Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Syriusly]

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. ..

No- that was not what the Court was referring to- what the Court consistently referred to is the individual right to marriage.

And only ONE- only ONE case dealt with race.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[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. ..

No- that was not what the Court was referring to- what the Court consistently referred to is the individual right to marriage.

And only ONE- only ONE case dealt with race.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

A superb and informative post for anyone who uses evidence. But all Sil is going to do is hallucinate 'based on race' into every quote. The fact that no such reference actually exists will have no impact on Sil's argument.

Though Sil's willful ignorance of the law would be a suitable legacy of his 'closing arguments'. And your post will force him to demonstrate it.

 

[Silhouette]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.

So you see, the cases you cited are working against you, for they never anticipated fundamentally destroying what marriage is: a man and a woman, a father & mother, a grandfather & grandmother. Marriage is about children because children are about the core of society. You just made a case against yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.

So you see, the cases you cited are working against you, for they never anticipated fundamentally destroying what marriage is: a man and a woman, a father & mother, a grandfather & grandmother. Marriage is about children because children are about the core of society. You just made a case against yourself.

The quotes you were offered explicitly contradict you. They affirm, over and over, that marriage is a right.

Your entire argument is still predicated on the idea that marriage is a privilege. And not a right.

Thus, your argument is legally invalid. As its contradicted explicitly by the Supreme Court. About 4 times.

 

[Skylar]

And Sil......you're still willful ignoring the harm your proposal causes children. You know it will hurt kids by the 10s of thousands today. And even more children in the future. You know this harm is immediate and severe. And you know that your proposal benefits no child.

So you ignore this fact. And ignore the harm your proposal will cause.

That's your closing argument.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

No, you really don't. You don't put other people's rights up to a vote.

 

[Silhouette]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.

So you see, the cases you cited are working against you, for they never anticipated fundamentally destroying what marriage is: a man and a woman, a father & mother, a grandfather & grandmother. Marriage is about children because children are about the core of society. You just made a case against yourself.

The quotes you were offered explicitly contradict you. They affirm, over and over, that marriage is a right.

Your entire argument is still predicated on the idea that marriage is a privilege. And not a right.

Thus, your argument is legally invalid... .

No, a right would be outlined in the constitution. Daniel is closer on "priveleges and immunities" line of thinking. Marriage is undoubtedly a privelege; because if it wasn't, literally anyone could be married. 5 year olds, polygamists, brother/sister, mother/son etc. Just like driving. Driving is a privelege. And the blind cannot obtain a driver's license. So you would argue they are "being discriminated against". And I would agree. For good reason.

And the good reason states discriminate in marriage is to insure the best formative environment for kids. The "rules of the road" paramount in marriage are the best environment to raise children in. That's why I cited those two examples of old case law that Syriusly put out there. They clearly state that marriage is about children. A child has a right to a mother and father in marriage. So marriage is, was and always has been "what is best for the kids involved". They are always anticipated by the state, whether or not they actually arrive. In over 90% of the case in marriage, children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, adoptees or foster kids always arrive.

The state cannot guarantee that every married home will have children. But what they can do is create standards in which homes into which they will overwhelmingly arrive, and are incentivized "as married", contain both a mother and a father for their best interest.

Kids deserve a father and a mother in marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

if a Person is inclined to quibble, Article 4, Section 2 and its State equivalents apply.

 

[Skylar]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.

So you see, the cases you cited are working against you, for they never anticipated fundamentally destroying what marriage is: a man and a woman, a father & mother, a grandfather & grandmother. Marriage is about children because children are about the core of society. You just made a case against yourself.

The quotes you were offered explicitly contradict you. They affirm, over and over, that marriage is a right.

Your entire argument is still predicated on the idea that marriage is a privilege. And not a right.

Thus, your argument is legally invalid... .

No, a right would be outlined in the constitution.

