Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality?

[Syriusly]

Would you be opposed to the Justices reading copies of the Prince's Trust study before they render a decision on gay marriage?

I have repeatedly encouraged you to send the Justices the copy of the study- go for it- I am not opposed at all to the Justice's reading anything- especially something that is irrelevant to the question before them.

Have you sent them the study yet Silly?

 

[mdk]

Would you be opposed to the Justices reading copies of the Prince's Trust study before they render a decision on gay marriage?

Why would the justices read a study that has literarily zero relevance to the case? They may as well read "Green Eggs and Ham" before the decision is rendered.

 

[Silhouette]

Would you be opposed to the Justices reading copies of the Prince's Trust study before they render a decision on gay marriage?

Why would the justices read a study that has literarily zero relevance to the case? They may as well read "Green Eggs and Ham" before the decision is rendered.

Children growing up not having their same gender in their lives (or modeled as important) is the topic of the Prince's Trust survey. This would apply to 50% of children involved in so-called "gay marriage".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Would you be opposed to the Justices reading copies of the Prince's Trust study before they render a decision on gay marriage?

Why would the justices read a study that has literarily zero relevance to the case? They may as well read "Green Eggs and Ham" before the decision is rendered.

Children growing up not having their same gender in their lives (or modeled as important) is the topic of the Prince's Trust survey. This would apply to 50% of children involved in so-called "gay marriage".

Marriage isn't about children Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Well the US Supreme Court is about remaining unbiased and sticking with interim law until a Hearing on the merits is had. Or at least they used to be...denying those stays is a HUGE deal for the Justices involved. Forced-attrition of state law using shadow-justice is no laughing matter. It is a direct threat to the unity of the United States of America.

 

[mdk]

Would you be opposed to the Justices reading copies of the Prince's Trust study before they render a decision on gay marriage?

Why would the justices read a study that has literarily zero relevance to the case? They may as well read "Green Eggs and Ham" before the decision is rendered.

Children growing up not having their same gender in their lives (or modeled as important) is the topic of the Prince's Trust survey. This would apply to 50% of children involved in so-called "gay marriage".

As you've been told on numerous occasions The Prince's Trust never studies gay parents. Not once in the study does it mention gay marriage or gay parents. You are taking a study that never mentions gays and than assigning the findings to gay parents b/c it fits the narrative you are trying to paint. You are free to be as willfully obtuse as you wish but do not expect others to follow suit. You have nothing to hang your hat on which is why you have to lie and misrepresent data. If your arguments were so compelling you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics. The only person you are fooling with this study is yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Would you be opposed to the Justices reading copies of the Prince's Trust study before they render a decision on gay marriage?

Why would the justices read a study that has literarily zero relevance to the case? They may as well read "Green Eggs and Ham" before the decision is rendered.

Children growing up not having their same gender in their lives (or modeled as important) is the topic of the Prince's Trust survey. This would apply to 50% of children involved in so-called "gay marriage".

The Prince Trust Study measures GOOD role models. Not simply 'role models'. And it makes no mention of where these role models come from.. Nor did it indicate that any of the respondents were the children of same sex couples.

You've literally hallucinated everything you claim the Prince Trust Study measures.

Second, there are more than a dozen studies on same sex parenting and its effects on children. And the overwhelming consensus is that these kids are fine. And you ignore every single one of those studies, for no particular reason.

Neither of which the USSC is ever going to do.

 

[Skylar]

Well the US Supreme Court is about remaining unbiased and sticking with interim law until a Hearing on the merits is had.

The USSC is about applying precedent to cases. Scalia himself essentially called the 2013 Windsor decision a blue print for overturning gay marriage bans, saying the court's view on the issue is 'beyond mistaking'. When a stay is requested, the justices are required to judge the likelihood of its success. They found no such basis for the Alabama stay request.

You're insisting that the court can never do what they are *required* to do: judge the likelihood of a success for a stay. Obviously, you're clueless. Not only can the court do judge the likelihood of success, they must do so.

 

[Dana7360]

To award Ms. Windsor her claim, the Court used the fact that states have the ultimate authority to decide on gay marriage. From that Finding they struck down part of a federal law keeping marriage defined to a federal description instead of a state one: DOMA And as a result of those events, Ms. Windsor has her money...If states don't have dominance over the fed when it comes to defining marraige under this question, then that part of DOMA that was struck down on the hinge that states are dominant, must be restored. And if it is restored, Ms. Windsor wasn't entitled to her money as a "surviving spouse".

And as usual- you are just wrong.

Bizarrely and completely wrong.

Please define precisely how you think I am wrong. Use legal terminology.

Legally you are batshit crazy.

Precisely- here is the decision from Windsor:

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

You can post as many honest facts as you want. It will make absolutely no difference to people like the one you're replying to.

You're wasting your time.

 

[Silhouette]

You can post as many honest facts as you want. It will make absolutely no difference to people like the one you're replying to.

You're wasting your time.

Do you think it's a good idea for the Justices to be advertising before any Hearing on any matter "how they've already made up their minds"? Like with denying the stays on the very laws and position they avered 56 times in Windsor 2013...the very hinge in that decision on how they awareded Windsor with money and struck down part of DOMA? ......that states were the ultimate authority on marriage and as such the fed had to abide by what they said....unless they wanted a stay...and then suddenly the fed has the dominant position again in a very shadowy/forshadowing way...

 

[Skylar]

You can post as many honest facts as you want. It will make absolutely no difference to people like the one you're replying to.

You're wasting your time.

Do you think it's a good idea for the Justices to be advertising before any Hearing on any matter "how they've already made up their minds"?

Its an excellent idea for the Justices to take into account the likelihood of a case's success when determining if they will grant a stay. The courts found no credible indication of this for the Alabama request for stay. And so they denied it.

