Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

I am thinking that Justice Kennedy is concerned about the immediate legal injury to children whose parents are being denied marriage.

You mean the children of polygamists or incest? Or does Justice Kennedy "hate" those children to deny them the benefits of their parents having marriage?

The questions before the court have nothing to do with incest or polygamy. But same sex marriage. It seems your 'closing argument' was to abandon your topic.
Good. It demonstrates how little your claims have to do with same sex marriage.

The pro-gay marriage attorneys were grilled extensively by multiple Justices on what rational basis would allow the Court to deny 2 men and 2 women (four people) or a brother and sister to marry, once gay marriage fundamentally retooled the word "marriage" from its thousands-years old definition. The attorney for your side had no answer to that. She evaded and evaded; changed the subject. And when finally cornered she spewed out that she felt gay marriage was fundamentally different without a kindergartner's reasoning as to why. Just a blanket statement and 'don't push me any further on this' stance. Quite a bit like you all do actually.

The Court always anticipates same or similar marriages wanting in once the defintion has been torpedoed. Then at that point the Court has to ask itself: "who are we going to allow to marry in the end, everyone and anyone? For there is no rational basis for denying anyone once it is taken from its present status as a state-granted privelege and turned into a legally-mandated "right"... "And who are we ultimately most concerned about when defining marriage? Isn't it children? And are we concerned just today with a relatively small number of children caught up in gay lifestyles, or are we, as the perinneal guardians of our nation's legal future and social values, ultimately, responsible for quite a few more children than just these today in our final decision here?" ...and..."Shouldn't a question of this fundamental nature poised to so disrupt the core of our social fabric (marriage) be left up to the governed to hash out over time, and not just the nine of us here and today as a final axe fall on the conversation of such impact and importance to all?"

I'll ask you both Skylar and Syriusly what the court essentially asked your attorneys: "What rational basis would you deny marriage to polygamists or incest if the thousands years old definition of marriage was laid in its grave and buried? Where marriage went from a state-granted privelege as it is today to a federally-mandated "right"? (You do understand the nature of a fundamental right and how it cannot be denied to anyone, yes?)...?

BTW, in exploring all these flaws in the pro-gay-marriage arguments, I'm staying with my original points about children. If you cannot see how a free-for-all in marriage affects children, then your mental wheels aren't spinning fast enough for this debate. Then perhaps you should be debating another thread like the deflated footballs or something..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For the 80th time, marriage is not about children, and never has been. This will all be over in six weeks, let it go.

 

[danielpalos]

Can you expound on that daniel?

do you want to help me work on my endurance and stamina?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 or its State equivalents; advisory counsel for this Cause, rest their Case; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[Silhouette]

Can you expound on that daniel?

do you want to help me work on my endurance and stamina?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 or its State equivalents; advisory counsel for this Cause, rest their Case; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Do you consider children citizens? We can then go forward with whether or not their rights to a father and mother in marriage are dominant to those of adults wanting marriage to just be about emotions and monetary benefits...

Taken literally also, your argument means that if a woman has the privelege of using a public female showering arrangement, then all men must be allowed in with her. Also, taken literally, aren't blind people being discriminated against on the privelege of driving?

Clearly some priveleges come with qualifiers. For the sake of the most important people in this debate (children), marriage is one of those types of priveleges.

 

[Skylar]

And who are we ultimately most concerned about when defining marriage? Isn't it children?

But your proposal actively hurts children. While benefiting none of them. I've asked you repeatedly how denying marriage to same sex parents helps their children. And you have no answer. As there is none. Your proposal benefits no child.

And it hurts tens of thousands. Per Justice Kennedy's estimation, 40,000 in California alone. And when pressed on the harm your proposal causes, you tell us that you're not concerned with these children.

Simply obliterating your claim that 1) You care about children 2) Your proposals are about them.

Neither is true. Your motivation is your personal animus toward gays, as demonstrated by your LGBT 'cult' babble. And children are nothing but a horse for you ride, their only value to you how you can use them. The moment they are of no you to you, you dismiss and ignore them. Exactly as you did the 10s of thousands of children your proposal will harm.

