Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
There is no part of the Constitution with special rights for gay sexual behaviors (no such thing as "gay Americans" anymore than there are "alcholic Americans" as a class) to marry. Behaviors don't get special unwritten protections in the Constitution. When behaviors are protected, they are specified. No such specification exists for homosexuality in the Constitution. There is though quite a bit in the Constitution about another behavior: drinking alcohol.
Like a vehicle to transport ones children from one place to another, marriage is the "vehicle" to transport children from infancy into a well-rounded social preparation for the adult "destination". With driving a car, others share the road. And this is why drivers' licenses are required in all states under certain specific conditions and qualifiers. Likewise, children can't be placed in any "vehicle" where the driver is unqualified to drive and their well being might be jeopardized. Marriage licenses are required in all states and one wonders why now that Obergefell was heard. "Gay Americans" aren't the only ones with a sexual fetish the majority finds repugnant. And since we know via the 14th Amendment that you can't play favorites, Obergefell de facto issued in a "come one, come all" mandate to marriage licensing in every state. Discrimination against polygamy as to marriage is equally as "unconstitutional" as it is for homosexuals.
You can decriminalize people getting drunk. You just can't take the legal leap from there and say "drunk Americans have the right to drive like everyone else!". Gays cannot provide both a mother and father to children: implicit partners in the marriage contract "road". Therefore, gays guarantee a psychological "car wreck" to the other parties on the road or in the car: the most important ones as it turns out..children. Instead of asking states to scrape up more children off of the wreckage from the highway, we need to realize the damage done to children by not assuring their safety: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
And, New York vs Ferber (1982) says that even if homosexuality had explicit written protections in the Constitution (which it doesn't, but for argument's sake...) to marry, if such a union results in harm to children either physically or mentally (by stripping children of either a mother or father for life) that "right" is no longer protected.. Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States. Just as the union of a person with too much alcohol in their blood has the potential to strip children of the mental tools needed to not be wreckage victims through their adult lives. New York vs Ferber Found that even if an adult has a delineated and undisputed Constitutionally-protected right, that right may not be exercised if it results in physical or mental harm to children.
States' first and foremost duty is to protect children. Secondarily they look to protect delineated adult Constitutional rights. States have to ask themselves, "in protecting gay marriage are we inadvertently harming the children we expect to be involved?" If the answer is "yes", the states don't have the luxury of fiddling around. They are mandated to act swiftly to protect children. (See previous link for those legal mandates upon states).
Taking the comparison of behaviors as "(fill in the blank) Americans"...& Obergefell to its natural conclusion...In fact, the right to drink to any excess one likes is even protected by a Constitutional Amendment, no less. So, states had better be prepared for a mandate to issue drivers' licenses to ALL Americans and not just some! Nevermind who else is involved! Anything less would be discrimination, and bigoted...coming from "haters"...
Like a vehicle to transport ones children from one place to another, marriage is the "vehicle" to transport children from infancy into a well-rounded social preparation for the adult "destination". With driving a car, others share the road. And this is why drivers' licenses are required in all states under certain specific conditions and qualifiers. Likewise, children can't be placed in any "vehicle" where the driver is unqualified to drive and their well being might be jeopardized. Marriage licenses are required in all states and one wonders why now that Obergefell was heard. "Gay Americans" aren't the only ones with a sexual fetish the majority finds repugnant. And since we know via the 14th Amendment that you can't play favorites, Obergefell de facto issued in a "come one, come all" mandate to marriage licensing in every state. Discrimination against polygamy as to marriage is equally as "unconstitutional" as it is for homosexuals.
You can decriminalize people getting drunk. You just can't take the legal leap from there and say "drunk Americans have the right to drive like everyone else!". Gays cannot provide both a mother and father to children: implicit partners in the marriage contract "road". Therefore, gays guarantee a psychological "car wreck" to the other parties on the road or in the car: the most important ones as it turns out..children. Instead of asking states to scrape up more children off of the wreckage from the highway, we need to realize the damage done to children by not assuring their safety: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
And, New York vs Ferber (1982) says that even if homosexuality had explicit written protections in the Constitution (which it doesn't, but for argument's sake...) to marry, if such a union results in harm to children either physically or mentally (by stripping children of either a mother or father for life) that "right" is no longer protected.. Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States. Just as the union of a person with too much alcohol in their blood has the potential to strip children of the mental tools needed to not be wreckage victims through their adult lives. New York vs Ferber Found that even if an adult has a delineated and undisputed Constitutionally-protected right, that right may not be exercised if it results in physical or mental harm to children.
States' first and foremost duty is to protect children. Secondarily they look to protect delineated adult Constitutional rights. States have to ask themselves, "in protecting gay marriage are we inadvertently harming the children we expect to be involved?" If the answer is "yes", the states don't have the luxury of fiddling around. They are mandated to act swiftly to protect children. (See previous link for those legal mandates upon states).
Taking the comparison of behaviors as "(fill in the blank) Americans"...& Obergefell to its natural conclusion...In fact, the right to drink to any excess one likes is even protected by a Constitutional Amendment, no less. So, states had better be prepared for a mandate to issue drivers' licenses to ALL Americans and not just some! Nevermind who else is involved! Anything less would be discrimination, and bigoted...coming from "haters"...
