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

[Syriusly]

Still waiting for you to tell me how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Still waiting for you to tell me- or anyone- how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

For someone who is constantly whining 'think of the children!' you should be able to articulate your position- I mean if you actually gave a damn about kids.

 

[Skylar]

Still waiting for you to tell me how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And once again the moment a child doesn't allow Silo to hurt gays.....he completely ignores them.

Sil, you know your proposals hurt and humiliate children. And when pressed to tell us how denying marriage to same sex parents helps their children to balance out the harm.....

.......you change the topic. As there is no such benefit. Your proposal is all harm. You know. And you're beyond eager to start hurting kids if it will help you hurt gays.

Don't ever bother giving lip service to children again. You've shown us your hand. And children are nothing but a tool for you to use.

 

[Silhouette]

Don't ever bother giving lip service to children again. You've shown us your hand. And children are nothing but a tool for you to use.

You mean don't ever bring up the Prince's Trust survey that showed kids without their gender present as a role model, overwhelmingly suffered in many detrimental ways psychologically? Those kids who statistically wound up with something like a 67% indigency rate as a result of lacking their gender present as a parent? The kids that 50% of kids in so-called gay marriage would be expected to fall into like circumstances? You mean THOSE kids?

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So let me get this straight, those kids are the ones you seem to have a burning desire, along with your pals here in the LGBT camp to make sure never ever get talked about in any thread that is about the pending US Supreme Court's Hearing on gay marriage...

..so that's a subject you definitely want off-limits here, yes? Just trying to be clear about that..

 

[Syriusly]

Don't ever bother giving lip service to children again. You've shown us your hand. And children are nothing but a tool for you to use.

You mean don't ever bring up the Prince's Trust survey

Still waiting for you to tell me- or anyone- how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

For someone who is constantly whining 'think of the children!' you should be able to articulate your position- I mean if you actually gave a damn about kids.

 

[Skylar]

Don't ever bother giving lip service to children again. You've shown us your hand. And children are nothing but a tool for you to use.

You mean don't ever bring up the Prince's Trust survey that showed kids without their gender present as a role model, overwhelmingly suffered in many detrimental ways psychologically?

The Prince Trust Study never even mentions same sex parenting, gay marriage, gays, or measures the effects of any kind of parenting. Nor does it ever indicate that a parent is the only source of a good same sex role model.

You imagined all of it, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

So let me get this straight, those kids are the ones you seem to have a burning desire, along with your pals here in the LGBT camp to make sure never ever get talked about in any thread that is about the pending US Supreme Court's Hearing on gay marriage...

I'm asking you how denying marriage to same sex parents helps their children.

You have no answer. And you ignore those children because of it. Proving once again that you only care about a child is they let you hurt gays. If they don't, you could care less and will completely ignore them.

You don't advocate for children. You use children. And intentionally hurt children if you think it will let you hurt gays.

 

[Skylar]

Don't ever bother giving lip service to children again. You've shown us your hand. And children are nothing but a tool for you to use.

You mean don't ever bring up the Prince's Trust survey

Still waiting for you to tell me- or anyone- how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

For someone who is constantly whining 'think of the children!' you should be able to articulate your position- I mean if you actually gave a damn about kids.

Silo's silence is his answer. There is no benefit. His proposals help no children. And hurt 10s of thousands.

"...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.

Children humiliated, children caused immediate legal harm, with healthcare made more difficult for these children to receive, the integrity of the families of these children damaged, their family security harmed....

.....in exchange for nothing. Sil's proposals only harm children. And he's SO eager to start inflicting that harm if it means he can hurt gays.

 

[Silhouette]

If you want to talk about kids, go to this thread: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


If you want to talk about the US Supreme Court actively eroding state laws by refusing stays so they can later say "gee, there's so many gay-married people now we HAVE to mandate it federally" this April, this is the thread for you..

 

[Skylar]

If you want to talk about kids, go to this thread: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which then links to the your Prince Trust study thread. A study that never so much as mentions gay marriage, same sex parents nor measures the effects of any kind of parenting.

You hallucinated it all.

If you want to talk about the US Supreme Court actively eroding state laws by refusing stays so they can later say "gee, there's so many gay-married people now we HAVE to mandate it federally" this April, this is the thread for you..

Stays are granted on the basis of the likelihood of the success of the argument forwarded by a petitioner. If the court assesses there's a credible likelihood that the argument will win, they grant a stay.

The court found no credible likelihood that Alabama's argument would win. Thus, they didn't grant a stay. They refused to grant stays to EVERY state whose gay marriage bans had been overturned. So their assessment has been consistent.

What you say they can't do, in reality they are required to do. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Instead, you're building up an elaborate list of excuses for the June ruling, imagining conspiracies, tyranny, and a litany of other batshit for why you're going to lose.

There's a much simpler explanation:

Its not the entire federal judiciary that's wrong. Its just you.

 

[Silhouette]

Stays that will erode state laws, packing illegally-gay-married people into the ranks of the US population so that later the Justices can throw their hands up and say "well so many people are gay married we HAVE to mandate it federally" is bullshit, deceptive, tyranny and in fact, shadow-justice (kangaroo justice).