More pseudo-legal gibberish.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment to the Contitution of the United States

A right need not be enumerated in the Constitution to be retained by the people. Once again, you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong and only you know what the constitution means. Once again, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Your fundamental ignorance of the constitution and your willful ignorance of the Supreme Court rulings on marriage is a fine 'closing argument'.

Daniel is closer on "priveleges and immunities" line of thinking. Marriage is undoubtedly a privelege; because if it wasn't, literally anyone could be married.

The Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you. What do you think the odds are that the Supreme Court is going to ignore *itself* and instead believe whatever you make up?

I'd say that number that comes right before zero.

 

[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?

if a Person is inclined to quibble, Article 4, Section 2 and its State equivalents apply.

to whom, specifically?

 

[Silhouette]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.

So you see, the cases you cited are working against you, for they never anticipated fundamentally destroying what marriage is: a man and a woman, a father & mother, a grandfather & grandmother. Marriage is about children because children are about the core of society. You just made a case against yourself.

More pseudo-legal gibberish....The Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you. What do you think the odds are that the Supreme Court is going to ignore *itself* and instead believe whatever you make up?

I'd say that number that comes right before zero.

It depends on how they feel about children, all of them over time, not just your pet favorites "children of gays" here and today..and how they interpret past rulings like I did, expressing again that marriage is for and about children.

 

[Silhouette]

And Sil......you're still willful ignoring the harm your proposal causes children. You know it will hurt kids by the 10s of thousands today. And even more children in the future. You know this harm is immediate and severe. And you know that your proposal benefits no child.

So you ignore this fact. And ignore the harm your proposal will cause.

That's your closing argument.

How will gay marriage help 100s of millions of kids over time by institutionally-depriving them of either a father or a mother? You haven't been clear about why we should completely overhaul the meaning and description of marriage to suit your neo-cult ideals? Care to expound how the lack of a mother or father is "beneficial" to 100s of millions of kids over time? Or do you want adult considerations to be dominant to the obvious lack "gay marriage" will offer children?....(speaking of stances that stand to harm children...)

 

[Syriusly]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.f.

Once again- how does two men marrying deprive a single child of a mother?

Answer that simple question.

 

[Syriusly]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.

So you see, the cases you cited are working against you, for they never anticipated fundamentally destroying what marriage is: a man and a woman, a father & mother, a grandfather & grandmother. Marriage is about children because children are about the core of society. You just made a case against yourself.

The quotes you were offered explicitly contradict you. They affirm, over and over, that marriage is a right.

Your entire argument is still predicated on the idea that marriage is a privilege. And not a right.

Thus, your argument is legally invalid... .

No, a right would be outlined in the constitution. Daniel is closer on "priveleges and immunities" line of thinking. Marriage is undoubtedly a privelege;.

Once again- the Supreme Court says very clearly and repeatedly that marriage is a right.

Are you saying you disagree with the Supreme Court- or are you just so delusional that you refuse to recognize that you are disagreeing with the Supreme Court?



Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[Skylar]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.

So you see, the cases you cited are working against you, for they never anticipated fundamentally destroying what marriage is: a man and a woman, a father & mother, a grandfather & grandmother. Marriage is about children because children are about the core of society. You just made a case against yourself.

More pseudo-legal gibberish....The Supreme Court explicitly contradicts you. What do you think the odds are that the Supreme Court is going to ignore *itself* and instead believe whatever you make up?

I'd say that number that comes right before zero.

It depends on how they feel about children, all of them over time, not just your pet favorites "children of gays" here and today..and how they interpret past rulings like I did, expressing again that marriage is for and about children.

That's assuming that the court thinks like you do. And as they've indicated over and over, they don't. The Supreme Court has affirmed marriage is a right. Kennedy has never referred to the tens of thousands of children your proposal will harm as 'pets'. In both instances that would be you, citing yourself. With indifference for children you can't use to hurt gays slowly melting into disdain.

