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

[Silhouette]

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.[/QUOTE]

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...

.

Yet you cannot deny that men not being able to marry women of another race is a relatively new idea...or an idea that comes and goes and is always nixed. (check DNA samples if you don't believe me)

The point being that men have always married women. Men have never married men EVER until the last 20 years...and then it's illegal because of New York vs Ferber and marriage being about (for thousands of years uninterrupted) providing BOTH a mother and father to children..as a necessity to their well being.

 

[Montrovant]

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...

.

Yet you cannot deny that men not being able to marry women of another race is a relatively new idea...or an idea that comes and goes and is always nixed. (check DNA samples if you don't believe me)

The point being that men have always married women. Men have never married men EVER until the last 20 years...and then it's illegal because of New York vs Ferber and marriage being about (for thousands of years uninterrupted) providing BOTH a mother and father to children..as a necessity to their well being.

I have to admit nothing of the sort. I would guess that sort of bigotry in marriage has been around as long as marriage. Now, I don't know about it being formalized in law, but the idea of not marrying or someone not being permitted to marry based on some form of racism has probably been going on as long as people have been getting married.
https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2008/Thompson.pdf
Anti-miscegenation laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nor are miscegenation laws a recent idea in the United States.
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
How Interracial Marriage Laws Have Changed Since the 1600s

Are you so arrogant as to assume the US is the only place, and we live in the only time, to deal with these kinds of issues?

Even same sex marriage is not an entirely new idea. There is some evidence that same sex marriages have occurred centuries into the past, although it may not have been a widespread practice.
Same-Sex Unions throughout Time: A History of Gay Marriage
History of Same Sex Marriage

So no, none of these marriage issues are new concepts.

 

[Silhouette]

I would guess that sort of bigotry in marriage has been around as long as marriage. Now, I don't know about it being formalized in law, but the idea of not marrying or someone not being permitted to marry based on some form of racism has probably been going on as long as people have been getting married....

And so Loving corrected that. But a man marrying a woman is NOTHING LIKE a man marrying a man. Especially when children are involved implicitly in the contract. They have rights to that contract and one of the paramount examples of those rights were to have BOTH a mother and father. Kids come in both genders, or didn't you know that?

Apparently the daily example of not having your gender as a role model cuts into your mental quick: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY And, since this is a form of mental anguish, it is a form of institutionalized abuse in "gay marriage". Because unlike children caught up with single parents who still have the hope of a mother or father appearing in their lives...gay marriage is the de facto announcement "We are hereby stripping you with this document, of all hope of having your missing parent in your life". With society's "sanction" (well five people anyway..) no less..

Those five people DO NOT represent all 300 million of us in such a catastrophically far-reaching social change as to strip a child of either a mother or father as an institution... You have not heard the last of this..

 

[Silhouette]

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.”

I don't see anything in what Mildred Loving wrote about how stripping children of either a mother or father for life is good for them. She is aware, isn't she, that children are implicit partners in the marriage contract? And, when was it she got her degree in child developmental psychology?

 

[mdk]

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.”

I don't see anything in what Mildred Loving wrote about how stripping children of either a mother or father for life is good for them. She is aware, isn't she, that children are implicit partners in the marriage contract? And, when was it she got her degree in child developmental psychology?

I am sorry. Where did you get your degree in child developmental psychology again?

 

[mdk]

You have not heard the last of this..

Hell, I wasn't listening to the beginning.

All the cockamamie legal nonsense you conjure up in your imagination is irrelevant to the actual law.

 

[Silhouette]

I am sorry. Where did you get your degree in child developmental psychology again?

From the university of "have a brain and know how to logically deduct based on raw data collected without bias & directly from the source" > PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY & ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

 

[mdk]

I am sorry. Where did you get your degree in child developmental psychology again?

From the university of "have a brain and know how to logically deduct based on raw data collected without bias & directly from the source" > PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY & ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Telling lies about a study doesn't make you smart, it just makes you a liar.

 

[Montrovant]

I am sorry. Where did you get your degree in child developmental psychology again?

From the university of "have a brain and know how to logically deduct based on raw data collected without bias & directly from the source" > PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY & ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Ah, so a degree in child developmental psychology is only necessary for those who have opinions that differ from your own, got it.

 

[Silhouette]

Two sides of a story are necessary, yes..

 

[Silhouette]

I am sorry. Where did you get your degree in child developmental psychology again?

From the university of "have a brain and know how to logically deduct based on raw data collected without bias & directly from the source" > PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY & ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Ah, so a degree in child developmental psychology is only necessary for those who have opinions that differ from your own, got it.

No, to be more precise, a Hearing needs to be had specifically with child developmental psychology at its core, getting input not just from studies funded & hand picked/audited by the openly LGBT-promotional cult formally known as the "American Psychological Association"; but also from dissenting views from professionals NOT beholden to the LGBT cult funding.

THAT is what needs to happen. Not you and I here on the internet bantering back and forth about it. Everyone's common sense tells them that a boy needs a father and a girl a mother. That's the hurdle that lays the burden of proof on the LGBT cult's back to prove otherwise..because we always err on the side of extreme caution when "change" stands to deprive a child of a known and long-accepted necessity..

 

[mdk]

I am sorry. Where did you get your degree in child developmental psychology again?

From the university of "have a brain and know how to logically deduct based on raw data collected without bias & directly from the source" > PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY & ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Ah, so a degree in child developmental psychology is only necessary for those who have opinions that differ from your own, got it.

No, to be more precise, a Hearing needs to be had specifically with child developmental psychology at its core, getting input not just from studies funded & hand picked/audited by the openly LGBT-promotional cult formally known as the "American Psychological Association"; but also from dissenting views from professionals NOT beholden to the LGBT cult funding.

