Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Justices are not going to rehear Obergefell v. Hodges based on the demands of your imagination and crippling homophobia. You would be wise to remember that.
No, but they may be forced to revisit it after "Any catholic adoption agency vs Obergefell" makes its way up to the four Justices necessary to agree to Hear the case.. .
This is true ignorant idiocy; as desperate as it is wrong and ridiculous.The Justices are not going to rehear Obergefell v. Hodges based on the demands of your imagination and crippling homophobia. You would be wise to remember that.
No, but they may be forced to revisit it after "Any catholic adoption agency vs Obergefell" makes its way up to the four Justices necessary to agree to Hear the case.. or "the State of (fill in the blank) vs Obergefell"...when it comes to being required to give monetary incentives to people who strip children of even the hope of a mother or father for life...and that societal/fiscal negative outfall..
And what could a Catholic Adoption agency sue about? Not marriage- no more than Catholic Adoption agencies could sue to overturn divorce laws. They would have no standing....And they would have to sue someone-- but who- the state? Oberfefell won't be part of any such suit.
And what could a Catholic Adoption agency sue about? Not marriage- no more than Catholic Adoption agencies could sue to overturn divorce laws. They would have no standing....And they would have to sue someone-- but who- the state? Oberfefell won't be part of any such suit.
Idiot. You know I meant the merits of Obergefell. The states or adoption agencies will contend the merits of Obergefell using New York vs Ferber to show how gay marriage strips children even of the hope of either the vital mother or father...for life.
Here is more about children bubba....this from the tenth circuit court upholding the lower courts ruling that Utah's ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutionalYou do realize that none of the Justices were child psychologists when Feber was decided, right? Or do they only need to be when they are discussing gay people and their families?
.
Did they have child psychologists testify? Remember, the judges don't present argument. They preside over it. I imagine they consulted some child psychologists on the question of "should an adult's constitutional right to circulate child pornography be dominant to what's best for children" (the essence of New York vs Ferber). But if there were no child psychologists present, are you asserting that it was a matter of common sense that children exploited for child pornography should not be, even when it is an adult's constitutional right to free speech? If that's the case, I suppose we could deduce that it is also a matter of common sense that boys stripped of fathers for life or girls stripped of mothers for life (the mechanics of gay marriage) is also bad for children.
In any event, I will welcome the professional argument that the Justices may then use to render a Decision. And I'm sure you would welcome that too, since you pretend to be all about children's well being. Notice: I'm not afraid of the professional discussion...but you seem to be all about advocating that it not happen at all....which in itself is telling...
The Court has repeatedly referenced the raising of children—rather than just their
creation—as a key factor in the inviolability of marital and familial choices. See, e.g.,
Congress cannot authorize a state to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. See Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 382 (1971) (“Congress does not have the power to authorize the individual States to violate the Equal Protection Clause.”).
-34-
Carey, 431 U.S. at 685 (“child rearing and education” decisions protected from
“unjustified government interference” (quotation omitted)); Moore v. City of East
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 505 (1977) (plurality opinion) (“[d]ecisions concerning child
rearing” have been “recognized as entitled to constitutional protection”); Pierce v. Soc’y
of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925) (discussing “the liberty of parents and guardians
to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control”); Meyer, 262 U.S.
at 399 (liberty protected by the Due Process Clause includes right “to marry, establish a
home[,] and bring up children”). Although cohabitating same-sex couples are prohibited
from jointly adopting children under Utah law as a result of the same-sex marriage ban,
Utah Code § 78B-6-117(3), the record shows that nearly 3,000 Utah children are being
raised by same-sex couples. Thus childrearing, a liberty closely related to the right to
marry, is one exercised by same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike, as well as by single
individuals.7
Children of same-sex couples may lack a biological connection to at least one
parent, but “biological relationships are not [the] exclusive determina[nt] of the existence
of a family.” Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 843
(1977). “[T]he importance of the familial relationship, to the individuals involved and to
the society, stems from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily
association, and from the role it plays in promoting a way of life through the instruction
of children.” Id. at 844 (quotation omitted); see also Utah Code § 78B-6-139 (granting
adoptive parents all rights and duties of biological parents). As the Court in Windsor
held, restrictions on same-sex marriage “humiliate[] tens of thousands of children now
being raised by same-sex couples” and “make[] 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.” 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Such statutes
“bring[] financial harm to children of same-sex couples . . . raise[] the cost of health care
for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex
spouses” and “den[y] or reduce[] benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse
and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.” Id. at 2695. These laws
deny to the children of same-sex couples the recognition essential to stability,
predictability, and dignity. Read literally, they prohibit the grant or recognition
of any rights to such a family and discourage those children from being recognized as members
of a family by their peers.
