Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Skylar]

Oh, and Silo.....your glorious rout for a second time was noticed yet again. Remember the below passages when you start ranting about how the Courts 'overturned Windsor'. Because I'll be sure to remind you.

"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.

Windsor v. US

With the author of the Windsor ruling finding this regarding the children of same sex parents:

"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?"

Justice Kennedy

1) You ignore the court's finding of harm to children from same sex marriage bans.

2) You ignore the court's finding that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

3) You ignore the fact that every challenge to same sex marriage bans being heard by the court are on the basis of the violation of these constitutional guarantees.

4) You ignore Scalia's conclusion that the Windsor court's position against gay marriage bans is 'beyond mistaking' and the SCOTUS overturning such same sex marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

Laughing......the court won't.

 

[mdk]

And you ignore the Prince's Trust study that tells us that 50% of the kids caught up in gay marriage will be set to harm by the lack of their gender as a role model:

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

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 Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust 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.

Do you think having to lie outright in any way helps your position? Hint: It doesn't. Can you point to the portions of The Prince's Trust study that specifically state they are studying gay parents? Don't tell me it does. Show me exactly where is does. We both know you can't..so it is put up or shut up time Sil.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

And how does that relate to to gay marriage?

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

What argument? You've never once said anything about gay marriage.

Dude, is Article 4, Section 2 really that complicated for you as it relates to this thread?

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Which has what to do with gay marriage?

Gender.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

And how does that relate to to gay marriage?

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

What argument? You've never once said anything about gay marriage.

Dude, is Article 4, Section 2 really that complicated for you as it relates to this thread?

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Connect the dots.

Include the word 'gay marriage' in your post.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. ... Means that gender based laws are invalid, upon appeal to that body of laws.

So gay marriage bans are invalid?

Yes; simply because they are not genders for legal purposes upon appeal to that body of laws and expressly, Article 4, Section 2, but Persons and citizens in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

Parents have greater rights over their children because they are responsible for them.

So how is it that courts determine when homes aren't safe for children? Do they consult with the parents and go by their recommendation? Or do they defer to child protection laws and statutes on behalf of a class of people who cannot vote or otherwise are powerless to affect their fate from their "owners", their parents?

What exactly do states get in return for incentivizing mother/father marriages? Should we consult the Prince's Trust study again for what a state gets out of providing role models of both genders for the kids as their minds form?...or rather what they lose if they don't incentivize mother/father?

Only the right seems to be cognitively dissonant about Individual Liberty for heads of families.

 

[Silhouette]

Only the right seems to be cognitively dissonant about Individual Liberty for heads of families.

Heads of families are guardians for children. States are the superior guardians of children to them. That is how family law is written. So a state first must consider the wants and needs and best environment for kids...THEN what the wants and needs etc. of the guardians of them are. Always in that order. Child welfare is superior in law to adults. Always. Evidence of this can be seen in the child abuse reporting laws that say even if you suspect but aren't sure or don't have proof that a child is being abused, you are required to report that suspicion "as a crime already happened"...or you can be prosecuted in most states for a misdemeanor. The adults accused in that situation don't have legal recourse against the reporter because the law always defaults to extremes to protect children.

Sorry. Checkmate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Only the right seems to be cognitively dissonant about Individual Liberty for heads of families.

Heads of families are guardians for children. States are the superior guardians of children to them. That is how family law is written. So a state first must consider the wants and needs and best environment for kids...THEN what the wants and needs etc. of the guardians of them are. Always in that order. Child welfare is superior in law to adults. Always. Evidence of this can be seen in the child abuse reporting laws that say even if you suspect but aren't sure or don't have proof that a child is being abused, you are required to report that suspicion "as a crime already happened"...or you can be prosecuted in most states for a misdemeanor. The adults accused in that situation don't have legal recourse against the reporter because the law always defaults to extremes to protect children.

Sorry. Checkmate.

And yet homosexuals can already adopt children (let along have their own) in, IIRC, 45 states already. More states than they get Civilly Married in (36 as of today).

So how is your claim a "checkmate"?

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Sil,

There is a stay request at the Supreme Court from Alabama. As of Monday SSCM will become a reality in Alabama unless the SCOTUS grants a stay pending a final ruling from them on the issue.

So what is your call? Will the SCOTUS issue the stay to Alabama or will they reject the stay meaning SSCM starts on Monday?


(Cross posting just to make sure you see it.)


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

And how does that relate to to gay marriage?

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

What argument? You've never once said anything about gay marriage.

Dude, is Article 4, Section 2 really that complicated for you as it relates to this thread?

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Which has what to do with gay marriage?

Gender.

And how does that relate to gay marriage? For example, if a state creates a law that bans gay marriage.....what happens under article 4, section 2?

Specifically.

 

[Skylar]

And how does that relate to to gay marriage?

What argument? You've never once said anything about gay marriage.

Dude, is Article 4, Section 2 really that complicated for you as it relates to this thread?

