique of the Court's erroneous reasoning for the Court's ratio decidendi. I'm perfectly cognizant of the difference between the two. Notwithstanding, the majority's philsolphical and historical ratio decidendi is leftist hokum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is neither "leftist" nor "hokum."

You use those terms as a purveyor of cultural McCarthyism opposed to integration of the US culture into the 21st century global community

 

[Silhouette]

My goodness, we've resorted to latin. It think though that the Court will think outside the box on this one. They know polygamy is looming on the heels of any special protections for whatever limited description "LBGT" is. And they're going to be damned to be the Court that goes into the history books as "the Supreme Court that inadvertently forced polygamy on Utah"...!

Imagine the irony.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is neither "leftist" nor "hokum."

You use those terms as a purveyor of cultural McCarthyism o opposed to integration of the US culture into the 21st century global community

You speak with leftist, forked-hokum tongue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says the hokumist cultural McCarthyite.

You partnern is hokum seems to think polygamy is a bug a boo going to drive the court bug a bat.

Not a chance.

 

[Silhouette]

Says the hokumist cultural McCarthyite.

You partner is hokum seems to think polygamy is a bug a boo going to drive the court bug a bat.

Not a chance.

"Not a chance" that the Court will consider polygamy as a looming precedent-follower they'll have to answer to and for? They already brought it up as an issue at the Hearings on Prop 8/Windsor in 2013. I think it was one of the female Justices actually that questioned gay-cult attorneys as to how they might advise the Court to turn down polygamy if federal protection for gay marriage was extended? Words to that effect.

Oh, they're thinking about polygamy. Especially when it comes to Utah.

 

[daws101]

...there is nothing in those pictures that any thinking parent, who understands age appropriateness would be offended by .
they would deal with it their own way

I would argue that you'd have to suspend the art of thinking in order to consider those people fit to parent. So we are at loggerheads on that point.

What the eyes relay directly to the brain cannot go through a PC-filter when it comes to child-welfare.

And I would argue that any adoption agent will be looking at those pictures and thinking that those people are not fit to be around children behind closed doors if this is what they're soberly-proud of in a parade down main street.

Since there are laws state and federal in place that require a person to anticipate danger to a child and then ACT to protect them, adoption agencies and any other adult in a position to oversee child welfare [that's all of us really] are mandated to keep children away from people doing things like that in public. How an adoption agent would "deal with it" [unless gays get the shoehorn of marriage in place legally] would be to rightly deny such people access to adopt our nation's most vulnerable citizens: orphans.

no we are not at loggerheads..you've been spewing a bigoted agenda and i've shot it full of holes...you really need to get a life or another hobby.

 

[daws101]

The hetero-fascist cult continues to mumble and fumble. Windsor reinforces the likelihood SCOTUS will interven on the side of marriage equality.

1. Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%
   
   
   Gallup.Com - Daily News Polls Public Opinion on Politics Economy Wellbeing and Worldpoll/.../sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.asp...
   Gallup
   
   May 21, 2014 - In the latest May 8-11 poll, there is further evidence that support for gay marriage has solidified above the majority level. This comes on the ...

The hetero-fascist cult of cultural McCarthyism will not be allowed to get away with distorting and misrepresentation of the issue.

Really? Because 82% of responders to this huge poll here at USMB said they don't think gay marriage should be forced on churches. That kind of fucks with your poll data a bit on the "same-sex marriage support". At the very least it paints that support to be very lukewarm indeed: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 130 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And if Windsor was so supportive and indicative of SCOTUS intervening on behalf of gay marriage, why recently twice now has SCOTUS intervened to stop gay marriage while cases pend appeal there when Windsor was cited as the reason to halt gay marriage in favor of state's democratic rule?

at usmb !

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, 82% here thought that churches should not be forced to hold gay marriages. That does not mean that 82% or anywhere near it oppose marriage equality.

 

[SixFoot]

...Notwithstanding, that is now the current law via judicial review. But make no mistake about it, this is the stuff of the living Constitution whereby judges have effectively amended the Constitution unilaterally in defiance of the people's prerogative in accordance with the prescribed method of amending the Constitution in Article V. It has never been up to the several states to variously define marriage among themselves. In fact, the federal government has no legitimate power to redefine marriage against the natural order of things either, though it does have the constitutional authority to universally enforce the natural order of things in that regard. Sexual relativism and the imperatives of natural law regarding inalienable human rights are not compatible! Sexual relativism is tyranny. The Court's Fifth Amendment argument, once again, is bogus.

In other words, the Court's responsibility in Windsor was to explain to the people by way of its decision that neither the federal government nor the governments of the several states can redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution specifically granting them that power! In other words, the only sense in which DOMA was unconstitutional is that is it fallaciously lent credence to the notion that the several states could legitimately redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution. All DOMA did was prohibit any one state from imposing its redefinition of marriage or the terms of civil unions on any other via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Yes or No?

Well then you should re-read Windsor because the Court in the Opinion states over and over and over and over how the definition of marriage rests within the separate states from the dawn of our country no less and the only exception to that Finding is who is covered under the 14th Amendment [they cite Loving v Virginia]. To date, no precedent has been set where a sexual subculture's behaviors and fadism has gotten special protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Windsor Found:

1. That gay marriage is weird and new [read it, it's there. They compare it to 13 year olds in New Hampshire marrying and 1st cousins in some states. They say it is in defiance of tradition/the definition that is 1,000s of years old.]

2. That states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves.

3. That 1 and 2 taken together they Found that the widest possible weigh-in from members of each sovereign state's "discreet community" was how marriage should be defined.

4. That once it is defined within a state, the fed has to respect that definition and I believe...

5....that not all states have to recognize gay marriage from other states.

Its not often I find someone posting exactly what I'm thinking on any particular topic.

Actually, Silhouette's reading and my reading of Windsor are the same. He simply mistook my critique of the Court's erroneous reasoning for the Court's ratio decidendi. I'm perfectly cognizant of the difference between the two. Notwithstanding, the majority's philsolphical and historical ratio decidendi is leftist hokum.

I'm thoroughly enjoying your posts as well.