Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

[Silhouette]

We therefore canot conclude that the Obergefell standard is a satisfactory solution to the need of a child for both his mother and father."

You conclude all sorts of nutty crap.

Meanwhile Ferber- an unrelated prior Supreme Court decision- does not overrule the more recent- and unrelated- Obergefell.

Yes it does. Ferber is absolutely related in that it used children's well being to strip a person's constitutional right to free speech. The Court's logic was that a constitutional right cannot be exercised when it results in harm to children. Obergefell allows, indeed appears to compel, contracts to be written up that by their structure deprive a child of even the hope of a mother or father for life...without the possibility of parole. That is psychological cruelty. Ferber disallows that. And the infants doctrine says that any contract that exists which deprives a child of a necessity is void upon its face. Before the ink even dries.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But race and lifestyles have nothing whatsoever to do with each other in a plain common sense or legally..

Deciding to marry (with their consent) of a different race is a lifestyle.

Blacks could marry, white could marry - the choice (i.e. lifestyle) to marry was what was denied.


>>>>

 

[thanatos144]

But race and lifestyles have nothing whatsoever to do with each other in a plain common sense or legally..

Deciding to marry (with their consent) of a different race is a lifestyle.

Blacks could marry, white could marry - the choice (i.e. lifestyle) to marry was what was denied.


>>>>

If your point is that the 14th overstepped it's bounds in interracial marrige you would be correct

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes it does. Ferber is absolutely related in that it used children's well being to strip a person's constitutional right to free speech.

Raping a child (or having images of a child being raped) is not free speech.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

If your point is that the 14th overstepped it's bounds in interracial marrige you would be correct

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Nope, my point is that the 14th applies to the states when state action are used to deny due process or equal protections under the law. The 14th does not apply to race only since nowhere in the 1st section of the 14th does it limit it to race.


>>>>>

 

[thanatos144]

If your point is that the 14th overstepped it's bounds in interracial marrige you would be correct

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Nope, my point is that the 14th applies to the states when state action are used to deny due process or equal protections under the law. The 14th does not apply to race only since nowhere in the 1st section of the 14th does it limit it to race.


>>>>>

All would be good if the fact that the 14th was a slave amendment solely created for slaves and not homosexuals or have anything to do with marriage

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

But race and lifestyles have nothing whatsoever to do with each other in a plain common sense or legally..

Deciding to marry (with their consent) of a different race is a lifestyle.

Blacks could marry, white could marry - the choice (i.e. lifestyle) to marry was what was denied.


>>>>

Sorry, blacks marrying whites had been going on for thousands of years in marriage before the Loving issue came up. A black man marrying a white woman does not dismantle the skeleton of marriage which is: a father and mother for the children involved. So it was incorrect for the Court to cite Loving v Virginia, since that was not the question at all when it comes to children involved...children...the reason marriage was invented....a fact the Court just casually skipped right over when it was convenient...but then expounded on that importance when it seemed to serve LGBT Agenda "think of the stigma of children involved in gay lifestyles not being able to have their parents married!"...

When the Court knew damn well that unmarried parents are so common; like fleas on a dog. And therefore could hardly carry a "stigma". The stigma was in having a woman pretend to be a father or a man pretend to be a mother. And that stigma still remains and always will as long as man means male and woman means female...ie: forever. So when it comes to children the Court cured none of their woes when it comes to their parents. What they did was enshrine a legal situation which for the first time in history guarantees a child involved that they will NEVER see either a mother or father, with the stamp of approval of society. (actually, just five people in over 300 million)

Therefore, marriage and its entire reason for existing was completely eradicated in June 2015, and, neither states, nor children, were allowed to weigh in on their stake in that game changer..

 

[Syriusly]

We therefore canot conclude that the Obergefell standard is a satisfactory solution to the need of a child for both his mother and father."

You conclude all sorts of nutty crap.

Meanwhile Ferber- an unrelated prior Supreme Court decision- does not overrule the more recent- and unrelated- Obergefell.

Obergefell allows, indeed appears to compel, contracts to be written up that by their structure deprive a child of even the hope of a mother or father for life...without the possibility of parole. That is psychological cruelty. Ferber disallows that. s.

You seem to be thinking that an older Supreme Court ruling overturns a more recent Supreme Court ruling.

That is not how it works.

Obergefell noted that preventing gay parents from marrying harmed children- so even assuming that Ferber was in anyway applicable- then Ferber required that Obergefell allow gay parents to marry, in order to prevent their children from being harmed.

 

[Syriusly]

But race and lifestyles have nothing whatsoever to do with each other in a plain common sense or legally..

Deciding to marry (with their consent) of a different race is a lifestyle.

Blacks could marry, white could marry - the choice (i.e. lifestyle) to marry was what was denied.


