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

[Silhouette]

Yea go ahead...lets see what you got

Well it's more like what catholic adoption agencies "got". They've got standing...and case law... New York vs Ferber where children's psychological well being is dominant to a clear cut case of 1st Amendment otherwise "rights" of Ferber. In fact, even the bakers in Oregon, if they framed their arguments correctly, could present that they do not condone or will not promote any type of situation where a child is systematically stripped of the hope of either a mother or father for life. No one should be required as a matter of law to promote or celebrate child abuse..physical or psychological..

 

[Skylar]

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.

Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.

The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.

Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.

Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw​

Nope. Gay marriage isn't void.

As the Supreme Court found in the Obergefell decision:

1) That the right to marry isn't predicated on kids or the ability to have them.

2) Same sex marriage helps children.

3) Denying same sex marriage hurts children.

Thus, by your own logic the Supreme Court should have ruled in the exact manner they did. You simply disagree with the findings of the Supreme Court on the matter. And then bizarrely insist that because you disagree with the findings of the Court, that their ruling is 'void', 'illegal', a 'mistrial' and other such nonsense.

Nope. Your agreement with the findings of the Supreme Court is legally irrelevant.

You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

Yea go ahead...lets see what you got

Well it's more like what catholic adoption agencies "got". They've got standing...and case law... New York vs Ferber where children's psychological well being is dominant to a clear cut case of 1st Amendment otherwise "rights" of Ferber.

The issue is already settled by Obergefell. As they found that same sex marriage helps children. And denying same sex marriage hurts children.

You're equating your *personal disagreement* with the court with some an actual legal controversy. They aren't the same thing. There is no legal controversy. The issue is settled case law: same sex marriage helps kids. And the right marriage isn't predicated on kids or the ability to have them.

Rendering your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

1. Who is denying the child from their mother or father?...2. Unless adopted the child will not be denied, and if adopted the parent gave up their right, so they will be denied to see the child until the child reaches a certain age under the law of the state which is usually 18....3. Also there are many single parent homes, and you should worry more about the heterosexual homes that are broken before worrying about the Homosexual home....4. Finally, your homophobic rants on this subject get boring over the time. Gays have the right to marry and the USSC has made this clear. Until you can get the court to change it ruling this will be the law of the land.

1. Same sex marriage means either a mother or father is missing in a child's daily life.

No, that's same sex parenting. Not marriage. Remember, 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 children by the hundreds of thousands. And helps no child.

And of course, the right to marry isn't predicated on kids or the ability to have them. You insist it is. The Supreme Court contradicts you. In any legal contest between you and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court wins.

That you ignore the Supreme Court doesn't mean that their ruling goes away. Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.

Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.

The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.

Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.

Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw​

Nope. Gay marriage isn't void.

As the Supreme Court found in the Obergefell decision:

1) That the right to marry isn't predicated on kids or the ability to have them.

2) Same sex marriage helps children.

3) Denying same sex marriage hurts children.

Thus, by your own logic the Supreme Court should have ruled in the exact manner they did. You simply disagree with the findings of the Supreme Court on the matter. And then bizarrely insist that because you disagree with the findings of the Court, that their ruling is 'void', 'illegal', a 'mistrial' and other such nonsense.

Nope. Your agreement with the findings of the Supreme Court is legally irrelevant.

You can't get around that.

After 2000 years of science, funny how 5 black robes can walk in and completely contradict science.
Homosexuality and Psychiatry -WARNING! Homosexuality is VERY ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR!

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

A lot of money was coming out of Hollywood where homosexual were in the closet. Liberals took that money and ran with it.

Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor

A veteran psychiatrist now claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, not purely a political choice.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

When you understand how liberals think, then you can see why they act the way they do.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication






“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

When you insult people for being moral, you call them homophobes. When people don't allow other people their opinion about homosexuality as being wrong, you call those people BIGOTS!!!! Liberals are the biggest bigots around.

 

[Skylar]

After 2000 years of science, funny how 5 black robes can walk in and completely contradict science.
Homosexuality and Psychiatry -WARNING! Homosexuality is VERY ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR!

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). A lot of money was coming out of Hollywood where homosexual were in the closet. Liberals took that money and ran with it.

Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor
A veteran psychiatrist now claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, not purely a political choice.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

When you understand how liberals think, then you can see why they act the way they do.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
Opening page - Dedication

So recognizing same sex marriage leads to .....gulags?

You may be affording a young married lesbian couple changing diapers with *far* more power than they actually have.

