Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Syriusly]

"Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"

Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.

And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.

Thats completely wrong, of course.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,

against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.

First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.

Homosexuals have most of the same rights now- but it took court action to achieve that- until the Supreme Court declared that state laws that made homosexual sodomy illegal- what you would call an act of federal fascism- clearly they didn't have the same rights.

Now in most states, homosexuals have the same right to marry the person they want to marry as I do.

The gay lobby is advocating for Constitutional rights- just like every minority group that has gone to the courts for protections from laws that voters passed.

Do you think that the "left' was trying to strip you of their vote, when the Supreme Court ruled against school segregation?

 

[Skylar]

Gay marriage supporters have all the WINNING arguments.

So states that do allow 1st cousins and 15 year olds are "imposing their will" on states that don't?

Argument #2.
They are. How often does that happen?

It doesn't matter how often it happens, FF&C requires that those marriages be recognized. The same will be true for SSM after June.

During segregation days interracial couples married in one state were not necessarily married in another. So there goes your full faith and credit argument.
So you say. DOesnt mean it will happen. In fact the opposite will happen. The Supreme Court will find that homosexuality is not a protected category. Heck they might find a right to hunt down homosexuals.

I guess you missed the part where segregation lost.

Argument 1.
You dont have the chops for this discussion, son, so just move along.

Rabbi, you're not discussing anything. You're simply numbering arguments you can't refute.....

....and then running terrified from them. Keep running.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, they're not. That would be an extra right. Currently no one can marry someone of the same sex.
Youre really ill equipped to argue here.

It's not an "extra" right, you also can enter into a same-sex Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Homosexual couples, if they make the commitment to each other, should have every right to act and enjoy the "benefits" equal to married heterosexual couples. To name a few: hospital visits, inheritance and other marriage benefits including health insurance etc. It is just baffling why do they want to call their commitment to each other "marriage?" Why don't they call it "life partner" or similar expression related to their lifelong commitment to each other? Changing the meaning of the word "marriage" just shows arrogance and an "in your face" attitude.

Because the civil license issued in all 50 states is called a marriage license. If you don't like us getting a marriage license, you should have called it something else. Feel free to change it, but the onus is not on gays to do so.

Look, I do not give a rat's ass what instrument you want to play in the great orchestra of humanity. If you want to play the flute that's your choice. You are assuming that I am in favor of the issuance of marriage licenses by the state. It is just another way to take one's money as fee what in reality is just another form of tax. Now, I assume, homosexuals wanted to call their union "marriage" from the get go. Otherwise, they would have lobbied to call their contract of lifelong commitment something else descriptive of it such as "civil union" or "life partner" or whatever is best fit.

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

No they want to pretend men are women and vice versa and build on those fantasies. They currently have the same protections anyone else does.

Says you. The Windsor court lavishly elaborated on the rights and protections that same sex couples were denied when their marriages were not recognized. And the harm done to both the couple and their children by this denial of rights and protections.

You say it never happened, citing yourself.. The Supreme Court confirms it did, citing example after example.

Logically or legally, why would any rational person ignore the Supreme Court on this issue, and instead believe you citing yourself? And surely you recognize that the court isn't going to ignore its own findings when ruling in June.

 

[rightwinger]

"Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"

Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.

And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.

Thats completely wrong, of course.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,

against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.

First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.

Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of

Self determination to the right.....the right to determine what rights others are permitted to have

 

[Skylar]

"Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige"

Actually he urges ignorance and hate; ignorance of the law and hate toward gay Americans.

And the notion that this is solely a 'states' rights' issue is completely false, it's an issue solely about animus toward same-sex couples, where measures seeking to deny gay Americans their right to due process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment are devoid of merit.

Thats completely wrong, of course.
People voted, overwhelmingly in most cases, to define marriage as one man one woman. What right does the judiciary have to overturn that? None.

Because, as you RWnuts are normally so quick to remind us, a constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities,

against that so-called 'mob rule' you people love to hate.

First off, homosexuals have every right that anyone else in this country has.
Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of.

