Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate

[Skylar]

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

The people who believe as I do will present it in court in legaleze.

They've tried. The result was win-loss record of 2 out of 46 cases.

With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And the USSC denying stay to every state attempting to defend gay marriage bans. Without exception.

As I said, half assed second string arguments that are laughed out of court.

All the bigger the shock to you homos when the Supreme Court's final decision returns the issue to the states where it belongs.

You mean, same-sex marriage opponents losing hands down, or pants down rather, several states at a time. As even if the Supreme Court argued 'state rights', it still wouldn't stop state referendums, which have already been carried out in several states.

Though, that won't be the case. They will either uphold previous decisions, or move to stop some states from using state government organs to stop same-sex marriages within those states.

The only way same-sex marriage opponents could win, is by holding all federal branches of government, and trying to pass a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage.

But the Supreme Court would probably strike it down, and it wouldn't pass the Senate, so I wouldn't try that path - especially as the uproar would hand back to Democrats the House or the Senate. The majority of the US public is supportive of same-sex marriage, and enough swing states would turn against the Republicans if they tried anything too drastic.

I don't know that the Supreme Court could strike down an amendment. Its kind of the trump card of the entire constitutional process. You could do.....anything with an amendment.

The Windsor decision precludes the court from stopping state referendums or legislative acts recognizing same sex marriage. The entire ruling is based on the idea that State has the authority to recognize same sex marriage.

Most indications point toward the USSC voting in favor of gay marriage nationwide come June. I'd go so far as to say that a 7-2 ruling in favor of gay marriage is plausible, if unlikely.

The reason that gay marriage opponents are still completely fucked regardless of the June ruling....is reciprocity. States are required to recognize one another's contracts. The chances of the USSC striking this concept down is virtually nil. Meaning that gay marriage will be legal nation wide regardless of the June ruling, though you may have to travel to a state the performs gay marriage and then return to a state that doesn't.

Though with the court preserving every single ruling overturning a gay marriage ban.....and denying a stay to every single state seeking to defend a gay marriage ban, it seems *really* unlikely that the USSC won't demolish gay marriage bans come June.

 

[Silhouette]

1. I don't know that the Supreme Court could strike down an amendment. Its kind of the trump card of the entire constitutional process. You could do.....anything with an amendment.

2. The Windsor decision precludes the court from stopping state referendums or legislative acts recognizing same sex marriage. The entire ruling is based on the idea that State has the authority to recognize same sex marriage.

3. Most indications point toward the USSC voting in favor of gay marriage nationwide come June. I'd go so far as to say that a 7-2 ruling in favor of gay marriage is plausible, if unlikely.

1. You know only Congress can deal with redacting Amendments. "I don't know"..

2. The Windsor Decision only argued the merits of whether or not the states trump the fed on the definition of marriage. No merits were argued as "gay marriage" being a constitutionally-upheld right. None whatsoever. Windsor used states' supremacy on the question to strike out the part of DOMA that said the fed could define marriage for the states! Any state, therefore, that defined marriage as man/woman only has only that legal marriage in its boundaries unless/until SCOTUS overturns Windsor's meritous Finding.

3. Yes, I'd say that Ginsburg and Kagan (as federal entities presiding over states) performing gay marriages leaves no doubt whatsoever how they will vote on the arguments yet to be heard (which is illegal bias Found in 2009). As for the rest, don't count your chickens until they hatch.

4. The reason that gay marriage opponents are still completely fucked regardless of the June ruling....is reciprocity. States are required to recognize one another's contracts. The chances of the USSC striking this concept down is virtually nil. Meaning that gay marriage will be legal nation wide regardless of the June ruling, though you may have to travel to a state the performs gay marriage and then return to a state that doesn't.

5. Though with the court preserving every single ruling overturning a gay marriage ban.....and denying a stay to every single state seeking to defend a gay marriage ban, it seems *really* unlikely that the USSC won't demolish gay marriage bans come June.

4. States may be required to honor each other's contracts, but that doesn't mean that 13 year olds that can lawfully marry in New Hampshire means that the fed must mandate that 13 year olds be allowed to marry in all 50 states.