Take a breath, Chicken little. The sky isn't falling. Your right to marry is pristine unaffected. Its gonna be okay.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yea go ahead...lets see what you got

Well it's more like what catholic adoption agencies "got". They've got standing...and case law... New York vs Ferber where children's psychological well being is dominant to a clear cut case of 1st Amendment otherwise "rights" of Ferber. In fact, even the bakers in Oregon, if they framed their arguments correctly, could present that they do not condone or will not promote any type of situation where a child is systematically stripped of the hope of either a mother or father for life. No one should be required as a matter of law to promote or celebrate child abuse..physical or psychological..

Holy shit! Seriously?? That is your response to my challenge to you to produce your "studies" that show that ay parenting is harmful because the kids don't have both a father and a mother?? Your just rambling here like the crazy person that you have convinced us that you are! And this stuff about child abuse is just bigoted bovine excrement.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, because "crazy people" are the types who believe a father benefits a boy in a way a woman can never do; and a mother benefits a girl in a way a man can never do... yeah... Got any other gaslighting you're going to pull today or is that it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.

Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.

The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.

Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.

Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw​

Nope. Gay marriage isn't void.

As the Supreme Court found in the Obergefell decision:

1) That the right to marry isn't predicated on kids or the ability to have them.

2) Same sex marriage helps children.

3) Denying same sex marriage hurts children.

Thus, by your own logic the Supreme Court should have ruled in the exact manner they did. You simply disagree with the findings of the Supreme Court on the matter. And then bizarrely insist that because you disagree with the findings of the Court, that their ruling is 'void', 'illegal', a 'mistrial' and other such nonsense.

Nope. Your agreement with the findings of the Supreme Court is legally irrelevant.

You can't get around that.

After 2000 years of science, funny how 5 black robes can walk in and completely contradict science.
Homosexuality and Psychiatry -WARNING! Homosexuality is VERY ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR!

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

A lot of money was coming out of Hollywood where homosexual were in the closet. Liberals took that money and ran with it.

Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor

A veteran psychiatrist now claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, not purely a political choice.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

When you understand how liberals think, then you can see why they act the way they do.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication






“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

When you insult people for being moral, you call them homophobes. When people don't allow other people their opinion about homosexuality as being wrong, you call those people BIGOTS!!!! Liberals are the biggest bigots around.

Sounds like you have some serious issues there sparky ! You might as well get over it because the acceptance of homosexuality is here to stay. No one is going back to 1973, or even 1993. You might as well get used to it, or, you might want to seek asylum in Russia or Uganda where they are also repressive and backward. Good luck.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, because "crazy people" are the types who believe a father benefits a boy in a way a woman can never do; and a mother benefits a girl in a way a man can never do... yeah... Got any other gaslighting you're going to pull today or is that it?

Your capitulation is dully noted and accepted since you have not presented a damned thing besides you baseless opinions.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, because "crazy people" are the types who believe a father benefits a boy in a way a woman can never do; and a mother benefits a girl in a way a man can never do... yeah... Got any other gaslighting you're going to pull today or is that it?

You're lamenting about same sex parenting. Not same sex marriage. Denying same sex marriage doesn't actually resolve or even affect any of the issues you're complaining about.

This is the fallacy of your argument. Denying same sex marriage doesn't help any child, even by your own standards. As same sex parents are still same sex parents regardless of their marital status.

While denying same sex marriage hurts kids, by humiliating them, denying them financial security, protections and benefits. By the hundreds of thousands.

And of course, the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. As the Supreme Court already found. Making your claim that gay marriage is 'void' more meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, because "crazy people" are the types who believe a father benefits a boy in a way a woman can never do; and a mother benefits a girl in a way a man can never do... yeah... Got any other gaslighting you're going to pull today or is that it?

Your capitulation is dully noted and accepted since you have not presented a damned thing besides you baseless opinions.

And youv'e summed up Sil's entire basis of argument in a single post. Sil insists that the Supreme Court, the law and all courts are bound to her personal opinion.

Which, of course, is nonsense.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, because "crazy people" are the types who believe a father benefits a boy in a way a woman can never do; and a mother benefits a girl in a way a man can never do... yeah... Got any other gaslighting you're going to pull today or is that it?

You're lamenting about same sex parenting. Not same sex marriage. Denying same sex marriage doesn't actually resolve or even affect any of the issues you're complaining about.

This is the fallacy of your argument. Denying same sex marriage doesn't help any child, even by your own standards. As same sex parents are still same sex parents regardless of their marital status.