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Connect the dots.

Include the word 'gay marriage' in your post.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. ... Means that gender based laws are invalid, upon appeal to that body of laws.

So gay marriage bans are invalid?

Yes; simply because they are not genders for legal purposes upon appeal to that body of laws and expressly, Article 4, Section 2, but Persons and citizens in the several States.

Says who? Who says there are no genders for legal purposes upon the appeal to the body of laws?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, There is a stay request at the Supreme Court from Alabama. As of Monday SSCM will become a reality in Alabama unless the SCOTUS grants a stay pending a final ruling from them on the issue.

So what is your call? Will the SCOTUS issue the stay to Alabama or will they reject the stay meaning SSCM starts on Monday?

I have no idea and wouldn't presume to know. I do have a feeling that previous stays at key times near elections or just after them before the new Congress was sworn in were done for very nuanced political reasons.

We'll see if this one affirms that children in Alabama don't have rights to the best formative environment for themselves (mother & father). My position is "watch and wait".. and remember that they said 56 times for SOME reason in Windsor 2013 that the question of gay marriage was up to each separate state.. 2013 is not that long ago..

Perhaps to mention that once or twice in Windsor might leave it more open to debate. Now it's my turn to ask you for your legal opinion:

Why would the Court bring that one point up 56 times in 26 pages? Your thoughts?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sil, There is a stay request at the Supreme Court from Alabama. As of Monday SSCM will become a reality in Alabama unless the SCOTUS grants a stay pending a final ruling from them on the issue.

So what is your call? Will the SCOTUS issue the stay to Alabama or will they reject the stay meaning SSCM starts on Monday?

I have no idea and wouldn't presume to know. I do have a feeling that previous stays at key times near elections or just after them before the new Congress was sworn in were done for very nuanced political reasons.

We'll see if this one affirms that children in Alabama don't have rights to the best formative environment for themselves (mother & father). My position is "watch and wait".. and remember that they said 56 times for SOME reason in Windsor 2013 that the question of gay marriage was up to each separate state.. 2013 is not that long ago..

Perhaps to mention that once or twice in Windsor might leave it more open to debate. Now it's my turn to ask you for your legal opinion:

Why would the Court bring that one point up 56 times in 26 pages? Your thoughts?

Your position is idiotic, unfounded, and predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans – hence un-Constitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

Your position is idiotic, unfounded, and predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans – hence un-Constitutional.

No, it's founded upon affinity towards children; which is not automatically an animus against the practice of gay sexual relationships. There is no such thing as a "gay American" anymore than there is a "bulimic American". One is a sexual compulsion, the other an eating compulsion. Behaviors don't define people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sil, There is a stay request at the Supreme Court from Alabama. As of Monday SSCM will become a reality in Alabama unless the SCOTUS grants a stay pending a final ruling from them on the issue.

So what is your call? Will the SCOTUS issue the stay to Alabama or will they reject the stay meaning SSCM starts on Monday?

I have no idea and wouldn't presume to know. I do have a feeling that previous stays at key times near elections or just after them before the new Congress was sworn in were done for very nuanced political reasons.

We'll see if this one affirms that children in Alabama don't have rights to the best formative environment for themselves (mother & father). My position is "watch and wait".. and remember that they said 56 times for SOME reason in Windsor 2013 that the question of gay marriage was up to each separate state.. 2013 is not that long ago..

Perhaps to mention that once or twice in Windsor might leave it more open to debate. Now it's my turn to ask you for your legal opinion:

Why would the Court bring that one point up 56 times in 26 pages? Your thoughts?

My thoughts?

1. Windsor doesn't say what you claim it says. Even the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court emphatically states - (in writing, would you like to see the quote again?) - the exact opposite of what you claim.

2. You continue to ignore that Windsor itself says that State laws are subject to Constitutional guarantees, that question was not before the Court in Windsor.

3. Your - ban civil marriage for gays because of "Children's Rights" is complete bullshit and would be laughed out of court because: (a) no state requires that children even be possible as part of the Civil Marriage contract, (b) some states actually require an inability to have children before a couple can enter into a Civil Marriage contract, and (c) many states which did (or still do) ban SSCM's allow homosexuals to adopt. For example, Alabama allows the adoption of a child by homosexuals - proving a disconnect between what you claim and the actual law.

4. Not surprised you were unwilling to make a prediction, given your track record in terms of being wrong interpreting and applying the law - I don't blame you.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Sil, There is a stay request at the Supreme Court from Alabama. As of Monday SSCM will become a reality in Alabama unless the SCOTUS grants a stay pending a final ruling from them on the issue.

So what is your call? Will the SCOTUS issue the stay to Alabama or will they reject the stay meaning SSCM starts on Monday?

I have no idea and wouldn't presume to know. I do have a feeling that previous stays at key times near elections or just after them before the new Congress was sworn in were done for very nuanced political reasons.

