Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal

[Silhouette]

Hmmmm Maybe someday states will consider incentivizing marriage laws to benefit children. They haven't so far. Of course most 'marriage benefits' have nothing to do with children. For instance inheritance laws- spouses get automatic exemptions- children don't. Community property- the same thing- if it was all about children- how come the children don't have community property with their mom and dad? Marriage laws could be enacted so that states give parents specific incitements to have children once they are married.
But no state does that. Fact is- it costs more to raise a child than any parent gets from a tax deduction. And that tax deduction- parents get that whether they are married or not.

Playing dumb again I see...

The idea that a state has is to reward THE ADULTS for STAYING TOGETHER in marriage. A child legally has no right to control resourcs such as community property until they are of age so your strawman is a moot point. And the states have long ago deduced that if a child's blood parents or at least an acceptable complmentary pair of father/mother to children do well, the children also do well.

And before you launch into your "what about the states granting divorce" retort, the states RELUCTANTLY grant divorce for irreconcilable differences in a hostile environment that no longer is beneficial to the children in it. A state grants divorce with a heavy heart, not one ounce of glee. And again, divorce is also about the children; bitter fighting in a toxic home is not to their best interest.

There is no other conceivable purpose for a state to be involved in incentivizing the privelege of marriage. Furthermore, Windsor 2013 affirmed that each state may decide for itself whether or NOT to ratify gay marriage. Ergo, until further notice that is the law that binds all lower circuit courts. Hence the reason I posted this thread. At the end of the writing of Windsor 2013 it Affirmed that gay marriage "is only allowed in some states". That's the final word on federal interference until SCOTUS says otherwise.

Each state has a right to incentivize which arrangement they see best for a child's formative environment. That's all that marriage is ultimately about. It's nice that adults want to solemnize their commitment together but that is a religious matter. The secular matter of marriage is ALL ABOUT the kids. Each discreet community has the right and power to determine which situation is best to incentivize for the sake of the kids in their borders.

Either father/mother, or that arrangement and one that guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender (which may be the child's own) and one blood parent 100% of the time (gay marriage).. And in the interest of equality/fair play if marriage is deemed a "right" instead of what it is now (a privelege) also polygamy incest and so on... Remember, NO PERSON shall be disenfranchised from a "right" that others enjoy..

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmm Maybe someday states will consider incentivizing marriage laws to benefit children. They haven't so far. Of course most 'marriage benefits' have nothing to do with children. For instance inheritance laws- spouses get automatic exemptions- children don't. Community property- the same thing- if it was all about children- how come the children don't have community property with their mom and dad? Marriage laws could be enacted so that states give parents specific incitements to have children once they are married.
But no state does that. Fact is- it costs more to raise a child than any parent gets from a tax deduction. And that tax deduction- parents get that whether they are married or not.

Playing dumb again I see...

The idea that a state has is to reward THE ADULTS for STAYING TOGETHER in marriage. .

And that is all the state does- is reward the married couple for staying together.

Has nothing to do with children.

 

[Syriusly]

Furthermore, Windsor 2013 affirmed that each state may decide for itself whether or NOT to ratify gay marriage. .

Windsor said that the Federal Government can't legislate who the States decide to allow to marry.

But Windsor also said that State marriage laws are subject to the Constitution, and hence review by the courts.

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor said that the Federal Government can't legislate who the States decide to allow to marry.

But Windsor also said that State marriage laws are subject to the Constitution, and hence review by the courts.

And Windsor also Ended saying "as of this Writing, only 11 states have legal gay marriage". That was their Rendering of the applicability of the Constitution as to "marriage being a right" vs a privelege that it instead is. Windsor ended affirming states' dominance on the specific question of law of gay marriage being up to each state...until further notice. That notice from the Supremes has not yet come. Lower courts are not at liberty to defy a Finding at the Top level, even in anticipation of the Supremes overturning their Decision of just 2013 on such short notice. It's against federal procedure.

 

[Syriusly]

Windsor said that the Federal Government can't legislate who the States decide to allow to marry.

But Windsor also said that State marriage laws are subject to the Constitution, and hence review by the courts.

And Windsor also Ended saying "as of this Writing, only 11 states have legal gay marriage". .

No- that is not how Windsor ended. Seriously- is there anything you will not lie about?

Here is the end of the majority opinion decision:

DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with
whom same-sex couples interact, including their own
children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages
of others.

The federal statute is invalid, for no
legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to
disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its mar-riage laws, \sought to protect in personhood and dignity

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit is affirmed.

That is the actual end of the decision.

Note the part 'including their own children'

 

[Inevitable]

Windsor said that the Federal Government can't legislate who the States decide to allow to marry.

But Windsor also said that State marriage laws are subject to the Constitution, and hence review by the courts.

And Windsor also Ended saying "as of this Writing, only 11 states have legal gay marriage". .

No- that is not how Windsor ended. Seriously- is there anything you will not lie about?

Here is the end of the majority opinion decision:

DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with
whom same-sex couples interact, including their own
children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages
of others.

The federal statute is invalid, for no
legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to
disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its mar-riage laws, \sought to protect in personhood and dignity

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit is affirmed.

