Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Silhouette]

Marriage results from Association and Contract, which are natural rights.

Marriages are purely private Acts commuted Public, for full faith and credit Purposes.

No, States take a greater interest in marriages because of the results they produce. The states want a marriage to produce future citizens (children) that are well balanced as can be statistically predicted. That is a union between one man and one woman. A "gay marriage" strips children of the millennial old expressed contractual right to both a mother and father. And it strips them of this right as a new legal institution created as a favor for gays by just five lawyers in DC in 2015. Pretty amazing power they have over the entirety of the human race and it's notion of the importance of both a mother and father in a child's live. Amazing power: ripped from the states just two years after the same Court said that power rested with the states (Windsor 2013..see OP)

Marriage is a contract. It's a contract that always expressly anticipated the children to arrive or already present. And it was a contract to their benefit. Therefore, the contract may not be revised to their detriment (Infants Doctrine). Especially not without their having representation at the revision Hearing (Obergefell 2015). But that is exactly what happened. And it was illegal.

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage results from Association and Contract, which are natural rights.

Marriages are purely private Acts commuted Public, for full faith and credit Purposes.

No, States take a greater interest in marriages because of the results they produce. The states want a marriage to produce future citizens (children) that are well balanced as can be statistically predicted. That is a union between one man and one woman. A "gay marriage" strips children of the millennial old expressed contractual right to both a mother and father. And it strips them of this right as a new legal institution created as a favor for gays by just five lawyers in DC in 2015. Pretty amazing power they have over the entirety of the human race and it's notion of the importance of both a mother and father in a child's live. Amazing power: ripped from the states just two years after the same Court said that power rested with the states (Windsor 2013..see OP)

Marriage is a contract. It's a contract that always expressly anticipated the children to arrive or already present. And it was a contract to their benefit. Therefore, the contract may not be revised to their detriment (Infants Doctrine). Especially not without their having representation at the revision Hearing (Obergefell 2015). But that is exactly what happened. And it was illegal.

Only true socialists, say that.

 

[danielpalos]

What happened to laissez-fair, right wingers.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage results from Association and Contract, which are natural rights.

Marriages are purely private Acts commuted Public, for full faith and credit Purposes.

No, States take a greater interest in marriages because of the results they produce. The states want a marriage to produce future citizens (children) that are well balanced as can be statistically predicted. .

The States don't care whether marriages produce children or not. How do we know this? Look at state marriage laws- they are not based upon the ability to have children, or even an interest in having children.

That is simply a fiction invented by people trying to deny marriage to same gender couples.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, States take a greater interest in marriages because of the results they produce. The states want a marriage to produce future citizens (children) that are well balanced as can be statistically predicted. .

The States don't care whether marriages produce children or not. How do we know this? Look at state marriage laws- they are not based upon the ability to have children, or even an interest in having children.

That is simply a fiction invented by people trying to deny marriage to same gender couples.

Actually there are states that require that those entering certain Civil Marriages not be able to have children together to legally marry.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

No, States take a greater interest in marriages because of the results they produce. The states want a marriage to produce future citizens (children) that are well balanced as can be statistically predicted. .

The States don't care whether marriages produce children or not. How do we know this? Look at state marriage laws- they are not based upon the ability to have children, or even an interest in having children.

That is simply a fiction invented by people trying to deny marriage to same gender couples.

Actually there are states that require that those entering certain Civil Marriages not be able to have children together to legally marry.


>>>>

Yep- actually cited in at least one of the court cases

 

[Silhouette]

The States don't care whether marriages produce children or not. How do we know this? Look at state marriage laws- they are not based upon the ability to have children, or even an interest in having children.

That is simply a fiction invented by people trying to deny marriage to same gender couples.

States give benefits to married people precisely because of the stability a married family statistically predicts for the anticipation of a child-rearing environment present in most marriages. The rare exceptions do not set the rules. The states are betting on the child-statistics when they give benefits to married people. Otherwise there is no financial incentive to encourage two people to shack up together. The benefits are for and about the kids the state anticipates will arrive. And rightly so. Only now states have an institution which systematically puts said children in prison essentially; institutionalizing the deprivation of either a mother or father for life.

For more on that, a study (the largest survey of its kind of youth deprived of same-gender role models) Specifically page 6, enlarged upper/mid left hand area of text to read.

Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

Yes mdk vv , It's hilarious when child abuse is institutionalized to benefit adult gay sex addicts.

 

[mdk]

I was wondering how long it would take for Sil to trot out the and wrongly apply the Infancy Doctrine.

I am sure The Prince's Trust will soon follow. lol

 

[Lysistrata]

The only person that has ever claimed Obergefell killed Scalia is you. Lord knows a elderly man with numerous health issues couldn't have just died. It must have been gays getting married that did it. lol

Justice Scalia: 6 Best Quotes From Scalia's Gay Marriage Dissent

Supreme Court claims super-legislative power.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the states are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed justices' "reasoned judgment." A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

I'm sure at his age and health, the idea that his branch of government just eroded the fundamental underpinnings of the Constitution had no stressful influence on his passing just a few months after Obergefell was rammed down the People's throats by five unelected lawyers in DC (two of which displayed overt bias before the Hearing).