Second, the most basic right is voting for self determination. That is what the Left and the gay lobby want to strip us of

Self determination to the right.....the right to determine what rights others are permitted to have

But only if it doesn't infringe on any of the rights that conservatives believe people should have. As these same folks have no problem overruling the 'most basic right of voting as an act of self determination'....

......if that vote outlaws gun use. Or corporate donations to campaigns. Or enacts environmental restrictions. Or grants a woman the right to choose.

The 'right to self determination' argument offered by many conservatives is a profoundly hypocritical piece of rhetoric.

 

[Silhouette]

Allowing gays to marry in no way impedes, discourages, prevents or in any other way deters heterosexuals from getting married.

I didn't say it did. What I did say is that it impedes future generations of children from their civil rights...Random exceptions to the rule do not justify ignoring the rule..

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

Children, who cannot vote, want a father and a mother in their life. In the civil rights game, you know who trumps who. It's the ones who cannot vote to change their own destiny. That is who the Court will give weight to.
FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The UK periodical's summation of that study: Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

The states have a vested interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids to keep the welfare, prison and mental ward numbers down..

Simply put, a man cannot ever replace a woman and a woman cannot ever replace a man in childrens' eyes.. That's not how their formative minds process things.

Notice how below Syriusly sweeps away the conclusion from a study of over 2,000 self-reported young adults with "it doesn't matter"...

That study is about children's mental health. Ergo, Syriusly is saying "children's mental health doesn't matter in the gay marraige debate". For the Record.. vv

 

[Syriusly]

Allowing gays to marry in no way impedes, discourages, prevents or in any other way deters heterosexuals from getting married.

I didn't say it did. What I did say is that it impedes future generations of children from their civil rights...

Gays and lesbians want equal access and protections, that's all. You set up this system and we want the same thing ya'll get. Change the name, take away the cash and prizes...whatever. We'll still want the same exact thing you get.

Children, who cannot vote, want a father and a mother in their life..

Thanks- and that has no relevance to marriage.

All that preventing gay parents from marrying ensures is that their children will not have married parents.

Doesn't help any children have a 'mother and father;' in their lives.

 

[Skylar]

Children, who cannot vote, want a father and a mother in their life. In the civil rights game, you know who trumps who. It's the ones who cannot vote to change their own destiny. That is who the Court will give weight to.

The court has already indicated who they give weight to:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor V. US

And have found, undeniably, that the lack of recognition of marriage for the same sex parents of children.....hurts those children.

While you can ignore the Windsor court to your heart's content, you can't make the court ignore itself.

And the Prince Trust Study neither measures the effects of same sex parenting nor even mentions it. You imagined it all. Worse for you, more than a dozen studies on the mental and emotional health of children of same sex parents shows that they are as healthy as children raised by hetero parents.

Its ridiculously unlikely that the Court would ignore more than a dozen studies confirming the health of the children of same sex parents just because you choose to ignore them.

 

[Silhouette]

The court has already indicated who they give weight to.

I wasn't aware that the Court had already heard, weighed and Decided this 2015 case? Can you please provide a link to the decision?

Remember, it's true that attitudes about gay marriage change rapidly. But as I said before, don't be sure that's always a one-way street in your direction..

 

[Silhouette]

Doesn't help any children have a 'mother and father;' in their lives.

Notice how above Syriusly sweeps away the conclusion from a study of over 2,000 self-reported young adults with "it doesn't matter"...
That study is about children's mental health. Ergo, Syriusly is saying "children's mental health doesn't matter in the gay marriage debate". For the Record..

Allowing gays to marry in no way impedes, discourages, prevents or in any other way deters heterosexuals from getting married.

I didn't say it did. What I did say is that it impedes future generations of children from their civil rights...Random exceptions to the rule do not justify ignoring the rule..

Children, who cannot vote, want a father and a mother in their life. In the civil rights game, you know who trumps who. It's the ones who cannot vote to change their own destiny. That is who the Court will give weight to.

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The UK periodical's summation of that study: Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

The states have a vested interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids to keep the welfare, prison and mental ward numbers down..
Simply put, a man cannot ever replace a woman and a woman cannot ever replace a man in childrens' eyes.. That's not how their formative minds process things.

