Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- Thread starter
- #221
Not only did I not ignore what you said; I answered you in great detail point by point. So your tactic is that if you lose a debate, you accuse your opponent of "ignoring you" when they answer your point by point?
The main win I have over you in this debate is that Justice Kennedy agrees with me that children derive benefits from marriage...so much so that he hinged his approval of Obergefell on that main point. You can't turn around and argue in front of that same man: "your honor, our position is that children do not implicitly share in the marriage contract."
And you know it. From that given then, Obergefell is illegal because it revised a contract children share in and derive benefits from, paramount of which are BOTH a mother and father, to now divorce them by legal bind for life (no less) from either a mother or father. And all THAT without children's unique interests (to derive both a mother and father) in marriage having representation at Obergefell.
And if that wasn't bad enough, two of the Justices and one of them in particular was out in public giving interviews with media about how she believed "America was ready for gay marriage", MONTHS in ADVANCE of the Hearing on Obergefell...which guess what, was about "should the fed force all 50 states to ratify gay marriage"...WHILE IT WAS PENDING IN HER COURT. According to Capterton vs AT Massey Coal, (USSC 2009) Ginsburg herself, signed off that no judge or jurist in the USA may display bias and not recuse themselves. She violated her own Finding!
Judge Moore of Alabama could literally sit back with a blindfold on and just throw darts in any direction and prevail on Alabama's sovereignty in this matter. Other points he could hit on:
1. That Obergefell, as Scalia described it, was new legislation that never existed before (not even remotely to be derived from the Constitution since nothing in there is mentioned about sexual behaviors)
2. You can't have just some sexual orientations able to marry but not others when you're citing the 14th Amendment to justify doing so.
3. That US v Windsor 2013 cited no less than 56 times that the qualifications for marriage was unquestionably residing in states' powers. In fact it used this premise to destroy parts of DOMA. (56 reiterations from Windsor) Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?
4. Between Windsor and Obergefell we have a complete turnabout by the court. On the one hand if the fed tries to control marriage when it denies just some sexual orientations (the Court's favorites, but not others), then "the fed has no business defining marriage for the states". But when it comes to forcing gay marriage on the 50 states who do not want that; then all of a sudden the 56 times reiterated in Windsor don't matter and "now the fed can define marriage for the states"...except for polygamists and incest orientations; which for some reason the 14th doesn't protect...even though it didn't protect gay sex behaviors either..
Between Windsor and Obergefell, the Court really did pull an autocratic stunt where it was blatantly stealing power away from Congress at its whim, discriminating against some sexual orientations also (ironically) while it did all that under the guise of "equality". It said "the Congress can't enact laws we disagree with". And "but we (unelected 5 people only) can enact laws the Congress and the 50 states disagree with; even though our Branch does not have the powers of legislation". And the reason they were "able" to do this is via the false premise that "just some sexual behaviors are the same as static race or gender".
Thank God for Hively v Ivy Tech recently in the 7th circuit which made it plain and clear that that is a false premise. Hively v Ivy Tech now stands at odds with Obergefell.
Scalia was right. No wonder this case bothered him more than any other in his career. It ate away at him actually.
In Obergefell, Kennedy spoke of his declared intentions of children needing their parents to be married so those kids could have the benefits of marriage. As such, Kennedy defined that they are part of an implied contract which supplies children with benefits. Yet nobody on earth would dispute that one of those benefits for thousands of years longstanding was to provide the child with BOTH a mother and father. In one fell swoop, Kennedy in essence announced "children are parties to the marriage contract because of the benefits they derive from it. But now I will systematically dismantle the chief benefit they've enjoyed for thousands of years in order to "better" their lives". Hows that for a bullshit buffet? He ratified a legal contractual bind that divorces a child from either a mother or father for life no less. And, children had no representation at Obergefell for their share in the proposed contract revision. It was JUST DONE quantitatively and qualitatively to childrens' DETRIMENT as an onerous legal bind FOR LIFE...
The main win I have over you in this debate is that Justice Kennedy agrees with me that children derive benefits from marriage...so much so that he hinged his approval of Obergefell on that main point. You can't turn around and argue in front of that same man: "your honor, our position is that children do not implicitly share in the marriage contract."
