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

[Silhouette]

I wasn't aware that the courts had ever found any of your assumptions above to be valid. Could you show me the caselaw?
Because I can show you court rulings where the denial of gay marriage hurts children (Windsor v. US). And where the rights of gays and lesbians are protected by the constitution (Romer v. Evans)....Thus, they had no credible reason to grant the stay.

There was zero findings of merit that denial of gay marraige hurts children. Zero. If there was, the opposition would have been able to present the rebutting evidence of the Prince's Trust survey. Rights of polygamists are also protected, inasfar as they may be. But that does not extend to marriage, which is a state incentivized privelege for the best benefit of the formative environment for children: the most important people in the marriage debate. Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You know It's funny, every time I say that children are the most important voice in the marriage debate, especially when we're talking about the Prince's Trust study, then suddenly your side of the debate screams foul and swears that the most important people in the debate are gay adults.

That's only because that happens to be true. Marriage isn't for or about children. Never has been.

You see Skylar/Montrovant, Paint is displaying exactly what I was talking about here.

The Court refused stays on alleged harm not doing so would cause children? How did they determine that without hearing both sides of that question? Did anyone have a chance to argue what gay marraige does or does not do for children on the state's choice side of the debate? Anyone get a chance to refute any kangaroo-deductions the Court might have made by arging the Prince's Trust survey, for example?

The answer of course is "no". And because it is "no", the refusal of stays is wilfull erosion of state laws to load the dice in favor of gay litigants at the upcoming Hearing. Undoubtedly those "Justices" involved in this charade will cite "see how many more children are now kids of gay marraige" ..."we HAVE to find in their favor instead of kids into the untold 100s of millions into the future a la Prince's Trust survey". That activity is forbidden to Supreme Court Justices who are supposed to wear blindfolds up until the very moment a case or question is Heard FROM BOTH SIDES on its merits. Interim law presides in the mean time.

This is a kangaroo Court on this question: long story short.

 

[Skylar]

I wasn't aware that the courts had ever found any of your assumptions above to be valid. Could you show me the caselaw?

Because I can show you court rulings where the denial of gay marriage hurts children (Windsor v. US). And where the rights of gays and lesbians are protected by the constitution (Romer v. Evans)....Thus, they had no credible reason to grant the stay.

There was zero findings of merit that denial of gay marraige hurts children. Zero.

Says you. This is what the Windsor ruling finds:

"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 familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor v. US
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

You can pretend that no such passages exist. But the Windsor ruling doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument. So where did the court find that gay marriage hurts children? Show us the caselaw.

If there was, the opposition would have been able to present the rebutting evidence of the Prince's Trust survey.

The Prince Trust Study never even mentions same sex marriage or same sex parents, nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting. Eliminating it as relevant to any case involving gay marriage and children.

Second, the Prince Trust Study isn't cited by anyone in any case before the Supreme Court, nor is the basis of any case law. And your standard is case law.

Show us the case law that determines that gay marriage hurts children. Or admit it doesn't exist. We both already know the answer. But its fun to point out how you're more than willing to wipe your ass with your own standards.

 

[Skylar]

Silo.......you can't show us the caselaw backing any of your bullshit. And your running only proves it.

If your arguments collapse when faced with a single question on a message board, then surely they're inadequate to carry the ruling of the United States Supreme Court.

Remember that.

 

[Syriusly]

I noticed we gave these two posts/points a pass...and buried the page they were on...

Chief justice's lesbian cousin

]

Who- other than you- cares?

 

[Syriusly]

For the love of God Sil, give it up. You lost. It's over, obviously. There's no debate left. Move on.

That statement is precisely the point of this thread: and the end of our system of government...

Any Hearing on this contested issue "states rights to protect children vs the homosexual lifestyle gaining a new Constitutional protection" will be a kangaroo court at this point. Facilitated directly by those sitting on The Bench.

This hearing has nothing to do with 'states rights to protect children'- no matter how bizarrely you interpret the law.