5. Yes, the interim erosion without explanating those merits and in full defiance of the Court's own Finding in Windsor upholding the supremacy of state law is going to be a problem for the fed enforcing any Decision that talks about "how there are so many gay people/their kids married now that we HAVE to mandate it federally." Alabama has already flipped the middle finger to that circumvention of due process.

A boy not being able to call one of his married parents "Dad" or a girl not being able to call one of her married parents "Mom" is a brand new situation. We have statistics on fatherless boys and motherless girls. They do not warrant mandating federal gay marriage as "good for children" using them as lab rats.

 

[Skylar]

You know only Congress can deal with redacting Amendments. "I don't know"..

A rather silly strawman. I didn't say anything about congress and amendments in the post you cited. But the Supreme Court's inability to overturn amendments. So you're refuting an argument no one has made.

The Windsor Decision only argued the merits of whether or not the states trump the fed on the definition of marriage.

More accurately, it was a question of if federal marriage law trumps state marriage law. Not 'the feds'. With the Windsor ruling establishing the following hierarchy;

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage laws

3) Federal marriage laws.

State marriage laws trump federal marriage laws. And constitutional guarantees trump state marriage laws.

With every ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans being on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which is perfectly in line with Windsor.

Yes, I'd say that Ginsburg and Kagan (as federal entities presiding over states) performing gay marriages leaves no doubt whatsoever how they will vote on the arguments yet to be heard (which is illegal bias Found in 2009). As for the rest, don't count your chickens until they hatch.

Nope. The 2009 case was in regard to elected judges and campaign contributions. Neither Ginsberg nor Kagan were elected. Neither takes campaign contributions. Making your argument irreleveant even hypothetically.

And of course it is impossible for anyone to demonstrate a bias against gay marriage bans in Maryland or DC (where the marriages occurred) as no gay marriage bans exist in Maryland or DC.

You obviously can't show a bias for or against something that doesn't exist. Simply destroying your silly 'bias' argument.

States may be required to honor each other's contracts, but that doesn't mean that 13 year olds that can lawfully marry in New Hampshire means that the fed must mandate that 13 year olds be allowed to marry in all 50 states.

You missed the entire concept of reciprocity. Read the sentence again and see if you catch it this time:

"Meaning that gay marriage will be legal nation wide regardless of the June ruling, though you may have to travel to a state the performs gay marriage and then return to a state that doesn't."

Did you catch your mistake this time?

 

[Silhouette]

13 year olds can marry in New Hampshire. By June it will be a national mandate that 13 year olds must be allowed to be married in all 50 states.

Discuss.

 

[Silhouette]

In which state should 13 year olds not be allowed to marry by June? Maybe if I ask the question differently?

 

[Skylar]

13 year olds can marry in New Hampshire. By June it will be a national mandate that 13 year olds must be allowed to be married in all 50 states.

Discuss.

There's no case before the court regarding the marriage of 13 year olds. Thus there will be no ruling on it by the USSC in June. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you ever think before you type?

Discuss.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and with your bizarre abandonment of your entire argument in favor of inane babble about 13 year olds....can we take it you finally understand the hierarchy of authority recognized in the Windsor decision;

1) Constitutional guarantees

2) State marriage laws

3) Federal marriage laws.

State marriage laws trump federal marriage laws. And constitutional guarantees trump state marriage laws.

Remember that order. Its why you lost.

 

[mdk]

In which state should 13 year olds not be allowed to marry by June? Maybe if I ask the question differently?

I see you've abandoned your argument yet again. Anytime you can't answer a question you either ignore it or attempt to change the topic. Pathetic.

 

[Skylar]

Yup. Watch...I'll make him run again with only 11 words:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

I have an open challenge for the board: force Silo to abandon his arguments using as few words as possible.

My personal best is 11. Can anyone do better?

 

[Silhouette]

There was no discussion of merits in Windsor on federal impostion over states. In fact it was the opposite..

 

[Silhouette]

There's no case before the court regarding the marriage of 13 year olds. Thus there will be no ruling on it by the USSC in June. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Do you ever think before you type?
Discuss.

