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

[Silhouette]

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.....

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.

I'm not into "hurting gays". In states where their "marriages" are allowed, they are allowed. IF they were arrived at by that state's permission; just like the 13 year olds in Vermont that you and I both don't believe should be the case in every state.

This is about states being able to retain control of setting standards for that institution which they incentivize for what THEY believe is children's best formative environment (marriage). Undoubtedly since you seem so adamant, there is no argument whatsoever then that children are the most important people to consider in this debate, yes? And as such, we must fight vigorously, both you and I, to see that children's immediate custodians in the closest proximity to them (in their own state) have control over the environments they are subjected to "as married".

Unless suddenly now as is your habit, you're going to switch over to "children aren't the most important people in this debate"...

...back and forth....back and forth...as it suits your latest politically-expedient point..

 

[Skylar]

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.....

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.

I'm not into "hurting gays".

You're certainly into hurting kids if it denies gays rights. You're advocating a course of action that you know harms children. And worse, doesn't fix any of the 'problems' of same sex parenting as you believe they exist.

As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean that their children magically have opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that those children NEVER have married parents.

How does that benefit any child? The courts have already demonstrated how it harms them. So your proposals provide no benefit and immediate legal harm to children.

And you don't give a shit. Anyone who actually cared about the welfare of children ever would.

This is about states being able to retain control of setting standards for that institution which they incentivize for what THEY believe is children's best formative environment (marriage).

Irrelevant for two reasons. The above fact that deny marriage or no, gays and lesbians will still have kids. So denying same sex marriage doesn't fix any perceived 'problem' with the household. It only causes immediate legal harm to those children and their parents.

Second, no one is required to have children or be able to have them to be married. Millions of infertile or childless couples are allowed to marry or remain married. Demonstrating elegantly that there's a perfectly valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children.

Why then would we deny gays access to marriage because they fail to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

And if a State is going to deny gays their right to marry, they need a VERY good reason. And a legitimate state interest. And a valid legislative end. And the States can demonstrate none of these. Which is why they've lost 44 of 46 times in federal court.

 

[Silhouette]

The important thing to take away from your post is that you believe children are the most important consideration in this debate.

And on that point, we agree. 50% of them caught up in "gay marriage" can be expected to suffer: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Surely this must disturb you, the results they found in that study?

Or now are you suddenly not so sure that kids' welfare belongs as a topic in this debate?

 

[Syriusly]

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

No one is preventing the single straight parent from marrying.

But you are arguing that the gay couple should not be married- and their children should not have married parents.

And those are the children Justice Kennedy is concerned about.

 

[Skylar]

The important thing to take away from your post is that you believe children are the most important consideration in this debate.

Which you don't. As you're more than happy to cause immediate legal harm to children by denying their parents same sex marriage. Harm the court has already recognized.

And worse, there's no benefit to balance out the harm you insist on causing children. As gays and lesbians are still having kids. Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't suddenly mean that their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children never have married parents.

Which harms children. Not helps them. Your demand that we deny marriage to same sex parents offers no benefits to children, while causing immediate legal harm to children.

No thank you.

And on that point, we agree. 50% of them caught up in "gay marriage" can be expected to suffer: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And where does the Prince Trust study say that the only source of a good same sex role model is a parent?

Its the cornerstone of your entire argument. And you've never once been able to offer us anything to back it up.

Keep running.

 

[Syriusly]

The important thing to take away from your post is that you believe children are the most important consideration in this debate.?

No really they aren't.

Children are essentially irrelevant to the question of gay marriage. You will try to spin my comments into outrage but children were irrelevant when it came to mixed race marriage, and children were irrelevant when it came to the issue of whether people who owe child support can marry, and children were irrelevant when it come to whether prisoners can marry.

The court is considering the Constitutional rights of the people who want to get married.

That is the question before the court. The people who want to get married may- or may not- decide to have children.

If they decide to have children, then the only thing that denying them marriage accomplishes is denying their children the protections that legal marriage affords them.

 

[mdk]

The important thing to take away from your post is that you believe children are the most important consideration in this debate.