But understand this folks- this is the same person who believes that California officials- virtually all of them- are violating Federal law by enacting "Harvey Milk Day".....

 

[Silhouette]

This hearing has nothing to do with 'states rights to protect children'- no matter how bizarrely you interpret the law.

But understand this folks- this is the same person who believes that California officials- virtually all of them- are violating Federal law by enacting "Harvey Milk Day".....

I think my issue with Harvey Milk Day is that it is the iconizing of a pedophile as the sexual messiah of the LGBT movement. Sort of disturbing when you really sit down and think about it. (Or just instantly disturbing if you're normal).

 

[Silhouette]

So far 69.3% of the voters in the poll believe SCOTUS is eroding their faith in justice or have given up completely on justice in the US.

That's what kicking it up can-can style or going for the "Maddow interview" will do for the reputation (and essential functionality) of the US Supreme Court

 

[Syriusly]

This hearing has nothing to do with 'states rights to protect children'- no matter how bizarrely you interpret the law.

But understand this folks- this is the same person who believes that California officials- virtually all of them- are violating Federal law by enacting "Harvey Milk Day".....

I think my issue with Harvey Milk Day is that it is the iconizing of a pedophile as the sexual messiah of the LGBT movement. Sort of disturbing when you really sit down and think about it. (Or just instantly disturbing if you're normal).

Oh please don't down play your whole argument that the State of California was breaking federal law by enacting Harvey Milk Day.

Or your lies about Harvey Milk- or your lies about Harvey Milk Day.

Harvey Milk is recognized for his contributions towards equal rights for homosexuals. He first came to prominence leading a successful fight against a California state initiative that would have made it illegal for a homosexual to teach in a California state school.

Harvey Milk was never any 'sexual messiah'- that is entirely your fiction- he is recognized for his contributions towards civil rights.

As I have pointed out many times before- a real 'sexual icon' is Elvis Presley- noted not only for his music- but for his sexuality- and there is actual evidence that Elvis has sex with a minor in contrast to Milk, where there is only your speculation.

Millions go every year to visit Elvis Presley's Graceland- they even offer special student rates

Student Groups Rates Graceland

How disturbed are you by that? Where is your tag line condemning not only Elvis but everyone who doesn't condemn Graceland?

 

[Skylar]

So far 69.3% of the voters in the poll believe SCOTUS is eroding their faith in justice or have given up completely on justice in the US.

That's what kicking it up can-can style or going for the "Maddow interview" will do for the reputation (and essential functionality) of the US Supreme Court

And? You yourself have condemned 'studies' if they don't have suffecient polling samples. About a dozen people have voted in this poll.

Yet you cite it as accurate. Demonstrating yet again that you'll ignore anything, even your own polling sample standards, to cling to what you want to believe.

 

[mdk]

So far 69.3% of the voters in the poll believe SCOTUS is eroding their faith in justice or have given up completely on justice in the US.

That's what kicking it up can-can style or going for the "Maddow interview" will do for the reputation (and essential functionality) of the US Supreme Court

A whole 13 people decided to take your inane poll. Is this the part where you ignore the sample size despite railing against sample sizes in another thread?

 

[Skylar]

For the love of God Sil, give it up. You lost. It's over, obviously. There's no debate left. Move on.

That statement is precisely the point of this thread: and the end of our system of government...

Any Hearing on this contested issue "states rights to protect children vs the homosexual lifestyle gaining a new Constitutional protection" will be a kangaroo court at this point. Facilitated directly by those sitting on The Bench.

I'm still waiting for you to show us any caselaw that has found that same sex parenting or gay marriage harms children.

Because I've already shown you the Windsor ruling finding that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts their children.

Or is 'caselaw' just another standard you'll gladly wipe your ass with it if it doesn't let you bash gays?

 

[Silhouette]

I'm still waiting for you to show us any caselaw that has found that same sex parenting or gay marriage harms children.