 

[Skylar]

The court has already indicated who they give weight to.

I wasn't aware that the Court had already heard, weighed and Decided this 2015 case? Can you please provide a link to the decision?

The court has already ruled that children are hurt when the marriages of their same sex parents aren't recognized. In 2013.

Remember, just because you ignore the court's findings doesn't mean that such findings magically disappear. As your willful ignorance won't change the outcome of any court case.

 

[mdk]

The court has already indicated who they give weight to.

I wasn't aware that the Court had already heard, weighed and Decided this 2015 case? Can you please provide a link to the decision?

Remember, it's true that attitudes about gay marriage change rapidly. But as I said before, don't be sure that's always a one-way street in your direction..

Can you please provide a link that shows the Prince's Trust mentioning and/or studying same-sex parents? I won't hold my breath since we both know it does not exist.

 

[Skylar]

Notice how above Syriusly sweeps away the conclusion from a study of over 2,000 self-reported young adults with "it doesn't matter"...
That study is about children's mental health. Ergo, Syriusly is saying "children's mental health doesn't matter in the gay marriage debate". For the Record..

As you know, the Prince Trust study doesn't measure the effects of same sex parenting on children, or even mention it. You've imagined it. And your imagination is not going to change the outcome of any court ruling.

And Sy pointed out yet another in a litanny of flaws in your reasoning: if you rule against gay marriage, the children of same sex parents will still have same sex parents. As gays and lesbians are still having kids.

Thus, the question before the court is whether its better for the children of same sex parents to have married parents, or unmarried parents. And the court has already ruled at all the harm caused to children when the parents of these children are not allowed to marry:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Windsor V. US (2013)

You bizarrely ignore this, as if by ignoring it the SCOTUS must as well.

Um, no. They don't. Your willful ignorance of the Windsor ruling does not mandate that the USSC ignore itself. It merely demonstrates your blindness.

 

[Silhouette]

Can you please provide a link that shows the Prince's Trust mentioning and/or studying same-sex parents? I won't hold my breath since we both know it does not exist.

It's at the top of the page idiot, post 271. The quotes directly below the Prince's Trust link are actual excerpts declaring the study's focus. READ THEM.

The court has already ruled that children are hurt when the marriages of their same sex parents aren't recognized. In 2013.

Remember, just because you ignore the court's findings doesn't mean that such findings magically disappear. As your willful ignorance won't change the outcome of any court case.

Then why did they reiterate 56 times in Windsor 2013 that gay marriage is up to the states? Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum And why at the same time did they conclude with "gay marraige is only legal in some states"? Seems to fly in the face of your assumption that this thing is already in the bag.

The Court, after reading the Prince's Trust study above may change its mind about what it previously found. Lots of times judges are snowed with what they perceive is "accurate public sentiments" only to find they were duped. In this case they were duped by the Amercian Psychological Association's amicus brief(s) by itself and through proxies. The Court may not have been aware at the time that they were dealing actually with a cult instead of a scientific organization.

Let me remind you again how the APA now "finds conclusions that it then dispenses for public consumption" "as fact"...

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team... Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena " http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4313031.aspx

 

[Skylar]

Can you please provide a link that shows the Prince's Trust mentioning and/or studying same-sex parents? I won't hold my breath since we both know it does not exist.

It's at the top of the page idiot, post 271. The quotes directly below the Prince's Trust link are actual excerpts declaring the study's focus. READ THEM.

There's zero mention of same sex parenting in any portion of the Prince Trust Study you've quoted.

If you believe otherwise, show us. Don't tell us.

Just don't hold your breath while you look. As its gonna be a *long* search.

 

[Syriusly]

Doesn't help any children have a 'mother and father;' in their lives.

Notice how above Syriusly sweeps away the conclusion from a study of over 2,000 self-reported young adults with "it doesn't matter"...
That study is about children's mental health..