While denying same sex marriage hurts kids, by humiliating them, denying them financial security, protections and benefits. By the hundreds of thousands.

And of course, the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. As the Supreme Court already found. Making your claim that gay marriage is 'void' more meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense.

Forgetabout it! This creature does not care about the children. It is just using them as pawns in it's failed crusade against marriage equality. It is apparently not bright enough to see the fallacy that you have been pointing out- or too dishonest to acknowledge it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

After 2000 years of science, funny how 5 black robes can walk in and completely contradict science.

Psst...

A dozen or so states had Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action before the Obergefell ruling. Those include state votes, state judicial action, and state legislative actions.


>>>>

 

[jillian]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

The first amendment is the law too, yet New York vs Ferber found that it isn't the law if adults use it and that use harms children physically or psychologically. So, might want to get ready for "Generic Catholic Adoption Agency vs Obergefell"...

dude...apples and oranges.

no matter how much you cry.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

After 2000 years of science, funny how 5 black robes can walk in and completely contradict science.
Homosexuality and Psychiatry -WARNING! Homosexuality is VERY ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR!

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). A lot of money was coming out of Hollywood where homosexual were in the closet. Liberals took that money and ran with it.

Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor
A veteran psychiatrist now claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, not purely a political choice.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

When you understand how liberals think, then you can see why they act the way they do.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
Opening page - Dedication

So recognizing same sex marriage leads to .....gulags?

You may be affording a young married lesbian couple changing diapers with *far* more power than they actually have.

Take a breath, Chicken little. The sky isn't falling. Your right to marry is pristine unaffected. Its gonna be okay.

Liberals are all about themselves and could care less wh their actions cause upon others. So these immoral people who fudge pack and muff dive, adopt little babies who will grow up messed up and continue the liberal way, even to the point of self extinction. Only if more liberals would abort or go gay, soon there wouldn't be any left.

 

[mdk]

After 2000 years of science, funny how 5 black robes can walk in and completely contradict science.
Homosexuality and Psychiatry -WARNING! Homosexuality is VERY ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR!

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). A lot of money was coming out of Hollywood where homosexual were in the closet. Liberals took that money and ran with it.

Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor
A veteran psychiatrist now claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, not purely a political choice.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

When you understand how liberals think, then you can see why they act the way they do.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
Opening page - Dedication

So recognizing same sex marriage leads to .....gulags?

You may be affording a young married lesbian couple changing diapers with *far* more power than they actually have.

Take a breath, Chicken little. The sky isn't falling. Your right to marry is pristine unaffected. Its gonna be okay.

Liberals are all about themselves and could care less wh their actions cause upon others. So these immoral people who fudge pack and muff dive, adopt little babies who will grow up messed up and continue the liberal way, even to the point of self extinction. Only if more liberals would abort or go gay, soon there wouldn't be any left.

Cute rant but you're still irrelevant.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

After 2000 years of science, funny how 5 black robes can walk in and completely contradict science.
Homosexuality and Psychiatry -WARNING! Homosexuality is VERY ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR!

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). A lot of money was coming out of Hollywood where homosexual were in the closet. Liberals took that money and ran with it.

Liberals have a mental disorder, says doctor
A veteran psychiatrist now claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, not purely a political choice.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," said Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

"Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

When you understand how liberals think, then you can see why they act the way they do.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
Opening page - Dedication

So recognizing same sex marriage leads to .....gulags?

You may be affording a young married lesbian couple changing diapers with *far* more power than they actually have.

Take a breath, Chicken little. The sky isn't falling. Your right to marry is pristine unaffected. Its gonna be okay.

Liberals are all about themselves and could care less wh their actions cause upon others. So these immoral people who fudge pack and muff dive, adopt little babies who will grow up messed up and continue the liberal way, even to the point of self extinction. Only if more liberals would abort or go gay, soon there wouldn't be any left.

That is so stupid in so many ways it is not worthy of a serious comment. It is even more stupid that the premise of the thread itself. Thank you for proving that you can always drag a topic down to a new low.

 

[Silhouette]

gay marriage is the law.

get over it.

The first amendment is the law too, yet New York vs Ferber found that it isn't the law if adults use it and that use harms children physically or psychologically. So, might want to get ready for "Generic Catholic Adoption Agency vs Obergefell"...

dude...apples and oranges.

no matter how much you cry.

The question of if children are harmed by being cut off even from the hope of either a mother or father for life IS the question of NY vs Ferber. It's apples and apples dear..

 

[mdk]

Just checked again, gay marriage is still legal in al 50 states. Better luck tomorrow.