That is the actual end of the decision.

Note the part 'including their own children'

Denial to silhouette apparently is just a river in Africa. When it's all over he is still going to be saying it's not over. It will end with gay people being allowed to marry. Everybody knows it. It's just some hope beyond hope that it will not end the way it is going to.

The internet is full of these people. Watch a few videos on YouTube and read the comments. The ones that bearly can speak English are the ones that pitch silhouette's style of denial.

It's funny, you shouldn't argue with it you should mock it.

 

[Silhouette]

Denial to silhouette apparently is just a river in Africa. When it's all over he is still going to be saying it's not over. It will end with gay people being allowed to marry. Everybody knows it. It's just some hope beyond hope that it will not end the way it is going to..

That all depends and hinges upon whether or not the Supreme Court will consider children or adults in the final tally. They will have to first ask themselves "Why are states involved in incentivizing marriage in the first place?". Because states actually lose money on the deal. So then the Supremes will have to ask themselves "Well what do states GET out of losing money on marriage in the tax breaks and so on?". The answer of course is a stable society via the best environment for the formative years of future citizens (children)

The best formative environment for kids guarantees lower prison rolls, mental health issues and indigency in future adults. Less crime and more stability. So incentivizing the best formative environment for kids MORE than pays for itself 10 times over.

One of a few situations that does not pose a healthy environment for children would be a type of marriage where the complimentary gender (which may be the child's own and a source of reflection for self-esteem) is guaranteed to be missing 100% of the time (gay marriage or single "monosexual" homes). Others would be incest marriage where children born can be anticipated to have physical birth defects. Another type would be polygamy marriage where the one parent is overextended and his attention to his very numerous offspring is diluted so much to the detriment of each child.

So the only marriage that makes sense to "invest" in (incentivize) is one where there is a father and a mother. Whereas sometimes even that arrangement falls short of the desired perfection by happenstance; the others are GUARANTEED to fall short by the very structure of their makeup. The kids in that arrangement don't even stand a chance straight out of the chute..

 

[Silhouette]

"Inevitable" should change his name to "still under debate"..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

There's no such thing as Homophobia. It's a deceitful device designed to cow those who recognize that sexual abnormality is not normal, into agreeing with the idiots, that abnormality is normal.

LOL! The last person that tried to trot that crap out on me in public, did not much care for how it went for 'em.

 

[Inevitable]

Denial to silhouette apparently is just a river in Africa. When it's all over he is still going to be saying it's not over. It will end with gay people being allowed to marry. Everybody knows it. It's just some hope beyond hope that it will not end the way it is going to..

That all depends and hinges upon whether or not the Supreme Court will consider children or adults in the final tally. They will have to first ask themselves "Why are states involved in incentivizing marriage in the first place?". Because states actually lose money on the deal. So then the Supremes will have to ask themselves "Well what do states GET out of losing money on marriage in the tax breaks and so on?". The answer of course is a stable society via the best environment for the formative years of future citizens (children)

The best formative environment for kids guarantees lower prison rolls, mental health issues and indigency in future adults. Less crime and more stability. So incentivizing the best formative environment for kids MORE than pays for itself 10 times over.

One of a few situations that does not pose a healthy environment for children would be a type of marriage where the complimentary gender (which may be the child's own and a source of reflection for self-esteem) is guaranteed to be missing 100% of the time (gay marriage or single "monosexual" homes). Others would be incest marriage where children born can be anticipated to have physical birth defects. Another type would be polygamy marriage where the one parent is overextended and his attention to his very numerous offspring is diluted so much to the detriment of each child.

So the only marriage that makes sense to "invest" in (incentivize) is one where there is a father and a mother. Whereas sometimes even that arrangement falls short of the desired perfection by happenstance; the others are GUARANTEED to fall short by the very structure of their makeup. The kids in that arrangement don't even stand a chance straight out of the chute..

(Translated to non delusional English)
"Waa waa waa, the United states is going to legally recognize same sex marriage and everybody is going to learn how full of shit silhouette really is!"

I already know.

 

[Inevitable]

"Inevitable" should change his name to "still under debate"..

Think my name is quite accurate

 

[Inevitable]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

There's no such thing as Homophobia. It's a deceitful device designed to cow those who recognize that sexual abnormality is not normal, into agreeing with the idiots, that abnormality is normal.

LOL! The last person that tried to trot that crap out on me in public, did not much care for how it went for 'em.

Yeah it's all a massive conspiracy, that is rational.

Yeah internet badasses are so formidable.

 

[Syriusly]

Denial to silhouette apparently is just a river in Africa. When it's all over he is still going to be saying it's not over. It will end with gay people being allowed to marry. Everybody knows it. It's just some hope beyond hope that it will not end the way it is going to..

That all depends and hinges upon whether or not the Supreme Court will consider children or adults in the final tally. ..

Hopefully the Supreme Court will consider first and foremost the Constitution and as per the Constitution rights as embodied in the 14th Amendment.

And of course if the Supreme Court considers the children- they will probably be led the swing vote- Justice Kennedy

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Syriusly]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

There's no such thing as Homophobia. .

It is actually in the dictionary.