A proposal benefiting no child.

No thank you.

And are we concerned just today with a relatively small number of children caught up in gay lifestyles, or are we, as the perinneal guardians of our nation's legal future and social values, ultimately, responsible for quite a few more children than just these today in our final decision here?

You've already admitted that your proposal doesn't benefit the children of same sex parents, and that it will harm them. Worse, that you're not concerned with those children. So your premise of 'helping children' is already severely undermined by your callous disregard and acknowledged harm to children.

Harming children is not helping them. You can't get around that.

Explain to us how denying marriage to same sex couples will help children in the future. As the 40,000 children of same sex couples in California alone demonstrated, marriage isn't necessary for children to be born to same sex couples. Marriage and parenting aren't the same thing.

Worse, explain why we should ignore all the future children of same sex couples that denying same sex marriage will harm exactly as it has harmed the 40,000 children in California, and the tens of thousands more across the nation right now.

Your argument is hamstrung by the fact that it benefits no child. And harms tens of thousands today. With far, far more harm to children in the future.

Again, no thank you.

I'll ask you both Skylar and Syriusly what the court essentially asked your attorneys: "What rational basis would you deny marriage to polygamists or incest if the thousands years old definition of marriage was laid in its grave and buried? Where marriage went from a state-granted privelege as it is today to a federally-mandated "right"? (You do understand the nature of a fundamental right and how it cannot be denied to anyone, yes?)...?

As soon as you explain the relevance of those questions....to these two:

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?

These are the question the court is actually addressing. Once you've established how polygamy and incest are relevant to both of these questions, I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you. Until you do, they're unrelated.

 

[Skylar]

And remember, Silo......every time you avoid my question on how denying marriage to same sex parents help their children, you demonstrate that you have no answer. Nor the slightest consideration to the harm you're undeniably causing them.

Ultimately that is your closing argument.

 

[Skylar]

Can you expound on that daniel?

do you want to help me work on my endurance and stamina?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 or its State equivalents; advisory counsel for this Cause, rest their Case; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Do you consider children citizens? We can then go forward with whether or not their rights to a father and mother in marriage are dominant to those of adults wanting marriage to just be about emotions and monetary benefits...

Denying same sex parents the right to marry doesn't magically mean their children have opposite sex parents. All it does is guarantee those children will never have married parents.

Your cause (denying same sex marriage ) doesn't produce your desired effect (no same sex parenting). As marriage and parenting aren't the same thing. Nor do you need marriage to be parents. As the 40,000 children of same sex parents in California alone demonstrates.

Utterly destroying your argument. As even hypothetically, denying same sex marriage provides no benefit to any child. While harming tens of thousands. Worse, you know this. Which is why you starkly refuse to discuss either fact. You can't answer how your proposal helps any child. And you dismiss the 10s of thousands of children your proposals harm today....and far, far more children of same sex parents that your proposal harms in the future.

Demonstrating elegantly that even you know your proposals only harm children. And benefit none of them.

As I said, children are nothing but a horse for you to ride. The moment you can't use them to hurt gay people, these same children are beneath your consideration.

No thank you.

 

[JoeB131]

the Court will strike down gay marriage bans in the last 12 states because that is the path of least resistance.

 

[danielpalos]

Can you expound on that daniel?

do you want to help me work on my endurance and stamina?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 or its State equivalents; advisory counsel for this Cause, rest their Case; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Do you consider children citizens? We can then go forward with whether or not their rights to a father and mother in marriage are dominant to those of adults wanting marriage to just be about emotions and monetary benefits...

Taken literally also, your argument means that if a woman has the privelege of using a public female showering arrangement, then all men must be allowed in with her. Also, taken literally, aren't blind people being discriminated against on the privelege of driving?

Clearly some priveleges come with qualifiers. For the sake of the most important people in this debate (children), marriage is one of those types of priveleges.

Citizens in their minority and that form of incompetence are in the custody of their parents--we already have age of consent laws.