More about children. This from a federal judge in Kentucky . Tell us again how the courts never considered the needs of children bubbaYou do realize that none of the Justices were child psychologists when Feber was decided, right? Or do they only need to be when they are discussing gay people and their families?
.
Did they have child psychologists testify? Remember, the judges don't present argument. They preside over it. I imagine they consulted some child psychologists on the question of "should an adult's constitutional right to circulate child pornography be dominant to what's best for children" (the essence of New York vs Ferber). But if there were no child psychologists present, are you asserting that it was a matter of common sense that children exploited for child pornography should not be, even when it is an adult's constitutional right to free speech? If that's the case, I suppose we could deduce that it is also a matter of common sense that boys stripped of fathers for life or girls stripped of mothers for life (the mechanics of gay marriage) is also bad for children.
In any event, I will welcome the professional argument that the Justices may then use to render a Decision. And I'm sure you would welcome that too, since you pretend to be all about children's well being. Notice: I'm not afraid of the professional discussion...but you seem to be all about advocating that it not happen at all....which in itself is telling...
That Kentucky’s laws are rooted in tradition, however, cannot alone justify their infringement on individual liberties," writes Heyburn. "Over the past forty years, the Supreme Court has refused to allow mere tradition to justify marriage statutes that violate individual liberties."
Heyburn also addresses the defense of exclusionary marriage rights advanced by antigay group the Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky, which filed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" brief, contending that marriage is regulated by the state to encourage "responsible procreation and childrearing, steering naturally procreative relationships into stable unions, promoting the optimal childrearing environment, and proceeding with caution when considering changes in how the state defines marriage."
Heyburn flatly rejects these illogical arguments. "The Court fails to see how having a family could conceivably harm children," he writes. Indeed, Justice Kennedy [in Windsor] explained that it was the government’s failure to recognize same-sex marriages that harmed children, not having married parents who happened to be of the same sex." http://www.advocate.com/politics/mar...constitutional
"No one in this case has offered factual or rational reasons why Kentucky’s laws are rationally related to any of these purposes," explains Heyburn.
You do realize that none of the Justices were child psychologists when Feber was decided, right? Or do they only need to be when they are discussing gay people and their families?
.
Did they have child psychologists testify? Remember, the judges don't present argument. They preside over it. I imagine they consulted some child psychologists on the question of "should an adult's constitutional right to circulate child pornography be dominant to what's best for children" (the essence of New York vs Ferber). But if there were no child psychologists present, are you asserting that it was a matter of common sense that children exploited for child pornography should not be, even when it is an adult's constitutional right to free speech? If that's the case, I suppose we could deduce that it is also a matter of common sense that boys stripped of fathers for life or girls stripped of mothers for life (the mechanics of gay marriage) is also bad for children.
In any event, I will welcome the professional argument that the Justices may then use to render a Decision. And I'm sure you would welcome that too, since you pretend to be all about children's well being. Notice: I'm not afraid of the professional discussion...but you seem to be all about advocating that it not happen at all....which in itself is telling...
As for you quartet of truth......you might want to look at this:You do realize that none of the Justices were child psychologists when Feber was decided, right? Or do they only need to be when they are discussing gay people and their families?
.
Did they have child psychologists testify? Remember, the judges don't present argument. They preside over it. I imagine they consulted some child psychologists on the question of "should an adult's constitutional right to circulate child pornography be dominant to what's best for children" (the essence of New York vs Ferber). But if there were no child psychologists present, are you asserting that it was a matter of common sense that children exploited for child pornography should not be, even when it is an adult's constitutional right to free speech? If that's the case, I suppose we could deduce that it is also a matter of common sense that boys stripped of fathers for life or girls stripped of mothers for life (the mechanics of gay marriage) is also bad for children.