And once again- banning gay marriage doesn't help any children 'have a mother and father' in their lives- nor have you come up with any rational that it would

Single mom- banning gay marriage doesn't put a father into her child's life.
gay parents- banning gay marriage doesn't put a father or mother into their child's life.
kids abandoned by their parents, living in foster care- banning gay marriage doesn't a mother or a father in their lives.

Banning gay marriage does nothing to help any children.

It does however harm the children of gay parents, by denying them married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you please provide a link that shows the Prince's Trust mentioning and/or studying same-sex parents? I won't hold my breath since we both know it does not exist.

It's at the top of the page idiot, post 271. The quotes directly below the Prince's Trust link are actual excerpts declaring the study's focus. READ THEM.]

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Here is the link again.

Here is from the introduction- please feel free to show the part about same gender parenting

This report highlights how being NEET – not in education employment or training - can impact on a young person’s happiness and mental health. Alarmingly, almost half of unemployed young people claim that joblessness has caused mental health problems such as self harm, panic attacks and insomnia.

For a significant number, being out of work has caused feelings of selfloathing and inferiority, while others admit to drinking excessively or taking drugs. For many young people, unemployment goes hand in hand with emotional stress, presenting a very real and frightening mental health hazard for those who are out of work. And the longer they are jobless, the greater the risk.

The findings are equally bleak for young people with few or no qualifications, suggesting that they are destined to be significantly less happy than their peers after leaving school. The Prince’s Trust Macquarie Youth Index shows that The Trust’s work with disadvantaged young people is more important than ever – helping the unemployed into jobs, supporting those who are struggling at school and providing positive role models to help the young and vulnerable get their lives back on track.

More than three-quarters of the 40,000 young people supported by The Prince’s Trust last year moved into work, education or training. This success rate speaks volumes about the importance of second chances and believing in young people. Macquarie is proud to be supporting the youth charity’s continued drive to improve the life chances of vulnerable young people. Without the kind of support offered by The Prince’s Trust, many will live out their lives never knowing what it feels like to achieve their true potential. Only with ongoing support can The Prince’s Trust continue to help tens of thousands of young people transform their lives every year.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you please provide a link that shows the Prince's Trust mentioning and/or studying same-sex parents? I won't hold my breath since we both know it does not exist.

The Court, after reading the Prince's Trust study]

You are delusional.

No one will ask the Court to look at the Prince's Trust Study- no one.
Because no one other than yourself is deluded enough to think it is relevant- and no one would want to look that stupid to the Supreme Court.
And if no one asks the court to look at something- they don't look at it.
The Supreme Court does not go out and do independent research.

 

[mdk]

Can you please provide a link that shows the Prince's Trust mentioning and/or studying same-sex parents? I won't hold my breath since we both know it does not exist.

It's at the top of the page idiot, post 271. The quotes directly below the Prince's Trust link are actual excerpts declaring the study's focus. READ THEM.

The court has already ruled that children are hurt when the marriages of their same sex parents aren't recognized. In 2013.

Remember, just because you ignore the court's findings doesn't mean that such findings magically disappear. As your willful ignorance won't change the outcome of any court case.

Then why did they reiterate 56 times in Windsor 2013 that gay marriage is up to the states? And why at the same time did they conclude with "gay marraige is only legal in some states"? Seems to fly in the face of your assumption that this thing is already in the bag.

The Court, after reading the Prince's Trust study above may change its mind about what it previously found. Lots of times judges are snowed with what they perceive is "accurate public sentiments" only to find they were duped. In this case they were duped by the Amercian Psychological Association's amicus brief(s) by itself and through proxies. The Court may not have been aware at the time that they were dealing actually with a cult instead of a scientific organization.

Let me remind you again how the APA now "finds conclusions that it then dispenses for public consumption" "as fact"...

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team... Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena " http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4313031.aspx

I have read every one of your inane posts linking to The Prince's Trust and they did not mention or even study same-sex parents. Please quote the exact part of the study that mentions same-sex parents directly. It doesn't. You know it and I know it but you are hoping other people do not. I am surprised the court would even need to look at this study at all. I am sure they are more than swayed by a USMB poll, lines at a fast food joint, and, "likes" on Facebook. What else more compelling evidence do they need? lol.