Kennedy's position on these children and gay marriage bans has been this:

"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."

Again, you ignore the constitution. You ignore the Supreme Court. You ignore Justice Kennedy. Your pseudo-legal babble has nothing to do with the law. Nor any relevance to any legal ruling.

Worse, even you can't explain how your proposal benefits children. If you deny marriage to same sex parents, their children don't magically have opposite sex parents. You only guarantee they never have married parents.

Which harms these children. Not just those today, but all the children of same sex parents in the future.

While benefiting no child. No thank you.

 

[Syriusly]

And Sil......you're still willful ignoring the harm your proposal causes children. You know it will hurt kids by the 10s of thousands today. And even more children in the future. You know this harm is immediate and severe. And you know that your proposal benefits no child.

So you ignore this fact. And ignore the harm your proposal will cause.

That's your closing argument.

How will gay marriage help 100s of millions of kids over time by institutionally-depriving them of either a father or a mother? )

Gay marriage will not deny a single child a mother or father- gay couples can be parents right now even in states where they cannot marry.

Denying them marriage only denies their children married parents.

Why do you specifically want to harm 40,000 children in California?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

if a Person is inclined to quibble, Article 4, Section 2 and its State equivalents apply.

to whom, specifically?

before the Judicature, of course.

 

[bodecea]

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Yes, marriage is "the foundation of the family and of society" and it is in order to "bring up children". Any man/woman can marry providing they are of age and consenting. What you want to do is change the fundamental nature of marriage to deprive children of either a mother or a father.

So you see, the cases you cited are working against you, for they never anticipated fundamentally destroying what marriage is: a man and a woman, a father & mother, a grandfather & grandmother. Marriage is about children because children are about the core of society. You just made a case against yourself.

I and many gay couples I know have children. So you support legalized marriage for us, right?

 

[Skylar]

How will gay marriage help 100s of millions of kids over time by institutionally-depriving them of either a father or a mother?

Gay marriage doesn't deprive any child of a mother or a father. By your own reckoning, gay parenting does. And they aren't the same thing. You can get married and never have children. Millions do exactly that. You can have children and never be married. Millions do that too. Nor does denying same sex parents marriage mean they won't have kids.

You're using the false equivalency fallacy. There's simply no part of your theory that works. No benefit produced by your proposal for....well, anyone. Gays and lesbians have had children by the 10s of thousands before their marriages were recognized. And they'll continue to have kids if they are denied marriage in the future.

And your proposals hurt each and every of these children. All the tens of thousands today. While benefiting no child. Not one of the 'hundreds of millions of children' you cited see any benefit from robbing same sex parents of their right to marry.

Not one.

While your proposals hurts untold tens of thousands of children. Deeply, immediately, and severely. And indefinitely into the future.

Yet you're perfectly content to hurt any number of children if it lets you hurt gays. No thank you.

You haven't been clear about why we should completely overhaul the meaning and description of marriage to suit your neo-cult ideals?

So the children of same sex parents are 'pets'. And now anyone who disagrees with you has 'neo cult ideals'. You're not doing a very good job in hiding your loathing and personal animus toward gays.

 

[Skylar]

And Sil......you're still willful ignoring the harm your proposal causes children. You know it will hurt kids by the 10s of thousands today. And even more children in the future. You know this harm is immediate and severe. And you know that your proposal benefits no child.

So you ignore this fact. And ignore the harm your proposal will cause.

That's your closing argument.

How will gay marriage help 100s of millions of kids over time by institutionally-depriving them of either a father or a mother? )

Gay marriage will not deny a single child a mother or father- gay couples can be parents right now even in states where they cannot marry.

Denying them marriage only denies their children married parents.

Why do you specifically want to harm 40,000 children in California?

Because they are 'pets', apparently.

As I've said, Sil could care less for any child he can't use to hurt gays. With his indifference to their harm slowly morphing into open disdain.