It's not like the states' cohesion and right to self-govern has not been harmed by refusal of stays..not only is it harmed, it is irreparably eroded ...ON PURPOSE! The Court knows exactly the outfall in denying each of those stays: throngs of gays packing clerks offices and the "numbers of gays already married so we HAVE to mandate it federally."

It is treason. Pure and simple. It is the defiance of democratic rule of the individual states, by using force and artifice. Worse still, children will be predictably harmed by a federal force of this brand spanking new social experiment and the dismantling of the physical structure of the word "marriage".. A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

Stays that will erode state laws, packing illegally-gay-married people into the ranks of the US population so that later the Justices can throw their hands up and say "well so many people are gay married we HAVE to mandate it federally" is bullshit, deceptive, tyranny and in fact, shadow-justice (kangaroo justice).

Says you. Back in reality, the courts are required to assess the likelihood that the legal argument of the party requesting the stay will prevail. The court found no credible indication that Alabama's legal argument would prevail. So they didn't grant a stay.

What you insist the court can never do, the court is required to do. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

You're just making up excuses for why you're going to lose in June. Its not that the entire federal judciary is wrong, corrupt, tyrannical, deceptive, or any of the other melodramatic bullshit you've made up.

You're simply wrong on this issue.

 

[Silhouette]

Stays that will erode state laws, packing illegally-gay-married people into the ranks of the US population so that later the Justices can throw their hands up and say "well so many people are gay married we HAVE to mandate it federally" is bullshit, deceptive, tyranny and in fact, shadow-justice (kangaroo justice).
It's not like the states' cohesion and right to self-govern has not been harmed by refusal of stays..not only is it harmed, it is irreparably eroded ...ON PURPOSE! The Court knows exactly the outfall in denying each of those stays: throngs of gays packing clerks offices and the "numbers of gays already married so we HAVE to mandate it federally."
It is treason. Pure and simple. It is the defiance of democratic rule of the individual states, by using force and artifice. Worse still, children will be predictably harmed by a federal force of this brand spanking new social experiment and the dismantling of the physical structure of the word "marriage".. A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Says you. Back in reality, the courts are required to assess the likelihood that the legal argument of the party requesting the stay will prevail. The court found no credible indication that Alabama's legal argument would prevail. So they didn't grant a stay....

Where do you suppose the Court found that the states would not prevail??? From the 56 times in 26 pages the Court itself avered in the 2013 Windsor Decision that the definition of marriage is and always has be Constitutionally up to the states? vs the 1 time it alluded as perhaps maybe there might be an exception based on Loving v Virginia...without any Constitutional mention as to that? (For the 56 citations, read here ) Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It's bullshit. It's purposeful erosion based only upon shadow justice and a refusal to explain the refusal of stays. The Court knows FULL WELL in advance, incrementally and well-publicized I might add, that each refusal of each stay results in a swarm of illegal gay marriages in that state, packing their ultimate excuse for a federal mandate (before arguments are heard) to dismantle the physical structure of the word "marriage". So if, and I swear to God if, the Court plans in advance on some language in its Finding that says words to the effect of "well there are already so many gay people/kids of gay people married that we HAVE TO mandate gay marriage federally"...that is the END of the cohesion of our country and faith in our last hope (the judicial branch) of government to a fair shake to self-govern.

At that moment, it will be done, over, finished and even the judicial will have exacted the final rung of tyranny.

 

[Skylar]

Oh

Stays that will erode state laws, packing illegally-gay-married people into the ranks of the US population so that later the Justices can throw their hands up and say "well so many people are gay married we HAVE to mandate it federally" is bullshit, deceptive, tyranny and in fact, shadow-justice (kangaroo justice).
It's not like the states' cohesion and right to self-govern has not been harmed by refusal of stays..not only is it harmed, it is irreparably eroded ...ON PURPOSE! The Court knows exactly the outfall in denying each of those stays: throngs of gays packing clerks offices and the "numbers of gays already married so we HAVE to mandate it federally."
It is treason. Pure and simple. It is the defiance of democratic rule of the individual states, by using force and artifice. Worse still, children will be predictably harmed by a federal force of this brand spanking new social experiment and the dismantling of the physical structure of the word "marriage".. A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Says you. Back in reality, the courts are required to assess the likelihood that the legal argument of the party requesting the stay will prevail. The court found no credible indication that Alabama's legal argument would prevail. So they didn't grant a stay....

Where do you suppose the Court found that the states would not prevail??? From the 56 times in 26 pages the Court itself avered in the 2013 Windsor Decision that the definition of marriage is and always has be Constitutionally up to the states?

They said '56 times' that state law trumps federal law on the definition of marriage. None of the rulings overturning state gay marriage bans did so on the basis of the supremacy of federal legal definitions of marriage.

Not one.

vs the 1 time it alluded as perhaps maybe there might be an exception based on Loving v Virginia...without any Constitutional mention as to that?

What did Windsor find state marriage laws to be subject to? Even now you can't bring yourself to say it, can you. Lets check Windsor:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US.

Windsor found that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. And every ruling overturning state gay marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of those guarantees.

Every single one.

Just because you ignore constitutional guarantees doesn't mean that the courts are similarly obligated.

 

[Skylar]

Here's the hierarchy of authority set out in the Windsor decision:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State marriage laws.

3) Federal Marriage laws.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees all you like. As virtually every ruling the federal judiciary has made on this topic demonstrates, the courts don't.

 

[Syriusly]

Stays that will erode state laws, packing illegally-gay-married people into the ranks of the US population so that later the Justices can throw their hands up and say "well so many people are gay married we HAVE to mandate it federally" is bullshit, deceptive, tyranny and in fact, shadow-justice (kangaroo justice).
It's not like the states' cohesion and right to self-govern has not been harmed by refusal of stays..not only is it harmed, it is irreparably eroded ...ON PURPOSE! The Court knows exactly the outfall in denying each of those stays: throngs of gays packing clerks offices and the "numbers of gays already married so we HAVE to mandate it federally."
It is treason. Pure and simple. It is the defiance of democratic rule of the individual states, by using force and artifice. Worse still, children will be predictably harmed by a federal force of this brand spanking new social experiment and the dismantling of the physical structure of the word "marriage".. A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Says you. Back in reality, the courts are required to assess the likelihood that the legal argument of the party requesting the stay will prevail. The court found no credible indication that Alabama's legal argument would prevail. So they didn't grant a stay....

that each refusal of each stay results in a swarm of illegal gay marriages in that state,.

If the marriages were illegal- why would the Supreme Court let them proceed.

The Supreme Court had two choices- take the case and decide yea or nay- or not take the cases- and let the marriages proceed.

By letting the lower courts decisions stand, the Supreme Court confirmed that the marriages were legal.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the hierarchy of authority set out in the Windsor decision:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State marriage laws.

3) Federal Marriage laws.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees all you like. As virtually every ruling the federal judiciary has made on this topic demonstrates, the courts don't.

1) Yes, the Court Found that states had a constitutionally-supported right to define marriage for themselves since the dawn of the country.

2) See #1

3) See #1

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum & United States v. Windsor

"a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended."..."The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other." (page 19 Windsor Opinion)"

 

[Skylar]

Here's the hierarchy of authority set out in the Windsor decision:

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State marriage laws.

3) Federal Marriage laws.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees all you like. As virtually every ruling the federal judiciary has made on this topic demonstrates, the courts don't.

1) Yes, the Court Found that states had a constitutionally-supported right to define marriage for themselves since the dawn of the country.

Um, states don't have rights. States have powers.

People have rights. And the constitutional guarantees cited by the courts are those possessed by people. See Loving v. Virginia for an outline of how hopelessly in denial you are.

You always, always, always ignore constitutional guarantees. You always try to pretend they don't exist. And its not like the courts are going to magically forget that people have rights just because you close your eyes.

You ignore constitutional guarantees......because of your own inability to deal with reality. You simply misread the Windsor ruling. It doesn't authorize gay marriage bans. It never did. Read Scalia's dissent, where he explicitly contradicts you. Look at the court's actions, where they preserved EVERY ruling that overturned gay marriage bans, and denied EVERY stay by states trying to protect them. Look at the federal judiciary.....with 44 of 46 rulings overturning gay marriage bans.

You ignore it all, pretending none of it happened. And Windsor is what YOU believe it is.

You're simply in denial. As your desperate, willful ignorance of constitutional guarantees demonstrates. You're not going to like June at all.

 

[Silhouette]

States have rights to their powers...oh YES THEY DO. Those were upheld on the question of gay lifestyle marriage BTW. It was how the court struck down the fed looming over states on the question of marriage and thereby dismantled part of DOMA. Now you want the fed to tell states 'how marriage is going to be dismantled' to favor (just) LGBTs...whatever that is?

Very duplicitous of you..

 

[Skylar]

States have rights to their powers...oh YES THEY DO.

And they are subject to constitutional guarantees:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Constitutional guarantees trump state marriage laws. You can't get around this. You can ignore constitutional guarantees. You can pretend it doesn't exist. But state marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees.

It was how the court struck down the fed looming over states on the question of marriage and thereby dismantled part of DOMA. That Now you want the fed to tell states 'how marriage is going to be dismantled' to favor (just) LGBTs...whatever that is?

Laughing....'the feds', huh? The Windsor ruling never says that State marriage law trumps 'the feds'. It said that State marriage law trumps federal marriage law. And that constitutional guarantees trump state marriage law.

You can try and insinuate that the Windsor ruling put state marriage law beyond federal judicial review. But we both know that's a bullshit argument.

Very duplicitous of you..

Says the poor soul who ignored any mention of constitutional guarantees in the Windsor ruling. Despite every ruling that overturned gay marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Every single one.

1) Constitutional Guarantees

2) State Marriage Laws

3) Federal Marriage Laws.

Remember that order. Its why you lost.

 

[Silhouette]

1 mention of 'possible" vs 56 mentions of "absolutely/constitutionally upheld". Which Finding do you think defines interim law?

 

[Silhouette]

Well?