Wouldn't you be doing that on THIS thread instead of one about the Justices advertising loading the dice in favor of gay marriage before the Hearing on the Merits? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This thread is talking about this vv vv

So far 69.3% of the voters in the poll believe SCOTUS is eroding their faith in justice or have given up completely on justice in the US.
That's what kicking it up can-can style or going for the "Maddow interview" will do for the reputation (and essential functionality) of the US Supreme Court

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell us Sil, after the SC rules against your kind, will you give up then?

 

[Skylar]

I'm still waiting for you to show us any caselaw that has found that same sex parenting or gay marriage harms children.

Wouldn't you be doing that on THIS thread instead of one about the Justices advertising loading the dice in favor of gay marriage before the Hearing on the Merits? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'm doing it in this thread its this thread where you offered this rhetorical gem:

I wasn't aware that lifestyles that affect the base definition of marriage to the detriment of children and states' rights to self-govern in order to protect children (the most important people in marriage) had already been determined? Can you point me to case law?

Silhouette
Post 331

Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality Page 34 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Quite a few assumptions you have there. Can you point me to the case law that shows that gay marriage is to the detriment of children?

Or are you just wiping your ass with your own standards yet again? If even you are going to ignore your own claims and standards, surely you'll understand why we don't take them seriously either.

 

[Silhouette]

Tell us Sil, after the SC rules against your kind, will you give up then?

No, I'll wait until the public reaction to such atrocity, the shoe-in of republicans in POTUS and Congress (even more) in 2016 and then the appointment of a few extra conservative Justices. And I'll help donate money to therapy for all the kids who will be harmed being raised in a home where the fed mandates they have no role model of their same gender...their ensuing feelings of hopelessness....and await a new Supreme Court to return the question of experimental-lifestyles "as married" back to the states where it belongs.

How do you feel about a Court stacking the dice in favor of just one set of litigants on a question yet to be Heard Paint? Would you feel the same way if the question was about the rights of an oil company over an oil pipeline proposal? How about a nuclear plant upstream from your drinking water?

 

[Skylar]

Tell us Sil, after the SC rules against your kind, will you give up then?

No, I'll wait until the public reaction to such atrocity

An 'atrocity'? My, you're just ramping up the hysterically dramatic language, aren't you.

And obviously you won't wait for public reaction, as you don't give a shit about the public. The public supports gay marriage by between 12 and 19 points per poll after poll. You ignore them all, insisting that all polls that contradict you are 'made up from nothing'. Including, bizarrely.....Gallup.

You're in denial, Silo. And you'll ignore anything that doesn't ape what you want to believe.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Silo....I'm still waiting for you to cite case law that finds that gay marriage is to the detriment of children.

Can I add 'case law' to the list of sources you'll cite and then ignore? That list is getting rather impressive.

 

[Syriusly]

Tell us Sil, after the SC rules against your kind, will you give up then?

No, I'll wait until the public reaction to such atrocity, the shoe-in of republicans in POTUS and Congress (even more) in 2016 and then the appointment of a few extra conservative Justices. And I'll help donate money to therapy for all the kids

Still waiting for you to EVER explain how children will be harmed by 'gay marriage'.

Homosexuals have children- banning them from marrying only prevents those children from having married parents.

Or is this just your slippery slope approach to having the government ban homosexuals from having or raising children?

 

[Silhouette]

Still waiting for you to EVER explain how children will be harmed by 'gay marriage'.

You mean the topic of the other thread? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for you to EVER explain how children will be harmed by 'gay marriage'.

You mean the topic of the other thread? Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Two problems:

First, the Prince Trust Study never so much as mentions same sex marriage. Or same sex parents. Or measures the effects of any kind of parenting.

You imagined it all.

Second, gays and lesbians are having kids, regardless of whether or not they are allowed to marry. So denying marriage doesn't mean their children are magically being raised by opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children will never have married parents.

So not only is the entire premise of your argument imaginary, its completely irrelevant to gay marriage. As denying gay marriage doesn't effect any argument you've made. Worst of all, your 'solution' actually harms children, as the courts found in the Windsor ruling.

Your proposal is worse than useless.