Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Syriusly]

Supreme Court reverses Alabama court that denied lesbian woman's adoption

A unanimous decision from the court.

That was a case where a woman had natural children that a former lesbian partner (are you with me still?...poor kids...) wanted rights to as adopted or some such.

This is more a case it seems of adult familiarity with a child already in their midst than some stranger going to an adoption agency where both parents of the children are unknown or not part of the potentially adoptive couple..

But Sil....what about your pseudo-legal horseshit about 'same sex parenting being child abuse' and how the court was going to overturn Obergefell to prevent it?

They just ruled unanimously to *preserve* what you insist they will oppose.

Have you ever gotten *any* legal prediction right? Any at all?

Doesn't get much more explicity- which is of course why Silhouette will ignore what the Court says

Now that they have split, E.L. agreed with the Alabama Supreme Court, which ruled in September that Georgia mistakenly granted V.L. joint custody. E.L.'s lawyers argued that "the Georgia court had no authority under Georgia law to award such an adoption, which is therefore void and not entitled to full faith and credit."

Not so, the Supreme Court ruled. "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits," its reversal said. Rather, Alabama must give "full faith and credit" to the Georgia court's decision.

8 to zero.

Meaning not a single Justice- not even Thomas- disagrees with the issue.

 

[ChrisL]

You cannot discriminate against ANYONE if you are going to open a public accommodation business. Deal with it.

If the Westboro Baptist Church wanted a custom cake for one of its evens, decorated with its slogan “GOD HATES FAGS!”, should a baker be compelled to produce that cake,who finds that content or its purpose morally repugnant? What if a Ku Klux Klan organization wants a KKK-themed cake, with images of burning crosses and black people being lynched from trees? Or a neo-Nazi organization wanting a cake that praises Hitler and his “Final Solution”?

Will you apply your statement equally to those, and say that a baker has no right to “discriminate” against those prospective customers?

Having to write something that is insulting on a cake is different than just making a cake for a couple. There is really no comparison there.

 

[EverCurious]

I personally think a business should have the right to hire, fire, and serve whomever they want, but that's not the law of the land so that's the end of the argument from me. (get more peeps and change the laws if one doesn't like it.)

I also think that such businesses who would chose to be so bigoted and stupid should be tried in the court of public opinion. That's the market at work.

 

[Skylar]

I personally think a business should have the right to hire, fire, and serve whomever they want, but that's not the law of the land so that's the end of the argument from me. (get more peeps and change the laws if one doesn't like it.)

I also think that such businesses who would chose to be so bigoted and stupid should be tried in the court of public opinion. That's the market at work.

If I were writing the law I'd create two classes of services. Vital services and non-vital. Vital would include food stores, restaurants, clothing stores, hotels, motels, lunch counters, hardware stores, taxi and bus companies, child care, medical care, auto dealerships, etc.

Non-vital would include jewelry stores, bakeries, coffee houses, yoga studios and the like. PA laws would apply to the former category. Not to the latter.

In our economic system, vital goods and services are distributed through private businesses. People need unfettered access to the purchase of these good and services. The non-vital services aren't as necessary. And consequently should be held to a lower standard in my opinion.

The people in many States feel differently.

 

[EverCurious]

I personally think a business should have the right to hire, fire, and serve whomever they want, but that's not the law of the land so that's the end of the argument from me. (get more peeps and change the laws if one doesn't like it.)

I also think that such businesses who would chose to be so bigoted and stupid should be tried in the court of public opinion. That's the market at work.

If I were writing the law I'd create two classes of services. Vital services and non-vital. Vital would include food stores, restaurants, clothing stores, hotels, motels, lunch counters, hardware stores, taxi and bus companies, child care, medical care, auto dealerships, etc.

Non-vital would include jewelry stores, bakeries, coffee houses, yoga studios and the like. PA laws would apply to the former category. Not to the latter.

In our economic system, vital goods and services are distributed through private businesses. People need unfettered access to the purchase of these good and services. The non-vital services aren't as necessary. And consequently should be held to a lower standard in my opinion.

The people in many States feel differently.

I can agree with this precautionary stipulation. Not that it will ever happen heh

 

[Silhouette]

Not so, the Supreme Court ruled. "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits," its reversal said. Rather, Alabama must give "full faith and credit" to the Georgia court's decision.

8 to zero....Meaning not a single Justice- not even Thomas- disagrees with the issue.