And you know it. From that given then, Obergefell is illegal because it revised a contract children share in and derive benefits from, paramount of which are BOTH a mother and father, to now divorce them by legal bind for life (no less) from either a mother or father. And all THAT without children's unique interests (to derive both a mother and father) in marriage having representation at Obergefell.
And if that wasn't bad enough, two of the Justices and one of them in particular was out in public giving interviews with media about how she believed "America was ready for gay marriage", MONTHS in ADVANCE of the Hearing on Obergefell...which guess what, was about "should the fed force all 50 states to ratify gay marriage"...WHILE IT WAS PENDING IN HER COURT. According to Capterton vs AT Massey Coal, (USSC 2009) Ginsburg herself, signed off that no judge or jurist in the USA may display bias and not recuse themselves. She violated her own Finding!
Judge Moore of Alabama could literally sit back with a blindfold on and just throw darts in any direction and prevail on Alabama's sovereignty in this matter. Other points he could hit on:
1. That Obergefell, as Scalia described it, was new legislation that never existed before (not even remotely to be derived from the Constitution since nothing in there is mentioned about sexual behaviors)
2. You can't have just some sexual orientations able to marry but not others when you're citing the 14th Amendment to justify doing so.
3. That US v Windsor 2013 cited no less than 56 times that the qualifications for marriage was unquestionably residing in states' powers. In fact it used this premise to destroy parts of DOMA. (56 reiterations from Windsor) Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?
4. Between Windsor and Obergefell we have a complete turnabout by the court. On the one hand if the fed tries to control marriage when it denies just some sexual orientations (the Court's favorites, but not others), then "the fed has no business defining marriage for the states". But when it comes to forcing gay marriage on the 50 states who do not want that; then all of a sudden the 56 times reiterated in Windsor don't matter and "now the fed can define marriage for the states"...except for polygamists and incest orientations; which for some reason the 14th doesn't protect...even though it didn't protect gay sex behaviors either..
Between Windsor and Obergefell, the Court really did pull an autocratic stunt where it was blatantly stealing power away from Congress at its whim, discriminating against some sexual orientations also (ironically) while it did all that under the guise of "equality". It said "the Congress can't enact laws we disagree with". And "but we (unelected 5 people only) can enact laws the Congress and the 50 states disagree with; even though our Branch does not have the powers of legislation". And the reason they were "able" to do this is via the false premise that "just some sexual behaviors are the same as static race or gender".
Thank God for Hively v Ivy Tech recently in the 7th circuit which made it plain and clear that that is a false premise. Hively v Ivy Tech now stands at odds with Obergefell.
Scalia was right. No wonder this case bothered him more than any other in his career. It ate away at him actually.
For the umpteenth time : Just because children get some benefit from their parent's marriage does not make them a party to that contract.
Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.
The states have power over marriage so long as they do not violate the Constitution. Again, something that has been pointed out to you ad nauseam.
Contracts implied in fact are inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case or the conduct of the parties. However, such contracts are not formally or explicitly stated in words. The law makes no distinction between contracts created by words and those created by conduct. Thus, a contract implied in fact is just as binding as an express contracts that arises from the parties’ declared intentions, with the only difference being that for contracts implied in fact courts will infer the parties’ intentions from their business relations and course of dealings. Express and Implied Contracts – Contracts
In Obergefell, Kennedy spoke of his declared intentions of children needing their parents to be married so those kids could have the benefits of marriage. As such, Kennedy defined that they are part of an implied contract which supplies children with benefits. Yet nobody on earth would dispute that one of those benefits for thousands of years longstanding was to provide the child with BOTH a mother and father. In one fell swoop, Kennedy in essence announced "children are parties to the marriage contract because of the benefits they derive from it. But now I will systematically dismantle the chief benefit they've enjoyed for thousands of years in order to "better" their lives". Hows that for a bullshit buffet? He ratified a legal contractual bind that divorces a child from either a mother or father for life no less. And, children had no representation at Obergefell for their share in the proposed contract revision. It was JUST DONE quantitatively and qualitatively to childrens' DETRIMENT as an onerous legal bind FOR LIFE...
Last edited: