Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Then what was all that talk about needing more social science data before he would cut off the discussion at the state level with a federal mandate? Do you think he was just filling dead air time with idle chat saying that? Or did he mean to say that as a foreshadow to his decision?

That's Kennedy saying that the social science was too new to denote benefit or perils.

So your rendering of that means that you think that because Kennedy's position about the social science being too new means he thinks the conversation should be shut down to favor just one side eh? I think that's a very illogical and indefensible position. And I think it means you are wrong in your projections of what Kennedy has in mind on the question... The logical solution to the "too new" position is to return the question to the states where it has always been. And I think that is the direction Kennedy was indicating with his questions that he was/is leaning..

 

[Skylar]

Then what was all that talk about needing more social science data before he would cut off the discussion at the state level with a federal mandate? Do you think he was just filling dead air time with idle chat saying that? Or did he mean to say that as a foreshadow to his decision?

That's Kennedy saying that the social science was too new to denote benefit or perils.

So your rendering of that means that you think that because Kennedy's position about the social science being too new means he thinks the conversation should be shut down to favor just one side eh?

It means that your babble about 'harm to children caused by same sex marriage' isn't one that Kennedy follows. Kennedy has found immediate legal harm to children caused by your proposal. And has never found any caused by same sex marriage.

You can certainly disagree with Kennedy if you like. But neither your agreement nor disagreement have any relevance to the outcome of the case. Or on Kennedy's perspective on the matter.

And I think it means you are wrong in your projections of what Kennedy has in mind on the question

Says you, citing yourself. And yet Kennedy says exactly what I've attributed to him:

“I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia,” he said. “This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ” He added that “the social science on this” — the value and perils of same-sex marriage — is “too new.”

Justice Kennedy

Ignore as you will.

 

[Silhouette]

In fairness, Kennedy has discussed, not "found", concerns about "immediate legal harm" to children whose adults are not married (note I did not say parents). But he has also discussed concerns about the social science of this redaction to the millenial-old definition of marriage (father/mother) as being "too new" for his Court to mandate the killing of the conversation before the social science is in and properly debated.

I'm saying that his prior, more myopic discussions were about "how to remedy the maladies of kids caught up in gay relationships", and now his more expansive-thinking is "how will my final decision on this matter affect society as a whole over time"? Those are his deliberations for sure. My money is on him returning the question to the states because 1. It's more expansive. 2. He has indicated more recently that this makes more sense and 3. He has indicated the Court consists of too small a number of people to make such a drastic change to society, set to most potently affect it at its core.

I sure wouldn't want to mandate killing a discussion that affects everyone...because you know, it's about behavior and not race.

Long story short, your side is urging the Court to make a more sterile, myopic Decision, focused on the smallest number of people right here in this tiny slice of time. My side is urging the Court to make a more fertile and expansive Decision focused on the largest number of people over time.

 

[Syriusly]

Long story short, your side is urging the Court to make a more sterile, myopic Decision, focused on the smallest number of people right here in this tiny slice of time. My side is urging the Court to make a more fertile and expansive Decision focused on the largest number of people over time.

Your 'side' is urging the court to ensure harm to the children of homosexuals, and to imagine that there will be some unexplained harm to some unidentified parties that justifies harming the children of homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

In fairness, Kennedy has discussed, not "found", concerns about "immediate legal harm" to children whose adults are not married (note I did not say parents). But he has also discussed concerns about the social science of this redaction to the millenial-old definition of marriage (father/mother) as being "too new" for his Court to mandate the killing of the conversation before the social science is in and properly debated.

I'm saying that his prior, more myopic discussions were about "how to remedy the maladies of kids caught up in gay relationships", and now his more expansive-thinking is "how will my final decision on this matter affect society as a whole over time"?

Two problems. The children you'll hurt by denying gay marriage matter. Even though they don't serve your argument. Kennedy certainly recognizes the harm done to them and he considers it important.

"On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are 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?"

Justice Kennedy

And the product of that question and concern....was the Windsor decision. In which a same sex marriage ban was overturned. The voices of those children are important, Sil.

Second, your proposal benefits no child. As gays and lesbians still have kids. Gay marriage does not equal gay parenting. Or visa versa. They are two separate issues. You illogically insist they are the same.

So if we're talking about all the children you'll hurt, or the complete lack of benefit for any child......your proposal fails twice.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

Hope you two can convince Kennedy with your spinning his statements as well as you've convinced yourselves and your choir..

 

[Skylar]

Hope you two can convince Kennedy with your spinning his statements as well as you've convinced yourselves and your choir..

I'm quoting Kennedy. Not convincing him. These are his statements that you're ignoring, his priorities. He's told you that the children of same sex parents are important.

You're the one that's insisting these children be ignored. And you're irrelevant.

 

[JoeB131]

I sure wouldn't want to mandate killing a discussion that affects everyone...because you know, it's about behavior and not race.

Guy, horseshit. Gay marriage doesn't effect you in any way.

the fact is, gays are going to have children regardless of whether they can get married or not. this isn't an issue for discussion.

Adoption, Surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization. Only a matter of time before we have cloning.

I am going to LOVE watching your reaction when the Court strikes down gay marriage next month.

 

[Skylar]

I sure wouldn't want to mandate killing a discussion that affects everyone...because you know, it's about behavior and not race.

Guy, horseshit. Gay marriage doesn't effect you in any way.

the fact is, gays are going to have children regardless of whether they can get married or not. this isn't an issue for discussion.

Adoption, Surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization. Only a matter of time before we have cloning.

I am going to LOVE watching your reaction when the Court strikes down gay marriage next month.

We've already seen Sil's reaction. Take a look at his 'Shadow Bias' thread. Where he accuses the court of treason.

 

[Silhouette]

I sure wouldn't want to mandate killing a discussion that affects everyone...because you know, it's about behavior and not race.

Guy, horseshit. Gay marriage doesn't effect you in any way....the fact is, gays are going to have children regardless of whether they can get married or not. this isn't an issue for discussion. Adoption, Surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization. Only a matter of time before we have cloning.

I am going to LOVE watching your reaction when the Court strikes down gay marriage next month.

Brothers and sisters will have children together too, whether they're married or not. Is that your argument for incest marriage? Your logic, since your premise is "no discrimination" must apply equally to all children whose parents aren't married...not just your pet favorites. Do you understand that?

 

[Skylar]

I sure wouldn't want to mandate killing a discussion that affects everyone...because you know, it's about behavior and not race.

Guy, horseshit. Gay marriage doesn't effect you in any way....the fact is, gays are going to have children regardless of whether they can get married or not. this isn't an issue for discussion. Adoption, Surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization. Only a matter of time before we have cloning.

I am going to LOVE watching your reaction when the Court strikes down gay marriage next month.

Brothers and sisters will have children together too, whether they're married or not. Is that your argument for incest marriage? Your logic, since your premise is "no discrimination" must apply equally to all children whose parents aren't married...not just your pet favorites. Do you understand that?

When there is a case involving brothers and sisters being heard by the court, talk to us.

In the meantime, you're abandoning the topic of same sex marriage because your arguments don't work. And you know it.

 

[Silhouette]

When there is a case involving brothers and sisters being heard by the court, talk to us.

In the meantime, you're abandoning the topic of same sex marriage because your arguments don't work. And you know it.

There is. Once you have the fed telling the states "marriage equality rules and you no longer have a say", it means that all must be included. You are aware that your side's main argument in front of the Justices was "marriage is an inalieable right" (instead of a state-granted privelege with conditions, like driving).

A right is a right is a right. And that's why the Justices were asking your side how they might legally prevent two men and two women from marrying each other if they do what you're asking them to do to marriage.

 

[Skylar]

When there is a case involving brothers and sisters being heard by the court, talk to us.

In the meantime, you're abandoning the topic of same sex marriage because your arguments don't work. And you know it.

There is.

I've checked the USSC's docket. There isn't.

Your argument on same sex marriage has collapsed so utterly.....you've abandoned the topic and now refuse to discuss.

Good. There wasn't much to your claims to begin with.

Once you have the fed telling the states "marriage equality rules and you no longer have a say", it means that all must be included. You are aware that your side's main argument in front of the Justices was "marriage is an inalieable right" (instead of a state-granted privelege with conditions, like driving).

The issue of whether or not the Federal Judiciary can overturn state marriage laws when they violate constitutional guarantees is long settled. Loving v. Virginia demonstrated that almost 50 years ago. So if your logic were valid, everything you've lamented about would have already happened.

None of it ever did.

Again, Sil......this is why your argument is useless, legally. You simply ignore the supreme court whenever you choose....and then insist that the court is bound to whatever you imagine. For example: your claim that marriage is a privilege, like driving.

The court has found marriage is a fundamental right. Like 4 times. You disagree. And then laughably conclude that the court must rule in accordance with YOU, rather than in following legal precedent.

Um, no. There's no such mandate. As you're nobody.

 

[Silhouette]

When there is a case involving brothers and sisters being heard by the court, talk to us.

In the meantime, you're abandoning the topic of same sex marriage because your arguments don't work. And you know it.

There is. Once you have the fed telling the states "marriage equality rules and you no longer have a say", it means that all must be included. You are aware that your side's main argument in front of the Justices was "marriage is an inalieable right" (instead of a state-granted privelege with conditions, like driving).
A right is a right is a right. And that's why the Justices were asking your side how they might legally prevent two men and two women from marrying each other if they do what you're asking them to do to marriage.

I've checked the USSC's docket. There isn't.

Your argument on same sex marriage has collapsed so utterly.....you've abandoned the topic and now refuse to discuss.

Good. There wasn't much to your claims to begin with.

You can check the docket all you like. But where you should really be looking are the Court transcripts. Because there you will find either Kennedy or Breyer or both asking your side how you could define how they could sucessfully stop in the future 2 men and 2 women all marrying each other once the "equality" precedent had been set. They were asking you that if youre position is that the physical structure of man/woman is irrelevent in marriage, how the number 'two only' is complete sacred and untouchable if 2 men and 2 women all love each other and want to commit in marriage.

They weren't asking those questions merely to pass time or for idle chat. They meant for you to explain how they should only fundamentally change marriage by a federal mandate just to placate your very limited (and discriminatory) parameters.

 

[Skylar]

When there is a case involving brothers and sisters being heard by the court, talk to us.

In the meantime, you're abandoning the topic of same sex marriage because your arguments don't work. And you know it.

There is. Once you have the fed telling the states "marriage equality rules and you no longer have a say", it means that all must be included. You are aware that your side's main argument in front of the Justices was "marriage is an inalieable right" (instead of a state-granted privelege with conditions, like driving).
A right is a right is a right. And that's why the Justices were asking your side how they might legally prevent two men and two women from marrying each other if they do what you're asking them to do to marriage.

I've checked the USSC's docket. There isn't.

Your argument on same sex marriage has collapsed so utterly.....you've abandoned the topic and now refuse to discuss.

Good. There wasn't much to your claims to begin with.

You can check the docket all you like. But where you should really be looking are the Court transcripts. Because there you will find either Kennedy or Breyer or both asking your side how you could define how they could sucessfully stop in the future 2 men and 2 women all marrying each other once the "equality" precedent had been set.

Here are the questions being addressed by the courts in June:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

And you won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. Oh, you'll babble about polygamy. You'll rant about incest. But you won't discuss same sex marriage.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to run. Remember that. Especially in June.

 

[Silhouette]

Here are the questions being addressed by the courts in June:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
And you won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. Oh, you'll babble about polygamy. You'll rant about incest. But you won't discuss same sex marriage.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to run. Remember that. Especially in June.

1. The question is not limited to just two people. Equality under the law may be getting a convenient pass from your ilk, but you can bet from the transcripts that those people in charge of saying "no" to polygamists (The Supremes) and incest couples/groups are giving it careful scrutiny. "Equality" is weighed equally on the scales of the lady with the blindfold on. If the court completely dismantles the physical structure of marriage (father and mother to children), in order to accomodate a completely new description of it, the number "two" is no more magical than father/mother anymore.

2. The example of 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire will be the guiding principle for this. It is a much tougher question for sure.

 

[Skylar]

Here are the questions being addressed by the courts in June:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
And you won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. Oh, you'll babble about polygamy. You'll rant about incest. But you won't discuss same sex marriage.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to run. Remember that. Especially in June.

1. The question is not limited to just two people.

That's what you say. The question on the other hand asks specifically and exclusively about two people.

[
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

You ignore the question. And then predictably insist that because you ignore it, you can reimagine it anyway you'd like.

If only reality worked that way.

2. The example of 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire will be the guiding principle for this. It is a much tougher question for sure.

The second question is a dead ringer. Its plausible that it will get a 9 to 0 affirmation.

 

[JoeB131]

Brothers and sisters will have children together too, whether they're married or not. Is that your argument for incest marriage? Your logic, since your premise is "no discrimination" must apply equally to all children whose parents aren't married...not just your pet favorites. Do you understand that?

No one made an argument for incest marriage, although I should point out that many states already allow first cousins to marry.

Here's the thing. Sibling incest is a crime. Gay sex isn't. And there's good reason why the former should be. You have yet to give a reason for gay sex to be illegal other than you think it's icky.

In fact, you think it's so icky you just can't stop talking about it.

 

[Silhouette]

1. The question is not limited to just two people. Equality under the law may be getting a convenient pass from your ilk, but you can bet from the transcripts that those people in charge of saying "no" to polygamists (The Supremes) and incest couples/groups are giving it careful scrutiny. "Equality" is weighed equally on the scales of the lady with the blindfold on. If the court completely dismantles the physical structure of marriage (father and mother to children), in order to accomodate a completely new description of it, the number "two" is no more magical than father/mother anymore.
2. The example of 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire will be the guiding principle for this. It is a much tougher question for sure

That's what you say. The question on the other hand asks specifically and exclusively about two people.

The second question is a dead ringer. Its plausible that it will get a 9 to 0 affirmation.

Hmmm...but the premise of dismantling father/mother is "equality" so since ass-sex between men as "neo father/psuedo-mother" is about as whacked out there as you can get when it comes to marriage (children the paramount concern thereof). So, the Court has to decide..."well if this whacked out concept is forced on the states, what other whacked out concepts must we allow in the name of equality (around children)?"

And so, this they are asking themselves. And how to do I know that? Because I read the transcripts of the Hearing. They were asking your side (to which your side evaded, hemmed, hawed and never did give a solid answer) how it was that if they forced gay marriage upon the states, how they then could legally exclude any other type of bastardization of marriage once that door had been opened. In other words as to the slippery slope that y'all have been so good at trying to pound out of existence by stalwart & coordinated denial (or Else!), the Supremes "went there". And that's when reporters noted that those in your ranks started squirming in their chairs a bit.

You know. You've always known. That's why Duggar had to go down. You're angry because you know what's coming. The People will get to join the conversation as they always have been allowed to do "since the Founding of the country" (paraphrased, Windsor 2013). And so you will have to convince each state why it is that you should be incentivized by their taxpayers to provide a formative environment to kids that is absent a father or mother.

Also, as to #2...Methinks the stone wall the Supremes are going to come up against is the issue of adoption. Because they have to know that if you force all 50 states to recognize your marriages, the very next step is to force them to allow you equal access to orphan adoption. And from this issue here, that's going to snag up the Court more than anything: Father To Marry Son In Bucks County PA -- With Court s Blessing Page 17 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[SwimExpert]

You are aware that your side's main argument in front of the Justices was "marriage is an inalieable right" (instead of a state-granted privelege with conditions, like driving).

False. Nobody has said marriage is an "inalienable" right. Marriage is a fundamental right, according to the SCOTUS. Infringing on people's right to marry requires a compelling government interest.