Oh, the technical question of law "must states respect sister states' laws"...yes yes...quite... Though it is interesting that the Court just Affirmed Obergefell on the one hand concerning dicey technical weird family situations, but then in the next breath they cite "state's authority" on making same/similar calls...Funny how they only respect state sovereignty when it favors their favorite deviant sex behaviors (homosexuality) but not others (polygamy). It was the same with Windsor. The Court affirmed in the Opinion no less than 56 times that what types of marriage are allowed are "the state's unquestioned authority".

I wonder, will the states now also respect the women of the Brown family of Utah adopting each other's kids? No? Why not? (Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer)..

I'm talking about the broader question of law: should any marriage be legal when it deprives children of a unique enjoyment of the marriage contract they had for over a thousand years to their betterment (BOTH a mother and father)? That's what I'm talking about. Of course everything is bullshit and up in flux right now legally. Obergefell was a friggin' trainwreck Decision with effects they'll be unsnarling for decades to come if the GOP doesn't step in quick and put a stop the LGBT cult pocket-Justices nonsense...

 

[mdk]

I'm talking about the broader question of law: should any marriage be legal when it deprives children of a unique enjoyment of the marriage contract they had for over a thousand years to their betterment (BOTH a mother and father)? That's what I'm talking about. Of course everything is bullshit and up in flux right now legally. Obergefell was a friggin' trainwreck Decision with effects they'll be unsnarling for decades to come if the GOP doesn't step in quick and put a stop the LGBT cult pocket-Justices nonsense...

Children an are not recognized as an implicit member of any marriage contract in any state/commonwealth. Rendering your broader question moot.


The Justices just ruled that Alabama must recognize same-sex adoptions performed in other states by a unanimous dcesions. Is Thomas, Alito, and, Roberts in on the LGBT conspiracy as well?

 

[Silhouette]

Children an are not recognized as an implicit member of any marriage contract in any state/commonwealth. Rendering your broader question moot.

That is a question of law that has yet to be settled. And it will, mdk, it will.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That is a question of law that has yet to be settled. And it will, mdk, it will.

Before or after your predicted impeachment of Kagan and Sotomayer?


>>>>

 

[mdk]

Children an are not recognized as an implicit member of any marriage contract in any state/commonwealth. Rendering your broader question moot.

That is a question of law that has yet to be settled. And it will, mdk, it will.

Nonsense. It isn't even a question. Children are not an implicit party to a marriage contract despite all your claims to the contrary. You'll have to excuse me if I take this legal prediction of yours with a grain of salt. One can hardly blame me considering your dismal record.

 

[g5000]

So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life. And how important people feel about that for children.

Your obsession with homosexuals is pathological.

I bet there is an interesting story there.

 

[mdk]

Your obsession with homosexuals is pathological.

I bet there is an interesting story there.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is partially to blame. I shit you not. lol

 

[ChrisL]

Anyone with such an obsession with homosexuals MUST be a closet homosexual!!! Who on earth thinks about this stuff all day, every day? It's just freaking weird, if you ask me.

 

[Skylar]

Not so, the Supreme Court ruled. "A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits," its reversal said. Rather, Alabama must give "full faith and credit" to the Georgia court's decision.

8 to zero....Meaning not a single Justice- not even Thomas- disagrees with the issue.

Oh, the technical question of law "must states respect sister states' laws"...yes yes...quite...

Laughing.....oh, look. Another excuse for why none of your pseudo-legal gibberish has any connection to reality. The Supreme Court just stomped your argument yet again, voting unanimously to preserve what you insist the USSC will overturn.

Though it is interesting that the Court just Affirmed Obergefell on the one hand concerning dicey technical weird family situations, but then in the next breath they cite "state's authority" on making same/similar calls...Funny how they only respect state sovereignty when it favors their favorite deviant sex behaviors (homosexuality) but not others (polygamy). It was the same with Windsor. The Court affirmed in the Opinion no less than 56 times that what types of marriage are allowed are "the state's unquestioned authority".

Its not 'strange', Sil....when you don't omit the words 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees' from the Windsor ruling.

You always do. And then always get so confused. Its one of the reasons your legal predictions are such a perfect failure.

I'm talking about the broader question of law: should any marriage be legal when it deprives children of a unique enjoyment of the marriage contract they had for over a thousand years to their betterment (BOTH a mother and father)? That's what I'm talking about. Of course everything is bullshit and up in flux right now legally. Obergefell was a friggin' trainwreck Decision with effects they'll be unsnarling for decades to come if the GOP doesn't step in quick and put a stop the LGBT cult pocket-Justices nonsense...