>>>>

Sorry, blacks marrying whites had been going on for thousands of years in marriage before the Loving issue came up. A black man marrying a white woman does not dismantle the skeleton of marriage which is: a father and mother for the children involved. ..

Actually the State of Virginia did exactly argue that allowing mixed race marriages harmed the children of such marriages.

Matter of fact the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia sounds amazingly like Silhouette.

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt.

We start with the proposition, on this connection, that it is the family which constitutes the structural element of society and that marriage is the legal basis upon which families are formed. Consequently, this Court has held in numerous decisions over the years that society is structured
on the institution of marriage that it has more to do with a welfare and civilizations of the people that any other institutions and that out of the fruits of marriage spring relationships and responsibilities with which the state is necessarily required to deal.

Text writers and judicial writers agree that the state has a natural, direct, and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages which lead to stable homes and families and in minimizing those which do not.

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent


And that the interracial marriages bequeath to the progeny of those marriages more psychological problems than parents have a right to bequeath to them

Racist State of Virginia- Homophobic Silhouette= Soul Mates

 

[Silhouette]

Race does not come close to LGBT lifestyles. Legally they aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually the State of Virginia did exactly argue that allowing mixed race marriages harmed the children of such marriages.

Matter of fact the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia sounds amazingly like Silhouette.

Yes, the State of Virginia argued via RACIAL bigotry that a man and woman could not marry. And they lost. As they should have. However, the argument of "should children be stripped for life of the hope of either a mother or father?" has not been heard yet..

You could try to say it was in Obergefell, but it wasn't. There was zero mention of "the pros and cons of children being without mothers or fathers for life" in the transcripts or the Opinion. Instead the Court just factually stripped children of a contractual right to their detriment without them admitted in the deliberations, or having representation for their own interests in the marriage contract. Which is illegal.

New York vs Ferber tells us that no adult may enjoy a constitutional right (or indeed a contractual right) to the detriment of children. That they weren't allowed to speak at all about the matter of missing a mom or dad in marriage is not "their silent assent" to Obergefell. The Justices were not their guardians ad litem. Because justices cannot at once be a representative for one of the parties to a case and at the same time the judge on the case.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually the State of Virginia did exactly argue that allowing mixed race marriages harmed the children of such marriages.

Matter of fact the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia sounds amazingly like Silhouette.

Yes, the State of Virginia argued via RACIAL bigotry that a man and woman could not marry. .

And you argue via sexual preference bigotry that a man and a woman cannot marry.

As I pointed out- you and the State of Virginia sound amazingly similar- both rationalizing why you are in favor of bigotry.

 

[Syriusly]

Race does not come close to LGBT lifestyles. Legally they aren't even in the same ballpark.

Mildred Loving best addresses your bigotry

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

 

[WorldWatcher]

Race does not come close to LGBT lifestyles. Legally they aren't even in the same ballpark.

Neither blacks or white were denied marriage prior to Loving.

The lifestyle of a blank man wanting to marry a white woman, not that was restricted. But hey we can restrict such choices.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, the State of Virginia argued via RACIAL bigotry that a man and woman could not marry. And they lost. As they should have. However, the argument of "should children be stripped for life of the hope of either a mother or father?" has not been heard yet..

No they didn't as a man and a woman could marry. A black man could marry a black woman and a white man could marry a white woman.

The lifestyle of interracial marriage was restricted, but hey we can restrict lifestyle choices.

You could try to say it was in Obergefell, but it wasn't. There was zero mention of "the pros and cons of children being without mothers or fathers for life" in the transcripts or the Opinion. Instead the Court just factually stripped children of a contractual right to their detriment without them admitted in the deliberations, or having representation for their own interests in the marriage contract. Which is illegal.

Horse shit.

Here is a link to all the briefs that the Justices reviewed as part of the Obergefell decision and there were quite a few that speek out against same-sex marriage and address children.

Obergefell v. Hodges

New York vs Ferber tells us that no adult may enjoy a constitutional right (or indeed a contractual right) to the detriment of children. That they weren't allowed to speak at all about the matter of missing a mom or dad in marriage is not "their silent assent" to Obergefell. The Justices were not their guardians ad litem. Because justices cannot at once be a representative for one of the parties to a case and at the same time the judge on the case.

Faber was about "free speech" and the States ability to keep pictures of children being raped illegal.

Obergefell was about Civil Marriage for consenting adults, a completely different subject and Obergefell nots that denying Civil Marriage to same-sex couple harms children.


>>>>

 

[emilynghiem]

Race does not come close to LGBT lifestyles. Legally they aren't even in the same ballpark.

Mildred Loving best addresses your bigotry

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Dear Syriusly
In order to keep govt out of marriage
then keep govt out of marriage.
Don't even make it govt business what the gender or relations are of the partners in a civil contract.