THAT is what needs to happen. Not you and I here on the internet bantering back and forth about it. Everyone's common sense tells them that a boy needs a father and a girl a mother. That's the hurdle that lays the burden of proof on the LGBT cult's back to prove otherwise..because we always err on the side of extreme caution when "change" stands to deprive a child of a known and long-accepted necessity..

Yeah, yeah, yeah, every single professional organization that doesn't buttress your anti-gay narrative is beholden to gays. Another in long string of the delusional conspiracies you tell yourself. Besides, there was already a hearing and your side lost. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Montrovant]

Two sides of a story are necessary, yes..

What are you even talking about?

 

[Montrovant]

I am sorry. Where did you get your degree in child developmental psychology again?

From the university of "have a brain and know how to logically deduct based on raw data collected without bias & directly from the source" > PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY & ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Ah, so a degree in child developmental psychology is only necessary for those who have opinions that differ from your own, got it.

No, to be more precise, a Hearing needs to be had specifically with child developmental psychology at its core, getting input not just from studies funded & hand picked/audited by the openly LGBT-promotional cult formally known as the "American Psychological Association"; but also from dissenting views from professionals NOT beholden to the LGBT cult funding.

THAT is what needs to happen. Not you and I here on the internet bantering back and forth about it. Everyone's common sense tells them that a boy needs a father and a girl a mother. That's the hurdle that lays the burden of proof on the LGBT cult's back to prove otherwise..because we always err on the side of extreme caution when "change" stands to deprive a child of a known and long-accepted necessity..

Let me make sure I'm getting this right.....a new Supreme Court hearing needs to happen because you say it does. Your reasoning is that the APA is an openly LGBT promoting group and you disapprove of them, so the court must hear from sources you approve of. Further, we always err on the side of caution when it comes to depriving a child of a necessity.....except, you know, when that necessity involves heterosexuals. Then you can get divorced any time you'd like and deprive a child of having full time parents of both genders, because.....well, because.

Oh, and despite the fact that boys have been raised without fathers and girls without mothers throughout human history, still those children need a parent of the same gender. Every child who was raised without one or the other gender of parent is just irrelevant?

One last thing. Exactly which studies did the court cite in the Obergefell opinion?

 

[mdk]

Two sides of a story are necessary, yes..

What are you even talking about?

Sil likes to pretend that children were not once considered when it came to the June's ruling. A ruling that I am willing to bet the farm she never once read.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Here's the problem with your reasoning:

The Supreme Court found that denying same sex marriage hurts children.

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The lawin question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Thus, by your own logic, Ferber requires that the Supreme Court ruling exactly as they did: in recognition of same sex marriage. As denying it hurts children.

Your argument is to ignore the Windsor and Obergefell court's findings on same sex marriage and children.....and replace those findings with your personal opinion. And then insist that your personal opinion overturns Obergefell. And renders all same sex marriages void.

Um, that's not a legal argument.

Worse for you, the Obergefell court already obligterated your entire basis of argument:

Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

You insist marriage is only about children. The court says otherwise. The court wins.

Thus, you're forced to ignore the Obergefell court again. And then ignoring it, insist that all laws and courts must ignore it as well.

That's not a legal argument either.

 

[Skylar]

I am sorry. Where did you get your degree in child developmental psychology again?

From the university of "have a brain and know how to logically deduct based on raw data collected without bias & directly from the source" > PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY & ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Ah, so a degree in child developmental psychology is only necessary for those who have opinions that differ from your own, got it.

No, to be more precise, a Hearing needs to be had specifically with child developmental psychology at its core, getting input not just from studies funded & hand picked/audited by the openly LGBT-promotional cult formally known as the "American Psychological Association"; but also from dissenting views from professionals NOT beholden to the LGBT cult funding.

None of that is actually a requirement. You imagined it. And your imagination has no bearing on any ruling.

Remember, we're dealing with the actual law. Not whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you make up.

THAT is what needs to happen. Not you and I here on the internet bantering back and forth about it. Everyone's common sense tells them that a boy needs a father and a girl a mother. That's the hurdle that lays the burden of proof on the LGBT cult's back to prove otherwise..because we always err on the side of extreme caution when "change" stands to deprive a child of a known and long-accepted necessity..

Everyone's common sense tells them that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents.

Which hurts those children and help none.

 

[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.”

I don't see anything in what Mildred Loving wrote about how stripping children of either a mother or father for life is good for them.

Mildred Loving is an authority on discriminatory marriage laws.

Of course you reject what Mildred Loving says- while you self rightiously tell everyone
]Race does not come close to LGBT

Of course you refuse what an actual expert on discriminatory marriage laws says.

 

[Silhouette]

Mildred Loving is an authority on discriminatory marriage laws.

Of course you reject what Mildred Loving says- while you self rightiously tell everyone
]Race does not come close to LGBT

Of course you refuse what an actual expert on discriminatory marriage laws says.

Mildred Loving cannot substitute some deviant sexual behaviors for race. She does not enjoy the privilege of reinventing the english language or the foundation of the American penal code system whereby the majority gets to regulate behaviors.

 

[Skylar]

Mildred Loving is an authority on discriminatory marriage laws.

Of course you reject what Mildred Loving says- while you self rightiously tell everyone
]Race does not come close to LGBT

Of course you refuse what an actual expert on discriminatory marriage laws says.

Mildred Loving cannot substitute some deviant sexual behaviors for race. She does not enjoy the privilege of reinventing the english language or the foundation of the American penal code system whereby the majority gets to regulate behaviors.

Mildred Loving is a far better source on the matter than you are, citing yourself.

And you citing you is all you have.