You keep switching up your pseudo-legal babble. Insisting first that children were married to their parents. Then that the marriage of parents created a 'minor contract' for children. Then that children were 'third party beneficiaries' of their parents. And now the buzz word that you're fixated on but still don't understand....is 'unique enjoyment'.

Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Ending your entire argument.

You simply don't know a thing about contract law.

 

[Skylar]

Anyone with such an obsession with homosexuals MUST be a closet homosexual!!! Who on earth thinks about this stuff all day, every day? It's just freaking weird, if you ask me.

Nah. Sil is just a compulsively obsessive person who suffered twin personal tragedies recently; the death of a parent and personal disability. Either or both can push idiosyncratic behavior into full-on mental illness.

She did something similar with Obama's nomination in 2008, creating elaborate theories, forming groups, 'fighting the good fight'. This kind of compulsive fixation is kind of her thing.

It didn't amount to much then ether.

 

[ChrisL]

Anyone with such an obsession with homosexuals MUST be a closet homosexual!!! Who on earth thinks about this stuff all day, every day? It's just freaking weird, if you ask me.

Nah. Sil is just a compulsively obsessive person who suffered twin personal tragedies recently; the death of a parent and personal disability. Either or both can push idiosyncratic behavior into full on mental illness.

How do you know so much about this poster's personal life?

Okay, well it is certainly NOT normal to be so obsessed. It is just weird. I've had some personal tragedies, as have all of us, I'm sure, so . . . I don't consider that a valid reason.

 

[Skylar]

Anyone with such an obsession with homosexuals MUST be a closet homosexual!!! Who on earth thinks about this stuff all day, every day? It's just freaking weird, if you ask me.

Nah. Sil is just a compulsively obsessive person who suffered twin personal tragedies recently; the death of a parent and personal disability. Either or both can push idiosyncratic behavior into full on mental illness.

How do you know so much about this poster's personal life?

She's created a website to fight homosexuals where she gives a bio.....its in her signature beneath every post. I took a minute and read it once.

Okay, well it is certainly NOT normal to be so obsessed. It is just weird. I've had some personal tragedies, as have all of us, I'm sure, so . . . I don't consider that a valid reason.

Oh, its definitely weird. Sil herself has admitted that she has to stop, that her posting here is taking a personal and emotional toll and damaging her.

Yet here she is.

 

[Inevitable]

If you people care so much about children having a mother and a father, turn off your damned computer, go get married, and adopt up all of the parentless children so the gays can't get them.

You don't give the slightest shit about it. You are just using this as a justification for your prejudice. If you believed that every child deserves a mother and a father, you would find a spouse make it work and adopt a couple of children. You don't give a shit. Don't act like you do.

 

[Silhouette]

If you people care so much about children having a mother and a father, turn off your damned computer, go get married, and adopt up all of the parentless children so the gays can't get them.

You don't give the slightest shit about it. You are just using this as a justification for your prejudice. If you believed that every child deserves a mother and a father, you would find a spouse make it work and adopt a couple of children. You don't give a shit. Don't act like you do.

Well let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, (but you're not), it appears as if 90% of all the other folks who responded to the poll in this thread do give a shit about whether a child has both a mother and father in their life growing up. So the chances that I actually do give a shit are excellent. I would have to be the rare exception if I didn't give shit about that...

 

[Skylar]

If you people care so much about children having a mother and a father, turn off your damned computer, go get married, and adopt up all of the parentless children so the gays can't get them.

You don't give the slightest shit about it. You are just using this as a justification for your prejudice. If you believed that every child deserves a mother and a father, you would find a spouse make it work and adopt a couple of children. You don't give a shit. Don't act like you do.

Well let's just say for argument's sake that you're right, (but you're not), it appears as if 90% of all the other folks who responded to the poll in this thread do give a shit about whether a child has both a mother and father in their life growing up. So the chances that I actually do give a shit are excellent. I would have to be the rare exception if I didn't give shit about that...

Given that your 'solution' is to deny marriage to same sex parents and denying marriage to same sex parents does nothing to remedy the 'problem' you've cited, chances are excellent that you don't give a shit about kids.

As your proposed solution only hurts children. And you know it hurts children.