In any event, I will welcome the professional argument that the Justices may then use to render a Decision. And I'm sure you would welcome that too, since you pretend to be all about children's well being. Notice: I'm not afraid of the professional discussion...but you seem to be all about advocating that it not happen at all....which in itself is telling...
Kids' Voices Key On Both Sides Of Gay-Marriage Debate Kids' Voices Key On Both Sides Of Gay-Marriage Debate
When the Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage next week, much of the debate will revolve around children. Opponents have long argued that kids' best interests require both a mom and a dad. Recently, however, more children of same-sex couples have started speaking out for themselves.
Two years ago, a video of a young man testifying in the Iowa Legislature went viral.
"Good evening, Mr. Chairman," the young man said. "My name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women."
Wahls told lawmakers he was a top student and an Eagle Scout — and that "the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character."
Steve Majors of the Family Equality Council says the gay advocacy group saw Wahls' video as "just the tip of the iceberg." The group filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court highlighting the stories of people like him — the first generation raised by openly gay and lesbian parents.
On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced its support of same-sex marriage as being good for kids, Majors says.
iThe Rev. Gene Robinson, along with his daughter Ella and partner Mark Andrew, attend a news conference after Robinson was confirmed as bishop of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis in 2003. Robinson was the church's first openly gay bishop, and his daughter is an advocate for gay marriage.
Eric Miller/Getty Images
You do realize that none of the Justices were child psychologists when Feber was decided, right? Or do they only need to be when they are discussing gay people and their families?
.
Did they have child psychologists testify? Remember, the judges don't present argument. They preside over it. I imagine they consulted some child psychologists on the question of "should an adult's constitutional right to circulate child pornography be dominant to what's best for children" (the essence of New York vs Ferber). But if there were no child psychologists present, are you asserting that it was a matter of common sense that children exploited for child pornography should not be, even when it is an adult's constitutional right to free speech? If that's the case, I suppose we could deduce that it is also a matter of common sense that boys stripped of fathers for life or girls stripped of mothers for life (the mechanics of gay marriage) is also bad for children.
In any event, I will welcome the professional argument that the Justices may then use to render a Decision. And I'm sure you would welcome that too, since you pretend to be all about children's well being. Notice: I'm not afraid of the professional discussion...but you seem to be all about advocating that it not happen at all....which in itself is telling...
Except that stripping a child even of the hope of a mother or father FOR LIFE (gay marriage) is an act of cruelty to children.
Having said that, please answer a couple of easy questions as honestly as you can.
Justice Department Makes Move Toward Backing Sexual Orientation Claims Under Existing Law
Department lawyers bypassed the option to seek dismissal of case that claims sexual orientation discrimination is a type of sex discrimination banned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Department Makes Move Toward Backing Sexual Orientation Claims...
Attorney General Loretta Lynch Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images
ID: 7878701
WASHINGTON — On Thursday, the Justice Department took the first step toward backing the view of a federal commission that sexual orientation is a type of sex discrimination barred under existing civil rights law.
In response to a lawsuit filed by a former Federal Aviation Administration employee claiming that he was illegally discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation, Justice Department attorneys on Thursday chose to answer his complaint rather than seeking to have it dismissed outright.
In his complaint, filed this past October, David Baldwin alleged that he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and that such discrimination was illegal because it is a type of sex discrimination barred by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Nobody is trying to "Kill the Gays" asshole.
Except that stripping a child even of the hope of a mother or father FOR LIFE (gay marriage) is an act of cruelty to children.
Having said that, please answer a couple of easy questions as honestly as you can.
1. How long would you allow a child to remain in the foster care system waiting for a "traditional " couple to adopt him, knowing that the older they get, the less chance there is for anyone adopting them ?
2. What would you do about all of those children who are the biological offspring of a gay person and by virtue of that fact, has no chance of having a mother and a father, but does have a chance to have married parents who both are legally responsible?
Except that stripping a child even of the hope of a mother or father FOR LIFE (gay marriage) is an act of cruelty to children.Having said that, please answer a couple of easy questions as honestly as you can.
1. How long would you allow a child to remain in the foster care system waiting for a "traditional " couple to adopt him, knowing that the older they get, the less chance there is for anyone adopting them ?