Starship Trooper chics wouldn't have a problem with it. Should Mz.Justice ensure social justice if it comes down to equality. Imagine, however, if women used any (legal) landscape to their advantage, and gang up on a lone guy in the shower, and ask him if he wants to get fornicated into a relationship.

 

[Silhouette]

But daniel, what about disparaging the privelege of a woman's locker room to men or driving to the blind? Surely there are instances where certain priveleges come with qualifiers or you don't get them?

 

[Silhouette]

the Court will strike down gay marriage bans in the last 12 states because that is the path of least resistance.

The path of least resistence would be for them to remove their robes and retire. They hold the job because it is difficult. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

The number 12 is significant only in that number is the number of states with legal gay marriage after June. To get the rest, you will have to invite the governed into the conversation and ask for their vote.

And BTW, the phrase "gay marriage bans" is as true as saying "blind driver bans" at the motor vehicle department near you. There are qualifications that gays simply don't meet to become sanctioned daily role models for kids. They lack either a mother or father figure. Society doesn't want to give tax breaks to arrangements that deprive children of their best shot at life.

Likewise, society doesn't want to give driver's licenses to the blind.

 

[Skylar]

But daniel, what about disparaging the privelege of a woman's locker room to men or driving to the blind? Surely there are instances where certain priveleges come with qualifiers or you don't get them?

Marriage isn't a privilege. Its a right. So says the Supreme Court....about 4 times.

Your argument is based on a series of pseudo-legal fallacies. The idea that marriage is a privilege and not a right is one of them.

A useful thing to remember when assessing your 'closing arguments'. Which have been closing for about a week now.

 

[Skylar]

the Court will strike down gay marriage bans in the last 12 states because that is the path of least resistance.

The path of least resistence would be for them to remove their robes and retire.

Not as far as resolving this issue is concerned. The court has carefully protected every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Preserving every such ruling without exception. Likewise, the courts have denied stays for every State seeking to enforce gay marriage bans.

The court through its actions have required tens of thousands of same sex marriages to be performed across the country, with gay marriage now legal in 37 of 50 States. Tens of thousands of same sex couples have already collected benefits as married couples. Tens of thousands have already filed taxes as a married couple.

Undoing these marriages by authorizing same sex marriage bans in many of these States would cause vast legal chaos. By far the least disruptive course would be for the Supreme Court to continue on the path they have followed. And affirm the validity of all of the marriages that their rulings and denials of stays have permitted.

if the courts wished to affirm the States' authority to regulate marriage AND prevent legal chaos, they might choose to affirm same sex marriage bans while affirming the validity of marriages already conducted. As a right extended cannot be withdrawn.

The number 12 is significant only in that number is the number of states with legal gay marriage after June. To get the rest, you will have to invite the governed into the conversation and ask for their vote.

Depends on the State. Take California. Through Prop 8 they voted in same sex marriage bans. A federal court ruling overturned that ban and authorized same sex marriage in the State. The State of California refused to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. And the court has found that ONLY the State of California can forward legal actions on the matter.

California is not a party to the Obergefell case. Thus, if the Obergefell case were to authorize same sex marriage bans, it would only directly affect those states that are a party to it. The Obergefell case would create binding precedent for all future cases. If California were to appeal the federal ruling that overturned Prop 8, they'd likely win based on a pro-gay marriage ban Obergefell.

But California refuses to appeal the federal ruling. So Prop 8 would remain overturned regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage.

And BTW, the phrase "gay marriage bans" is as true as saying "blind driver bans" at the motor vehicle department near you. There are qualifications that gays simply don't meet to become sanctioned daily role models for kids. They lack either a mother or father figure. Society doesn't want to give tax breaks to arrangements that deprive children of their best shot at life.

Says you. Yet no one is required to have children in order to get married. Or be able to have them. Children aren't a requirement to get married. Eliminating children as a basis of exclusion even hypothetically.

Worse, denying marriage to same sex parents hurts their children. While benefiting no child. Removing 'the benefit of children' as a reason to deny same sex marriage even hypothetically. As denying same sex marriage only hurts children. And benefits none.