All of the justices on the court and all who are on the rest of the federal bench are "unelected" Scalia wasn't elected, either. He was appointed by reagan. Nobody has to marry someone who they don't want to marry.

 

[Silhouette]

Nobody has to marry someone who they don't want to marry.

That isn't the topic of this thread.

 

[Silhouette]

The States don't care whether marriages produce children or not. How do we know this? Look at state marriage laws- they are not based upon the ability to have children, or even an interest in having children.

That is simply a fiction invented by people trying to deny marriage to same gender couples.

States give benefits to married people precisely because of the stability a married family statistically predicts for the anticipation of a child-rearing environment present in most marriages. The rare exceptions do not set the rules. The states are betting on the child-statistics when they give benefits to married people. Otherwise there is no financial incentive to encourage two people to shack up together. The benefits are for and about the kids the state anticipates will arrive. And rightly so. Only now states have an institution which systematically puts said children in prison essentially; institutionalizing the deprivation of either a mother or father for life.

For more on that, a study (the largest survey of its kind of youth deprived of same-gender role models) Specifically page 6, enlarged upper/mid left hand area of text to read.

Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

I was wondering how long it would take for Sil to trot out the and wrongly apply the Infancy Doctrine.

I am sure The Prince's Trust will soon follow. lol

Yes mdk vv , It's hilarious when child abuse is institutionalized to benefit adult gay sex addicts.

 

[mdk]

Yes mdk vv , It's hilarious when child abuse is institutionalized to benefit adult gay sex addicts.

Gays getting marrried isn't child abuse, dumb bunny.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes mdk vv , It's hilarious when child abuse is institutionalized to benefit adult gay sex addicts.

Gays getting marrried isn't child abuse, dumb bunny.

Some people would say that depriving a child via a contractual term of either a mother or father for life IS child abuse. In fact, the survey in the link of my last post says its child abuse defined.

Do you think if I agree to refrain from calling you a stupid asshole you could refrain from calling names in your argument? You seem compelled to call names and use ad hominem liberally as if it were a legitimate substitute for substance.

 

[Syriusly]

The States don't care whether marriages produce children or not. How do we know this? Look at state marriage laws- they are not based upon the ability to have children, or even an interest in having children.

That is simply a fiction invented by people trying to deny marriage to same gender couples.

States give benefits to married people precisely because of the stability a married family statistically predicts for the anticipation of a child-rearing environment present in most marriages. .

Prove it.

Provide any evidence- other than what the voices in your head- that shows that states provide benefits to married people because of children.

Go for it.

Because the law shows that isn't the case.

 

[Syriusly]

The States don't care whether marriages produce children or not. How do we know this? Look at state marriage laws- they are not based upon the ability to have children, or even an interest in having children.

That is simply a fiction invented by people trying to deny marriage to same gender couples.

Otherwise there is no financial incentive to encourage two people to shack up together. .

Sure there are. You should know that. A partnership with two people is more financially stable than a two people living seperately with no partners.

You so desperately want to create a reason other than your own homophobia to deny equal rights to gay couples you just make this crap up.

 

[Syriusly]

[Only now states have an institution which systematically puts said children in prison essentially; institutionalizing the deprivation of either a mother or father for life.

And by 'prison' Silhouette means being raised by two mom's- rather than a single mom like herself.

Quite the prison.

Preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't magically provide a missing father or mother to children.

Millions and millions of children are being raised by single parents in the United States- some of those single parents are gay. Somehow it becomes a 'prison' if that gay mother marries.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Yes mdk vv , It's hilarious when child abuse is institutionalized to benefit adult gay sex addicts.

If you know of any child abuse- please report it to the police immediately.

That of course has nothing to do with gay marriage or your fantasies about 'gay sex addicts'

 

[Syriusly]

Yes mdk vv , It's hilarious when child abuse is institutionalized to benefit adult gay sex addicts.

Gays getting marrried isn't child abuse, dumb bunny.

Some people would say that depriving a child via a contractual term of either a mother or father for life IS child abuse. In fact, the survey in the link of my last post says its child abuse defined..

a) 'Some people' is you. Because you are obsessed with denying equal rights to gays.
b) Your survey doesn't even mention homosexuals- as usual- you are just lying.

 

[Syriusly]

I was wondering how long it would take for Sil to trot out the and wrongly apply the Infancy Doctrine.

I am sure The Prince's Trust will soon follow. lol

Its like blowing a dog whistle.

Are we going to hear about Dylann Roof too?

 

[mdk]

Yes mdk vv , It's hilarious when child abuse is institutionalized to benefit adult gay sex addicts.

Gays getting marrried isn't child abuse, dumb bunny.

Some people would say that depriving a child via a contractual term of either a mother or father for life IS child abuse. In fact, the survey in the link of my last post says its child abuse defined.

Do you think if I agree to refrain from calling you a stupid asshole you could refrain from calling names in your argument? You seem compelled to call names and use ad hominem liberally as if it were a legitimate substitute for substance.

Yeah, seven people voting in an internet straw poll isn't doesn't define jack squat.

You don't have any substantive arguments, Sil. All you have is an obsessive and mentally ill hate for queers. Also, I'll call you anything I wish. Don't like it? Tough shit.