2. What would you do about all of those children who are the biological offspring of a gay person and by virtue of that fact, has no chance of having a mother and a father, but does have a chance to have married parents who both are legally responsible?
1. Single people can adopt because that still provides the hope that the child will one day have a mother and father. That person in fact would be more likely to marry than not, having a child to raise on one's own would inspire anyone to find a mate to help. Gays will NEVER bring either the missing father or mother into the child's life. That is a final statement and eradication of hope for the child.
2. The poor unfortunate children caught up in gay lifestyles will likely indeed be stripped of all hope of a balanced parentage for their best psychological development. But we don't make unfortunate exceptions 'the new rule" just because some are suffering. Other children not currently in existence have to be thought of as well. You know, the future and where it's heading with this new psychological prison for children...?
And what could a Catholic Adoption agency sue about? Not marriage- no more than Catholic Adoption agencies could sue to overturn divorce laws. They would have no standing....And they would have to sue someone-- but who- the state? Oberfefell won't be part of any such suit.
Idiot. You know I meant the merits of Obergefell. The states or adoption agencies will contend the merits of Obergefell using New York vs Ferber to show how gay marriage strips children even of the hope of either the vital mother or father...for life.
Except that stripping a child even of the hope of a mother or father FOR LIFE (gay marriage) is an act of cruelty to children.Having said that, please answer a couple of easy questions as honestly as you can.
1. How long would you allow a child to remain in the foster care system waiting for a "traditional " couple to adopt him, knowing that the older they get, the less chance there is for anyone adopting them ?
2. What would you do about all of those children who are the biological offspring of a gay person and by virtue of that fact, has no chance of having a mother and a father, but does have a chance to have married parents who both are legally responsible?
1. Single people can adopt because that still provides the hope that the child will one day have a mother and father. That person in fact would be more likely to marry than not, having a child to raise on one's own would inspire anyone to find a mate to help. Gays will NEVER bring either the missing father or mother into the child's life. That is a final statement and eradication of hope for the child.
2. The poor unfortunate children caught up in gay lifestyles will likely indeed be stripped of all hope of a balanced parentage for their best psychological development. But we don't make unfortunate exceptions 'the new rule" just because some are suffering. Other children not currently in existence have to be thought of as well. You know, the future and where it's heading with this new psychological prison for children...?
That isn't the reason single people are allowed to adopt children but whatever. Nobody gives a shit about this lame 'hope' angle you are presenting b/c it is abundantly clear that you really don't care children. Your biggest concern is finding a way to harm gay people, all your thought is bent on it.
You keep dancing around the end game. What would you do to children that are presently being raised by gay people? Remove them from the home?
One person and one not a preacherShow me proof .... I get tired of the bullshit you guys use. Regressives ether greatly exaggerate something or down right lie about it and never once show proof.... show proofShow me the preachers preaching hate of homosexuals?Stop blaming christians for everything. Christians are not the cause of homosexual unhappiness or troubles. They need only look at the regressives who at every turn incite them with liesk
I don't blame Christians for being Christians. Most Christians are wonderful people who want no harm to come to anyone- just as most gay Americans- most of whom are Christian- also want no harm to come to anyone.
Now there are some faux Christians who preach hate towards homosexuals and other groups they despise- they are false Christians who live to hate- not to follow Christs commandments.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Just b/c you are not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. Start with Preacher Kevin Swason. You should be able to find more than enough stories about this loon. Ted Cruz spoke at even he held recently.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Kevin Swason has proudly stated that he wants to kills gays. Guy is a loon. Do a dash of research if you don't believe me.