And on that point, we agree. 50% of them caught up in "gay marriage" can be expected to suffer: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Surely this must disturb you, the results they found in that study?

Or now are you suddenly not so sure that kids' welfare belongs as a topic in this debate?

Why would a study that never mentions gays, gay parents, or gay marriage disturb anyone? You may as well cite The Nielsen ratings b/c they have just as much relevance to this topic as The Prince's Trust study.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is simply irrelevant to this discussion now.

Nothing posted by Sil has to do with marriage equality itself.

Nothing.

 

[Silhouette]

Justice Ginsberg aired on the Rachael Maddow Show last night...made worse by Maddow substituting another interviewer in her place, some rookie from MSNBC. As if that would smooth over the fact that a Justice was siding with Maddow's ilk somehow. The efforts MSNBC went to in order to cover those tracks would make a discerning person worry all the more about Ginsberg's evident bias on the topic of gay marriage.

Wow, what troubled times are these...

 

[Syriusly]

Wow, what troubled times are these...

Really? Compared to when exactly?

What is your idylic time that was 'less troubled' than today?

 

[Silhouette]

Wow, what troubled times are these...

Really? Compared to when exactly? What is your idylic time that was 'less troubled' than today?

My "idyllic time" was when US Supreme Court Justices didn't erode standing state laws by attrition by refusing stays on interim law pending a FAIR AND UNBIASED hearing on the merits...without granting schmoozy interviews with rabidly pro-LGBT TV hosts (or through surrogates on that host's program) on the eve of a gay-marriage "Hearing" (I now use the term loosely)...or kicking it up can-can style following Miley Cyrus twerking in public on a stage in Times Square on new years eve...

And, it's important when you quote someone to ask a question about what they just said, to include the parts that explain your question before you even asked it.

Here it is again so you can pretend you didn't understand it, spam 6 or 7 posts to make it disappear on a back page and then have one of your buddies make the first post at the top of a new page "proclaiming victory for the LGBT cult and sad, bitter defeat for any [insert derogatory term here] person opposing them"..

Justice Ginsberg aired on the Rachael Maddow Show last night...made worse by Maddow substituting another interviewer in her place, some rookie from MSNBC. As if that would smooth over the fact that a Justice was siding with Maddow's ilk somehow. The efforts MSNBC went to in order to cover those tracks would make a discerning person worry all the more about Ginsberg's evident bias on the topic of gay marriage.
Wow, what troubled times are these...

 

[Syriusly]

Wow, what troubled times are these...

Really? Compared to when exactly? What is your idylic time that was 'less troubled' than today?

My "idyllic time" was when US Supreme Court Justices ]

That is rather vague and just your usual crazy BS.

Do you have a year? Or a decade?

 

[Silhouette]

(Bloomberg) -- Americans are prepared to accept a U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, pointing to what she described as a sweeping change in attitudes toward gays. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Americans Are Ready for Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Business

...Before the Hearing on the merit; taking in both sides of the argument....in a public interview on national TV...

...WOW...

 

[Syriusly]

(Bloomberg) -- Americans are prepared to accept a U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, pointing to what she described as a sweeping change in attitudes toward gays. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Americans Are Ready for Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Business

...Before the Hearing on the merit; taking in both sides of the argument....in a public interview on national TV...

...WOW...

The 81-year-old justice discussed the public’s increasing acceptance of gays against the backdrop of resistance by Alabama officials to a federal court order that took effect Monday and made it the 37th gay-marriage state. With the high court set to rule on the issue by June, she said it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans should the justices say that gay marriage is a constitutional right.


“The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous,” Ginsburg said. “In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor -- we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”

 

[Silhouette]

(Bloomberg) -- Americans are prepared to accept a U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, pointing to what she described as a sweeping change in attitudes toward gays. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Americans Are Ready for Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Business

...Before the Hearing on the merit; taking in both sides of the argument....in a public interview on national TV......WOW...

The 81-year-old justice discussed the public’s increasing acceptance of gays..

