Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Silhouette]

Nope; having responsible parents is more important than the socialism of public policy which constitutes public use, while not even advocating for a Spartan public policy regime.

One man's socialism in family law is another man's child-protective statutes. Are you suggesting that states and the fed do away with child protective interests even to further the takeover of your cult of mainstream values?
Wow, and you want federal blessings to be guardians of children?

Your cult is arguing for the "natural right" to take away a child's natural right to a mother and a father. That is your argument condensed into a nutshell. What other natural rights that children have will you be wanting to suppress next when they are in your clutches?

Remember, your cult embraces publicly Harvey Milk (see my signature)...and THIS in front of children, as a matter of "pride"...unapologetically...

....I'm sure they'll be just fine then behind closed doors at y'all's houses...

 

[danielpalos]

You're engaging in argumentative roundabouts...just like your friend Syriusly..

Your view of public policy which constitutes public Use, has yet to produce 300 citizens who are entitled to the character of well regulated "Spartans"; why do You and those of Your point of view, believe they are more right than Spartan public policy, which did?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; having responsible parents is more important than the socialism of public policy which constitutes public use, while not even advocating for a Spartan public policy regime.

One man's socialism in family law is another man's child-protective statutes. Are you suggesting that states and the fed do away with child protective interests even to further the takeover of your cult of mainstream values?
Wow, and you want federal blessings to be guardians of children?

Your cult is arguing for the "natural right" to take away a child's natural right to a mother and a father. That is your argument condensed into a nutshell. What other natural rights that children have will you be wanting to suppress next when they are in your clutches?

Remember, your cult embraces publicly Harvey Milk (see my signature)...and THIS in front of children, as a matter of "pride"...unapologetically...

....I'm sure they'll be just fine then behind closed doors at y'all's houses...

I am claiming that children should feel a sense of entitlement to responsible parents, whenever possible.

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

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as a privilege or immunity for any Person in our republic.

 

[Silhouette]

I am claiming that children should feel a sense of entitlement to responsible parents, whenever possible.

Woudn't responsible parents be those that fit the bill that the Prince's Trust survey discovered is the best psychological environment for kids? Wouldn't it be exceedingly selfish to knowingly subject a child to an inferior formative environment that has been found to damage a child's mind?

In the case of single parents, it is actually preferable to gay parents. Let me explain why that is. With single hetero parents you can at least hold out the possibility that that parent will get together or at least be dating with members of the opposite gender. At least a child of the opposite gender as his parent in that situation would see that his mother (or the reverse senario daughter/father) was interested in and still valued the opposite gender "as mattering"...

...The gay situation is much, much worse for that child's self esteem. They are a living model/example of the complete and utter rejection of that child's gender as mattering AT ALL. The Prince's Trust survey tells us that that child would be plunged even deeper into depression and find even less of a place in the world to fit in.

And you look at this child's face in the photo below...words aren't even necessary. This boy will be depressed as an adult. There is no question about it. He even has his genitals covered in shame for who he is...look... Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

..A married couple is not expected to have children.

But a married couple is expected to take care of each other.

Only in your mind. A state anticipates that in any marriage children will come along. And statistics overwhelmingly bear that out.
.

As usual you are delusional

Refer to both the court decisions in Prop 8 and the Wisconsin decision overturning marriage bans for a complete rebutal to your delusional claims.

 

[Syriusly]

I am claiming that children should feel a sense of entitlement to responsible parents, whenever possible.

Woudn't responsible parents be those that fit the bill that the Prince's Trust survey

The Prince's Trust doesn't define 'responsible parents' nor does it refer to homosexual parents at all.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act which is commuted public, for full faith and credit purposes.

Children having a mother and father incentivized to be in their lives is a natural right which is commuted public, for full faith and credit purposes.

Nope- just another thing you have made up.

 

[Skylar]

Woudn't responsible parents be those that fit the bill that the Prince's Trust survey discovered is the best psychological environment for kids?

The Prince Trust Study doesn't mention a thing about the 'best psychological environment for kids', or measure any parenting of any kind. Nor does it even mention same sex parenting.

You do. Citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Wouldn't it be exceedingly selfish to knowingly subject a child to an inferior formative environment that has been found to damage a child's mind?

Your entire point is nonsense...and utterly moot. As gays and lesbians are having children away. Denying same sex marriage doesn't magically mean their children get opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that these children will never have married parents.

Which directly harms the children. Your proposed 'cure' actually causes the harm you imagine it would heal.

...The gay situation is much, much worse for that child's self esteem. They are a living model/example of the complete and utter rejection of that child's gender as mattering AT ALL. The Prince's Trust survey tells us that that child would be plunged even deeper into depression and find even less of a place in the world to fit in.

The Prince Trust Study says no such thing. Again, you're hallucinating.

 

[danielpalos]

I am claiming that children should feel a sense of entitlement to responsible parents, whenever possible.

Woudn't responsible parents be those that fit the bill that the Prince's Trust survey discovered is the best psychological environment for kids? Wouldn't it be exceedingly selfish to knowingly subject a child to an inferior formative environment that has been found to damage a child's mind?

In the case of single parents, it is actually preferable to gay parents. Let me explain why that is. With single hetero parents you can at least hold out the possibility that that parent will get together or at least be dating with members of the opposite gender. At least a child of the opposite gender as his parent in that situation would see that his mother (or the reverse senario daughter/father) was interested in and still valued the opposite gender "as mattering"...