Shown the proof it isn't a choiceYou're not a bigot? You just "disagree" with their "choice" That you think that it is a choice, itself says a lot. But aside from that, if you just disagree, then you would be willing to allow gays to live as they wish, free of discrimination, and having the same rights as you. However, everything that you post indicates you want to marginalize them, demean them , and deny them basic civil right that you take for granted, just because you disapprove of them. Therefor YOU are a BIGOT. You might not fear them. You might not be in touch with your feelings of hatred, but your rhetoric and what you advocate says that you do fear and hate them. Even if you do not fear and hate the individual, you have an irrational fear and hatred of the changes to society that acceptance of gays represents, therefore you are a BIGOTUnlike you regressives I am not a bigot. I don't hate nor fear homosexuals. I don't agree with thier choice that's all. Unlike you I don't feel the need to lie about it . Homosexuals are going to get shafted by you regressives because in the in long run we all know where the true bigots are .Who blames Christians? I blame bigots like you. Bigots are the cause of any "unhappiness or troubles" gays might experience. What lies are you talking about? Try to make some sense for a change. You are as pathetic as Sill is when it comes to being able to deal with the facts and logic that I present.Stop blaming christians for everything. Christians are not the cause of homosexual unhappiness or troubles. They need only look at the regressives who at every turn incite them with lies
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Look more bullshit propagandaShow me proof .... I get tired of the bullshit you guys use. Regressives ether greatly exaggerate something or down right lie about it and never once show proof.... show proofShow me the preachers preaching hate of homosexuals?Stop blaming christians for everything. Christians are not the cause of homosexual unhappiness or troubles. They need only look at the regressives who at every turn incite them with liesk
I don't blame Christians for being Christians. Most Christians are wonderful people who want no harm to come to anyone- just as most gay Americans- most of whom are Christian- also want no harm to come to anyone.
Now there are some faux Christians who preach hate towards homosexuals and other groups they despise- they are false Christians who live to hate- not to follow Christs commandments.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Just b/c you are not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. Start with Preacher Kevin Swason. You should be able to find more than enough stories about this loon. Ted Cruz spoke at even he held recently.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
There is plenty more where this comes from !! Geeze. They are not all preachers but I know of a lot more. Open your fucking eyes boy!
Linda Harvey: 'Gaystapo' Now 'Full Of Pink Testosterone' Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 1/27/2016 4:35 pm In her weekly column for WorldNetDaily yesterday, Mission America’s Linda Harvey railed against “the GOP establishment” for “‘going gay,’” warning that doing so “will eviscerate the GOP.” Harvey said that gay peoples’ “aberrant sexual conduct is a blight on America” that’s “sinful, unhealthy and immoral, and there is no need for anyone to engage in it” since “people are not constructed for these bizarre behaviors.” This “behavior,” she wrote, is “tearing our country – and families – apart.” Angry that gay conservative commentator Guy Benson is making an appearance at CPAC in March, Harvey warned that Republicans are “becoming willing tools of the gaystapo” whose leaders are “full of pink testosterone” and bent on promoting “child-endangering, changeable deviance.” Jeb Bush and John Kasich hired them for key campaign staff positions. John Boehner and others campaigned for them. - See more at: Linda Harvey: 'Gaystapo' Now 'Full Of Pink Testosterone'
Ted Cruz Embraces Hate Group Leader Tony Perkins Submitted by Brian Tashman on Wednesday, 1/27/2016 1:10 pm Last night, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins officially endorsed Ted Cruz for president during an interview with Fox News host Megyn Kelly. Perkins’ endorsement was long expected, as he has worked behind the scenes to coalesce Religious Right leaders behind Cruz’s candidacy - See more at: Ted Cruz Embraces Hate Group Leader Tony Perkins
Theodore Shoebat Says That Gays Routinely Rape And MurderYoung Boys During 'Southern Decadence
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Thursday, 1/28/2016 10:56 am
Yesterday, radical right-wing activist Theodore Shoebat posted an extended discussion he recently had with fellow Shoebat.com contributor Andrew Bieszad about their belief that "all of the evils that we are seeing around the world can find its origin in anti-Catholicism."
Given Shoebat's extreme hatred of gays, it was not long before the conversation turned toward exposing the ways that "the sodomite agenda wants to colonize the whole world through the U.S. government," with Shoebat declaring that gays in New Orleans routinely rape and murder young boys during the annual Southern Decadence event while the local police do nothing about it.
As Shoebat explained, a fellow anti-gay activist "went out to preach against the sodomites in New Orleans" and was told by locals "about how the sodomites in the French Quarter go out and hunt for little boys, they steal little boys and then bring
- See more at: Theodore Shoebat Says That Gays Routinely Rape And Murder Young Boys During 'Southern Decadence'