As they were supposed to do.

Like with denying the stays on the very laws and position they avered 56 times in Windsor 2013...the very hinge in that decision on how they awareded Windsor with money and struck down part of DOMA?

The 'hinge' of the Alabama same sex marriage ban ruling was the violation of constitutional guarantees. The Windsor ruling never once indicates that States have the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. But instead explicitly found that state marriage laws were subject to such guarantees.

You ignore this. 44 of 46 times, the federal judiciary didn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Statement of Fallacy: Legally speaking, when the precedent is set for a minority group of repugnant behaviors (those the majority rejects) to be free from regulation of the majority, then any other repugnant behavior can and must apply.

Who said this is so "legally speaking"? You, Sil?

You are no more a legal authority or expert than Where_r_my_Keys?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can post as many honest facts as you want. It will make absolutely no difference to people like the one you're replying to.

You're wasting your time.

Do you think it's a good idea for the Justices to be advertising before any Hearing on any matter "how they've already made up their minds"? Like with denying the stays on the very laws and position they avered 56 times in Windsor 2013...the very hinge in that decision on how they awareded Windsor with money and struck down part of DOMA? ......that states were the ultimate authority on marriage and as such the fed had to abide by what they said....unless they wanted a stay...and then suddenly the fed has the dominant position again in a very shadowy/forshadowing way...

The Justices are simply notifying how fucking you stupid are you folks. Nothing personal, they don't know you.

 

[Skylar]

You can post as many honest facts as you want. It will make absolutely no difference to people like the one you're replying to.

You're wasting your time.

Do you think it's a good idea for the Justices to be advertising before any Hearing on any matter "how they've already made up their minds"? Like with denying the stays on the very laws and position they avered 56 times in Windsor 2013...the very hinge in that decision on how they awareded Windsor with money and struck down part of DOMA? ......that states were the ultimate authority on marriage and as such the fed had to abide by what they said....unless they wanted a stay...and then suddenly the fed has the dominant position again in a very shadowy/forshadowing way...

The Justices are simply notifying how fucking you stupid are you folks. Nothing personal, they don't know you.

Your post is stark, but accurate. The court's every action regarding these issues over the last 2 years has been to expand gay rights and preserve rulings that expand gay rights. Scalia said the court's position was 'beyond mistaking', and the application of Windsor's rationale to overturn state gay marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

Silo simply thought that Silo knew better. The 'sudden change' in the court's position is just Silo realizing that Silo didn't have the slightest clue what he's been talking about for the last several years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is as Sil does: cognitively dissonant.

 

[Skylar]

Sil is as Sil does: cognitively dissonant.

Yup. Reality and his perception are now out of sync. So, he's building a new mythology as we speak, trying to relieve the tension between the two. 'Shadow Bias' and 'impeachable offenses' and the 'court reversing itself'.

"Its not that Silo was wrong. Its that the court is. "

That's literally his argument. And its all about cognitive dissonance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You can post as many honest facts as you want. It will make absolutely no difference to people like the one you're replying to.

You're wasting your time.

Do you think it's a good idea for the Justices to be advertising before any Hearing on any matter "how they've already made up their minds"? Like with denying the stays on the very laws and position they avered 56 times in Windsor 2013...the very hinge in that decision on how they awareded Windsor with money and struck down part of DOMA? ......that states were the ultimate authority on marriage and as such the fed had to abide by what they said....unless they wanted a stay...and then suddenly the fed has the dominant position again in a very shadowy/forshadowing way...

You're as naïve as you are ridiculous.

 

[Syriusly]

Would you be opposed to the Justices reading copies of the Prince's Trust study before they render a decision on gay marriage?

Why would the justices read a study that has literarily zero relevance to the case? They may as well read "Green Eggs and Ham" before the decision is rendered.

Children growing up not having their same gender in their lives (or modeled as important) is the topic of the Prince's Trust survey. This would apply to 50% of children involved in so-called "gay marriage".

You mean the children that Justice Kennedy was speaking of?


"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

What about those children Silhouette?

Those children who you would chose to cause them actual harm by denying their parents marriage.

What about the children Silhouette?

What about the children?

 

[Silhouette]

What about the children of single parents who would learn at least partially that they (their own gender) matters when their parent keeps trying to date? Aren't they also in "immediate legal harm" from their parent not getting marriage benefits (while we are completely rewriting what that word means to your advantage)? And the children of polygamists? What about the harm to them? How will you argue to exclude those children from marriage benefits? A mandate for polygamy too across the 50 states?

Surely you see the problems. And if not, here's a little help: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

What about the children of single parents who would learn at least partially that they (their own gender) matters when their parent keeps trying to date?

First, your entire premise is irrelevant to gay marriage. As gays and lesbians are still having kids. Denying the same sex parents of these children access to marriage doesn't mean their parents are magically opposite gender. It merely guarantees that these children will never have married parents.

Which cases an immediate legal harm to the children.

Your solution (deny same sex parents marriage) doesn't produce your desired result (these children raised by opposite sex parents). Meaning that your solution doesn't solve any immediate legal harm to children, but instead *causes* immediate legal harm to children.

As the court already recognized in Windsor:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in 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."

Windsor v. US

Which you're perfectly cool with as long as it also hurts gay people. Demonstrating elegantly that you could give a fiddler's fuck about harm to children. As you'll gladly hurt kids...if it lets you hurt gays.

Surely you see the problems. And if not, here's a little help: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And where in the Prince Trust study is there a single mention of same sex parenting? Or any measurement of any kind of parenting?

There is none. You've imagined it.

Quote where in the Prince Trust study that it indicates that good same sex role models can only be parents?

You can't. You've imagined it.

And your imagination isn't evidence. Especially when the immediate legal harm to both children and same sex parents is real and exists right now.