...The gay situation is much, much worse for that child's self esteem. They are a living model/example of the complete and utter rejection of that child's gender as mattering AT ALL. The Prince's Trust survey tells us that that child would be plunged even deeper into depression and find even less of a place in the world to fit in.

And you look at this child's face in the photo below...words aren't even necessary. This boy will be depressed as an adult. There is no question about it. He even has his genitals covered in shame for who he is...look... Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No; simply because that study omitted the public policies of ancient Sparta, especially in regard to providing for the common defense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“If all marriage was to a state was adults taking care of each other, then anyone could get married to anyone in any conceivable numbers or combinations...”

Incorrect.

Marriage is solely between two equal adult and consenting partners who enter into an agreement of commitment recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference; the resulting contract neither requires nor expects procreation, where procreation is not a condition of the contract's validity.

Three or more persons may not enter into a marriage contract because the law is not written to accommodate such a configuration; only two adult consenting partners may marry.

Consequently, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are un-Constitutional, where the states have no authority to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights.

 

[Silhouette]

...Three or more persons may not enter into a marriage contract because the law is not written to accommodate such a configuration; only two adult consenting partners may marry.

Consequently, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are un-Constitutional, where the states have no authority to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights.

In California the law is not written to accomodate a configuration of man/man or woman/woman marriage. Glad we agree the structure of marriage of two people of the same gender or more than two people of any gender is illegal.

We finally agree!

....unless you're being bigoted and arbitrary towards polygamists? Well? Why not more than two? Because it's "icky" or "not traditional"?...

Better read Sutton's opinion in the 6th circuit. He talks ALL about that dual and hypocritical stance from your ilk.. (post #122 in large bold print) 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

In California the law is not written to accomodate a configuration of man/man or woman/woman marriage.

So you say. Yet gay marriage works just fine in California. And is performed dozens of times a day. You say this can't happen. History says otherwise.

Better read Sutton's opinion in the 6th circuit. He talks ALL about that dual and hypocritical stance from your ilk.. (post #122 in large bold print) 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You may want to pay closer attention to what Scalia said;

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

....as its far more relevant to the outcome of the ruling on gay marriage in June. Note the words 'inevitable'. And 'beyond mistaking'. You can ignore it all you want. You can refuse to address it all you want. But closing your eyes isn't changing what's coming in June. As the denial of Alabama's stay by the SCOTUS demonstrates yet again.

Now why would the USSC preserve every single federal ruling that overturns gay marriage bans......but not the one that affirms it? Say it with me, Silo.....

....."inevitable".

 

[Silhouette]

Gay marriage doesn't happen legally in California. Shadow stay refusals do not law make. Windsor is the law and by it's 56-avered position, states choose, not the fed. Unless Windsor is overturned this year, that is the way it will stay.

A lower federal court is unable to overturn the Finding in Windsor that on the question of gay marriage, states get to choose unless a future challenge at the SCOTUS level successfully overturns that. Interim law is the latest-Finding.

 

[danielpalos]

Gay marriage doesn't happen legally in California. Shadow stay refusals do not law make. Windsor is the law and by it's 56-avered position, states choose, not the fed. Unless Windsor is overturned this year, that is the way it will stay.

A lower federal court is unable to overturn the Finding in Windsor that on the question of gay marriage, states get to choose unless a future challenge at the SCOTUS level successfully overturns that. Interim law is the latest-Finding.

How good is Windsor at providing for the common Defense; some of the Electorate of the United States would like to know, for that office of public trust--especially for the Militia of the United States.

Both ancient and modern writers have used the Battle of Thermopylae as an example of the power of a patriotic army defending its native soil. The performance of the defenders at the Battle of Thermopylae is also used as an example of the advantages of training, equipment, and good use of terrain as force multipliers and has become a symbol of courage against overwhelming odds. --Source: Battle of Thermopylae - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Silhouette]

Dunno. It's pretty good at preserving states' rights to self-govern on this question of law. Would be better if the Justices followed their own verdict on whether or not to issue stays to preserve interim law while appeals are pending.

All in all I'd say the burden to prove a boy shouldn't have a father and a girl shouldn't have a mother "as married" as a brand new concept (using kids as lab rats) is upon the challengers, not upon those protecting the thousands-years-old definition of marriage to provide both a mother and father to the childrein involved..

 

[danielpalos]

Dunno. It's pretty good at preserving states' rights to self-govern on this question of law. Would be better if the Justices followed their own verdict on whether or not to issue stays to preserve interim law while appeals are pending.

All in all I'd say the burden to prove a boy shouldn't have a father and a girl shouldn't have a mother "as married" as a brand new concept (using kids as lab rats) is upon the challengers, not upon those protecting the thousands-years-old definition of marriage to provide both a mother and father to the childrein involved..

There is no willful appeal to ignorance of the law, for fun or practice; simply Because, it is a frivolous waste of the (other) Peoples' Tax monies.

It is only a States' right until recanted by the several citizen in the several State involved and appealed to the general government and that Body of laws.

Thus, Article 4, Section 2 also enjoys the supremacy clause.

 

[Silhouette]

And that hasn't happened yet pal..

 

[danielpalos]

And that hasn't happened yet pal..

let's just "blame the right" and make fun of them in affirmative action threads regarding equality between work and pay.

 

[Silhouette]

WTF? Are you going to be done with non sequiturs or are you going to spam a few more pages with them?

 

[danielpalos]

WTF? Are you going to be done with non sequiturs or are you going to spam a few more pages with them?

you know what they say, if you can't handle the heat, put your shoes on and get out of the kitchen.