Just one more piece of nonsense from Keys.

 

[Silhouette]

That all depends and hinges upon whether or not the Supreme Court will consider children or adults in the final tally. ..

Hopefully the Supreme Court will consider first and foremost the Constitution and as per the Constitution rights as embodied in the 14th Amendment.
And of course if the Supreme Court considers the children- they will probably be led the swing vote- Justice Kennedy
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is no more of an "immediate legal injury" to children caught up in gay lifestyles than there is to the many many many millions of more children caught up in the monosexual lifestyle (those parents who prefer to be alone, or are alone, whichever). If your argument is "any adults supervising children currently not receiving the benefits of marriage must be allowed to marry" is to be carried through to its logical legal end (speaking of the 14th Amendment and blind equality for all) then all single parents and polygamy parents and incest parents must be allowed to legally marry so that those vastly larger numbers of children experiencing "immediate legal injury" can get relief.

Unless you're a bigot and think only your special church of deviance gets the green light while other children "have to wait" while they too "receive immediate legal injury"..

This is above and beyond today's children. This is a Decision that will affect untold hundreds of millions of children, perhaps even billions of them over time. This is a Decision not comparmentalized and myopically focusing on gays or the "injured" children in their midst (I'm not arguing those kids are injured, but rather how that is...). This is a Decision that seeks to torpedo the basement foundation of American society and the formative environment we are incentivizing our future generations to be raised in.

So while Kennedy stands with his blinders on, eating out of his rainbow feed-bag, hooked up to the LGBT cartload of bullshit and sympathy-milk, there's a chance he might spook and upset the cart when he starts to consider the real reason states are involved incentivizing marriage and the loss of revenue that investment is to states and how states justify that loss as a gain over time to themselves by producing the healthiest and best-rounded children/future citizens.

You keep repeating his phrase like Kennedy is fixated upon it. I think it was Kennedy or the guy next to him who asked this question also "if we allow gay marriage, how is it that we can deny polygamy"?

There were lots of things said at the Windsor/Prop 8 twin hearings. I remember saying something once while I was young and stupid. If I could resay it today, I would. Kennedy may at this moment be thinking those exact thoughts..

 

[Syriusly]

That all depends and hinges upon whether or not the Supreme Court will consider children or adults in the final tally. ..

Hopefully the Supreme Court will consider first and foremost the Constitution and as per the Constitution rights as embodied in the 14th Amendment.
And of course if the Supreme Court considers the children- they will probably be led the swing vote- Justice Kennedy
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There is no more of an "immediate legal injury" to children caught up in gay lifestyles..

Once again- gay marriage has nothing to do with whatever injury that you imagine.

As Justice Kennedy points out- the children of gay parents denied marriage have an immediate legal injury.

Gay couples have children with or without marriage- your solution only guarantees that their children will not have married parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Once again- gay marriage has nothing to do with whatever injury that you imagine.

As Justice Kennedy points out- the children of gay parents denied marriage have an immediate legal injury.

Gay couples have children with or without marriage- your solution only guarantees that their children will not have married parents.

And the children of monosexuals (single parents), polygamists and incestuous couplings are NOT having immediate injury? I'll await your calculated dodge on that point. And if you admit they suffer in the same way, then we can compare numbers and see which category of adults needs a "rush order" on new inclusion in a state's privelege of marriage for the sake of the children.

If you are going on sheer numbers, I'd say states had better allow monosexuals to marry themselves because if they choose to be alone and raise children, the state shouldn't punish those kids for the relationship choice of the parents...no? How many MILLIONS (vs thousands caught up in gay lifestyles) of children of single parents are there? Isn't it tens of millions?

 

[Silhouette]

There's no such thing as Homophobia. .

.It is actually in the dictionary

Just one more piece of nonsense from Keys.

So is the word "unicorn"....and in the same class "transgender"..

Just one more piece of illogical-deduction from Syriusly.. (the name being ironic here)

 

[Silhouette]

Read this again and tell me how Windsor was not a determination of whether or not denying gay marriage is legal:

page 14 of Opinion: United States v. Windsor
After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution

"Against this background (a statewide deliberative process) of lawful same-sex marriage in some States (but not all, because we just said it's arrived at by a statewide, not federal, deliberative process of a state's citizens)..."

After reading that, how is again that lower circuit courts can order states to perform gay marraiges against the will of the deliberative consensus?
How again is it that "Prop 8 isn't the law anymore"?

You realize of course that the intiative system in California and other states is a "statewide deliberative process"...and that the ruling against defenders of Prop 8 was procedural, not on the merits of their case? The Court effectively (but not purposefully) let stand the lower court ruling in the federal system, for what it was worth. Which is exactly bupkiss upon the reading of Windsor. In June 2013, the US Supreme Court affirmed the merits of Prop 8 as binding law.

 

[Inevitable]

There's no such thing as Homophobia. .

.It is actually in the dictionary

Just one more piece of nonsense from Keys.

So is the word "unicorn"....and in the same class "transgender"..

Just one more piece of illogical-deduction from Syriusly.. (the name being ironic here)

You don't have any room to tell anybody they are being illogical.

You are being downright hysterical.