Keep everything else private, as in religion.
The First Amendment mentions religious freedom but doesn't go into detail
and start regulating whether to endorse or protect "this or that kind" of baptism or communion,
funeral or wedding service. Just keep it GENERAL as "religious freedom"
and govt has to stay out of it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually the State of Virginia did exactly argue that allowing mixed race marriages harmed the children of such marriages.

Matter of fact the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia sounds amazingly like Silhouette.

Yes, the State of Virginia argued via RACIAL bigotry that a man and woman could not marry. .

And you argue via sexual preference bigotry that a man and a woman cannot marry.

As I pointed out- you and the State of Virginia sound amazingly similar- both rationalizing why you are in favor of bigotry.

Dear Syriusly
issues over race are different from issues over gender and orientation
WHERE THESE ARE NOT BASED ON GENETIC DETERMINATION AS RACE IS.

We can prove scientifically where race is based on genetics.
With gender and orientation, the new push to recognize
people's gender/orientation based on what they personally identify as
becomes FAITH BASED and is no longer genetic or proven physically.

So that is where these cases are different.

With gender/orientation
people on BOTH sides have equally faith based arguments that cannot be
forced or proven, but are only accepted by free choice of each person.

So govt cannot be in the business of endorsing one side's faith based arguments
over the other.

Since marriage has already been mixed in with govt,
this could be resolved if people agree to either
a. reconcile differences, and/or write neutral policies everyone agrees include all beliefs,
and thus a consensus policy everyone feels equally represented under
b. separate where everyone can have their own way under the same govt system
c. separate from govt where everyone can have their own way outside govt altogether

 

[Silhouette]

Race does not come close to LGBT lifestyles. Legally they aren't even in the same ballpark.

Neither blacks or white were denied marriage prior to Loving.

The lifestyle of a blank man wanting to marry a white woman, not that was restricted. But hey we can restrict such choices.


>>>>

Well be that as it may, a man seeking a woman to marry wasn't "a new lifestyle". The deal was about racism being a new and unworkable idea to the thousands of years of practice of men of all races marrying women of all races. So the Court nixed the new idea that people of mixed races couldn't marry.

Just as the Court must also nix the idea of completely dismantling (gay marriage) the purpose of marriage . Children were the reason marriage was invented; to provide each child with a mother and father. Gay marriage DESTROYS the purpose of marriage entirely. And we expect states to incentivize an environment hostile to the well rounded development of children that the states will have to rue later on? Preposterous!

New York vs the child-pervert Ferber allows a venue for a new case to challenge Obergefell on the grounds that it deprives children of a necessity in a cruel way (for life) of a contractual provision they previously enjoyed for over a thousand years.

 

[Montrovant]

Race does not come close to LGBT lifestyles. Legally they aren't even in the same ballpark.

Neither blacks or white were denied marriage prior to Loving.

The lifestyle of a blank man wanting to marry a white woman, not that was restricted. But hey we can restrict such choices.


>>>>

Well be that as it may, a man seeking a woman to marry wasn't "a new lifestyle". The deal was about racism being a new and unworkable idea to the thousands of years of practice of men of all races marrying women of all races. So the Court nixed the new idea that people of mixed races couldn't marry.

Just as the Court must also nix the idea of completely dismantling (gay marriage) the purpose of marriage . Children were the reason marriage was invented; to provide each child with a mother and father. Gay marriage DESTROYS the purpose of marriage entirely. And we expect states to incentivize an environment hostile to the well rounded development of children that the states will have to rue later on? Preposterous!

New York vs the child-pervert Ferber allows a venue for a new case to challenge Obergefell on the grounds that it deprives children of a necessity in a cruel way (for life) of a contractual provision they previously enjoyed for over a thousand years.

Racism was a new idea?!?

A man loving and living with a man or a woman loving and living with a woman aren't 'new lifestyles'. Instead, allowing them to legally marry is a new legal recognition of a lifestyle which has existed probably as long as humanity.

Your belief that homosexual parents provide 'an environment hostile to the well rounded development of children' is obviously not one shared by the court, nor by many others. That, in the end, is your problem : more and more people are coming to believe that homosexual parents can be just as effective and provide just as good an environment for raising children as heterosexual parents.

All of your silly attempts to tie unrelated court rulings to the issue, your lies and misrepresentations about things like the Prince's Trust, your ridiculous predictions such as a rehearing of Obergefell in which two of the justices will have to recuse themselves, are about your belief that homosexuals cannot make good parents. Unfortunately for you, both public opinion and research into the matter seem to be trending in the opposite direction.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, racism in marriage is a new idea. Races have been intermarrying since the dawn of time. Check DNA samples if you don't believe me..