Regardless of her age, how cute she or other people thinks she is, how adorable she looks in her little lacey scarf, or the way the glasses frame her little face, or even if she has a "Notorious RBG fan club/website" celebrating her bias: Notorious R.B.G. hogs-of-war The best part of the State of the... & Notorious R.B.G. Archive she is A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE who CAME OUT PUBLICLY INDICATING BIAS on a CASE YET TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS. Being "notorious" is precisely the opposite of her job description.

THAT is forbidden by law; and there are VERY good reasons this is so: the public's perception of a lack of bias in the last bastion of justice in our country is what keeps this country intact and not unravelling from a revolution.

Any guesses on how the case yet-to-be-heard-on-the-merits will play out this Summer? Wonder no more... (I think that's five of them there in the photo-a majority..and I don't even see Kagen in the shot)

 

[Syriusly]

(Bloomberg) -- Americans are prepared to accept a U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, pointing to what she described as a sweeping change in attitudes toward gays. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Americans Are Ready for Gay Marriage - Bloomberg Business

...Before the Hearing on the merit; taking in both sides of the argument....in a public interview on national TV......WOW...

The 81-year-old justice discussed the public’s increasing acceptance of gays..

she is A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE who CAME OUT PUBLICLY INDICATING BIAS

No- she isn't. She was stating that the public is more accepting now of the issue.

The 81-year-old justice discussed the public’s increasing acceptance of gays against the backdrop of resistance by Alabama officials to a federal court order that took effect Monday and made it the 37th gay-marriage state. With the high court set to rule on the issue by June, she said it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans should the justices say that gay marriage is a constitutional right.


“The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous,” Ginsburg said. “In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor -- we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”

 

[Silhouette]

...Before the Hearing on the merit; taking in both sides of the argument....in a public interview on national TV......WOW...

She was stating that the public is more accepting now of the issue.

On the Rachael Maddow Show, on MSNBC (cue rainbow colors on the logo)....The "notorious" RBG was showing bias. Absolutely. She was telling the world her mind was made up before the Hearing of the TWO sides of the argument (three if you consider the independent voice of children).

It defies her job description at its essence.

 

[Silhouette]

When a Justice or Justices show ahead of any Hearing, through can-can dances following Miley Cyrus on stage, gushing TV interviews with what is essentially one of the parties to be heard at the case (the Rachael Maddow show is the equivalent of the plaintiff's for homosexual marriage in Ginsberg's Court yet to be heard), or in refusing to issue stays to preserve the democratic rule that is interim law in the several states; forcing attrition to their duly enacted laws using shadow-justice, or rather "foreshadow justice" in this case, it is no longer a democracy.

When someone is being oppressed and the courts/a fair trial is their only course for redress; the Supreme Court is their last stop. They can go no further for an unbiased and fair hearing of their complaints. When that last stop on the railroad for them shows itself to be prejudiced against them before they step foot in court, that's it folks. That's the end of democracy. At that point a plaintiff or defendant would be better advised to throw themselves on bended knee and bring gifts of gold, silk and their finest pig. Because at that point the Justices are like kings on high, having their whims rule law instead of what is fair and just.

For all those people jumping up and down with joy at what is obviously a "loaded court" for homosexual marraige...you'd better hope there isn't a GOP president in 2016 and a GOP Congress. Because you may find yourselves weeping and gnashing your teeth when the next show of bias is Justice Roberts straddling an oil pipeline waving a cowboy hat in the air for a photo op with the president of Haliburton; or Justice Alito posing with a catholic bishop on the eve of an abortion decision, arm around him smiling.

..This "Kingship in the Court" is a double-edged sword..

 

[Syriusly]

...Before the Hearing on the merit; taking in both sides of the argument....in a public interview on national TV......WOW...

She was stating that the public is more accepting now of the issue.

She was telling the world her mind was made up before the Hearing of the TWO sides of the argument

No- just your delusional view of the world.

 

[Silhouette]

So on the eve of a SCOTUS hearing on the Canadian oil pipeline you would think there was no expressed bias if Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy posed on an oil derrick standing next to the Haliburton president waving cowboy hats in the air for a photo op eh?