We'll see if this one affirms that children in Alabama don't have rights to the best formative environment for themselves (mother & father). My position is "watch and wait".. and remember that they said 56 times for SOME reason in Windsor 2013 that the question of gay marriage was up to each separate state.. 2013 is not that long ago..

Perhaps to mention that once or twice in Windsor might leave it more open to debate. Now it's my turn to ask you for your legal opinion:

Why would the Court bring that one point up 56 times in 26 pages? Your thoughts?

Your position is idiotic, unfounded, and predicated solely on animus toward gay Americans – hence un-Constitutional.

You're saying it wrong. Per Silo...its the 'LGBT cult'. 'Gay Americans' doesn't really carry the same animus as the way Silo says it.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, There is a stay request at the Supreme Court from Alabama. As of Monday SSCM will become a reality in Alabama unless the SCOTUS grants a stay pending a final ruling from them on the issue.

So what is your call? Will the SCOTUS issue the stay to Alabama or will they reject the stay meaning SSCM starts on Monday?

I have no idea and wouldn't presume to know. I do have a feeling that previous stays at key times near elections or just after them before the new Congress was sworn in were done for very nuanced political reasons.

That's an interesting new theory. Nuanced political reasons of whose? Remember, the USSC can't deny a stay that no one has asked them for. So the timing of denial isn't exclusively up to them.

And how do you account for the fact that every single lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans was preserved by the Court. Without exception. But only the one decision that affirmed gay marriage bans did they take up and put themselves into a position to overrule?

We'll see if this one affirms that children in Alabama don't have rights to the best formative environment for themselves (mother & father). My position is "watch and wait".. and remember that they said 56 times for SOME reason in Windsor 2013 that the question of gay marriage was up to each separate state.. 2013 is not that long ago..

Actually, that's not the specific legal question being answered by the court. Or even the argument that Alabama made. You're projecting your own beliefs and personal opinions onto the matter. And the court won't be ruling on your beliefs.

In fact, they've already explicitly contradicted them repeatedly. You simply ignore any portion of the Windsor decision that contradicts you. The court won't ignore itself.

Perhaps to mention that once or twice in Windsor might leave it more open to debate. Now it's my turn to ask you for your legal opinion:

Scalia doesn't think that there's much debate on the WIndsor Court's position on state same sex marriage bans.

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia, in dissent of Windsor V. US

Note the words 'beyond mistaking'. And 'inevitable'. And how his assessment is exactly opposite of yours.

But you know better than Scalia what the ruling is 'supposed' to mean, huh?

Why would the Court bring that one point up 56 times in 26 pages? Your thoughts?

Because the Windsor decision was a question of the applicability of federal law vs. State law. Specifically DOMA vs. the marriage laws of NY. Which is what every one of your '56 citations' is in reference to.

None of the challenges to same sex marriage bans being heard by the Court have anything to do with this. But instead, violations of constitutional guarantees. Which the Windsor court explicitly found State marriage laws were subject to.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right seems to be cognitively dissonant about Individual Liberty for heads of families.

Heads of families are guardians for children. States are the superior guardians of children to them. That is how family law is written. So a state first must consider the wants and needs and best environment for kids...THEN what the wants and needs etc. of the guardians of them are. Always in that order. Child welfare is superior in law to adults. Always. Evidence of this can be seen in the child abuse reporting laws that say even if you suspect but aren't sure or don't have proof that a child is being abused, you are required to report that suspicion "as a crime already happened"...or you can be prosecuted in most states for a misdemeanor. The adults accused in that situation don't have legal recourse against the reporter because the law always defaults to extremes to protect children.

Sorry. Checkmate.

The right is always welcome to practice their Communism, in Cuba. Individual Liberty to be a parent should be more important than the collectivism and social goals of a State, especially one that lays no claim to being Spartan.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

And how does that relate to to gay marriage?

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point you couldn't seem to come up with.

What argument? You've never once said anything about gay marriage.

Dude, is Article 4, Section 2 really that complicated for you as it relates to this thread?

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Which has what to do with gay marriage?

Gender.

And how does that relate to gay marriage? For example, if a state creates a law that bans gay marriage.....what happens under article 4, section 2?

Specifically.

The People as Persons and citizens in the several States have literal recourse to this Article of law, in any conflict of laws arising in the several States. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. It really is that simple, except to the incredulous right

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, is Article 4, Section 2 really that complicated for you as it relates to this thread?

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Connect the dots.

Include the word 'gay marriage' in your post.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. ... Means that gender based laws are invalid, upon appeal to that body of laws.

So gay marriage bans are invalid?

Yes; simply because they are not genders for legal purposes upon appeal to that body of laws and expressly, Article 4, Section 2, but Persons and citizens in the several States.

Says who? Who says there are no genders for legal purposes upon the appeal to the body of laws?

Says anyone who would not Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[Silhouette]

You've taken up the spamming torch when you're not role-playing with Syriusly or Skylar, eh daniel?