There's simply no angle where your argument works. Or has ever worked

 

[Syriusly]

I am thinking that Justice Kennedy is concerned about the immediate legal injury to children whose parents are being denied marriage.

You mean the children of polygamists or incest? Or does Justice Kennedy "hate" those children to deny them the benefits of their parents having marriage?

Sad you don't care about the children like Justice Kennedy does.

"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?"

That is 40,000 children in California that you actually argue for injuring.

Go you.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you expound on that daniel?

do you want to help me work on my endurance and stamina?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2 or its State equivalents; advisory counsel for this Cause, rest their Case; The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Do you consider children citizens? .

Yes- and we care about the children that would be affected- you want to harm them.

"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?"

 

[Syriusly]

the Court will strike down gay marriage bans in the last 12 states because that is the path of least resistance.

Likewise, society doesn't want to give driver's licenses to the blind.

Because of course- Silhouette believes both that American's have a right to a driver's license- like marriage- and that American's have to pass an eyesight test in order to get married.......

Though.......if we did make people go through similar testing in order to get married, and take a driving course, and then do a 'road test' before getting a marriage license.........

Maybe that is what Silhouette is working towards....

 

[Skylar]

I am thinking that Justice Kennedy is concerned about the immediate legal injury to children whose parents are being denied marriage.

You mean the children of polygamists or incest? Or does Justice Kennedy "hate" those children to deny them the benefits of their parents having marriage?

Sad you don't care about the children like Justice Kennedy does.

"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?"

That is 40,000 children in California that you actually argue for injuring.

Go you.

Sil has made it clear that he's not concerned about these children. Nor any of the future children of same sex parents. Nor can Sil tell us anyway that denying marriage to same sex parents help their children.

Or any child.

He knows he's hurting children while benefiting none of them. Which is why he avoids the topic so fastidiously. Which is the true legacy of his week long 'closing argument'.

 

[Silhouette]

But daniel, what about disparaging the privelege of a woman's locker room to men or driving to the blind? Surely there are instances where certain priveleges come with qualifiers or you don't get them?

Marriage isn't a privilege. Its a right. So says the Supreme Court....about 4 times.

Your argument is based on a series of pseudo-legal fallacies. The idea that marriage is a privilege and not a right is one of them.

A useful thing to remember when assessing your 'closing arguments'. Which have been closing for about a week now.

The Court previously was referring to which races of men and women could marry....not that marriage didn't mean fundamentally man/woman. This is a completely different question of law based on behaviors, not an immutable race of people.

This is the case where the US Supreme Court will determine whether or not homosexuals have a fundamental right to completely re-define the parenting arrangement known as "marriage". No other case before it will matter once this decision is rendered.

And considering the line of questioning coming from both Breyer and Kennedy, I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a complete victory for the new experimental arrangement of fatherless sons and motherless daughters..

 

[Skylar]

But daniel, what about disparaging the privelege of a woman's locker room to men or driving to the blind? Surely there are instances where certain priveleges come with qualifiers or you don't get them?

Marriage isn't a privilege. Its a right. So says the Supreme Court....about 4 times.

Your argument is based on a series of pseudo-legal fallacies. The idea that marriage is a privilege and not a right is one of them.

A useful thing to remember when assessing your 'closing arguments'. Which have been closing for about a week now.

The Court previously was referring to which races of men and women could marry....not that marriage didn't mean fundamentally man/woman. This is a completely different question of law based on behaviors, not an immutable race of people.

The Supreme Court has stated, unambiguously, that marriage is a right.

You say its a privilege.

In matter of law the Supreme Court is relevant. You're not.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Sil.......I'm still waiting for you to tell us how denying marriage to same sex parents helps their children. Or how denying same sex marriage helps future children of same sex parents. Or helps any child.

The Supreme Court has already laid out all the harms that denying same sex marriage causes children. And you have no benefits.

Your proposal only hurts kids. And hurting children is not helping children, Sil.