Just as in Windsor there was no question on merits of whether or not the federal government could force attrition of or override state laws that it had just avered were dominant to Itself (Itself being higher than all other lower courts in the federal system).

So, since both 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire was mentioned briefly just once and some hypothetical application of Loving v Virginia mentioned with equal meritous debate, just once vs the 56 times the Court held that state law dominates on what marriage means, we know that state laws are dominant unless/until further notice.

The states of course must be able to retain the definition of marriage because a mother and father are the best environment. States must not be forced to subsidize anything less.

 

[Skylar]

Just as in Windsor there was no question on merits of whether or not the federal government could force attrition of or override state laws that it had just avered were dominant to Itself (Itself being higher than all other lower courts in the federal system).

The question of if the federal judiciary could overturn state marriage law that violated constitutional guarantees is law settled nearly 50 years ago. Check out Loving v. Virginia, where the court did exactly that.

Hell, the Windsor court even cited Loving V. Virginia as an example when describing how state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

And its the violation of such constitutional guarantees that the court is addressing next month and ruling on in June.

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

And every ruling overturning state marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

There are no cases before the court this year regarding 13 year olds in New Hampshire. So the USSC won't be ruling on 13 year olds in New Hampshire.

Do you follow?

 

[Syriusly]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Why do you think that they do?

 

[Syriusly]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?
Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

They must also read the Prince's Trust survey, the largest of its kind and not one emanating from such an obviously heavily-biased APA.

The only way they will read it is if you send it to them.

Have you sent them the report yet?

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

And you demonstrate again why same sex marriage opponents are so thoroughly fucked in court; You can't argue your actual motivations and beliefs. As they aren't accepted as valid in court.

So you're left with a series of half assed, second tier arguments that are laughed out of court with almost perfect regularity.

As for your personal religious beliefs on homosexuality, you're welcome to them. But neither I nor the courts really give a shit.

The people who believe as I do will present it in court in legaleze.

They've tried. The result was win-loss record of 2 out of 46 cases.

With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And the USSC denying stay to every state attempting to defend gay marriage bans. Without exception.

As I said, half assed second string arguments that are laughed out of court.

All the bigger the shock to you homos when the Supreme Court's final decision returns the issue to the states where it belongs.

The difference between those of us who favor marriage equality for homosexual couples, and bigots like yourself is that if the Supreme Court does not find in favor of marriage equality for homosexual couples- I will not be calliing the Justice 'black robed fascists' as you will be doing if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way you want.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, Silo is just full of various things that he insists the courts MUST do or the courts can NEVER do. According to him.

What he hasn't quite figured out is that he doesn't make any of these rules. And the courts are bound none of what he makes up or hallucinates.

But he will in June.

You're the ones insisting this is about children. .

Once again- if marriage is about children

"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?"

 

[Syriusly]

Then why do states lose money on perks for marriage?

Related question, why do family courts devote so much emphasis in outcomes on behalf of the children?

Why do you spend so little time on the outcome on behalf of children? For example, how does your proposal of denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts went into elaborate detail about how denying marriage to their parents hurt these children.

Or.....do you ignore these children and their outcomes?

Yes, protecting children from a freak show that confounds, God, Man, and Nature is helping them. They're better off in a single parent home.

Even if that were true- refusing to allow same gender couples doesn't result in single parent homes- it just results in homes with two unmarried 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?"

 

[Silhouette]

"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?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

 

[Skylar]

"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?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Says you. And you making up random nonsense based on your imagination isn't the basis for denying anyone their rights.

See, Sil....so much of your argument is you just making silliness up. And increasingly, no one gives a shit. You've just cried wolf too many times.

 

[Syriusly]

"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?"

There is an immediate psychological injury to a boy who has no one to call "Dad" and a girl who has no one to call "Mom" in an experimental marriage.

Which is worse, longterm?

And again- what has that to do with marriage?

Whether a gay couple who is raising children is married or not- their children will call them whatever they end up calling them.

There is an immediate harm to the children whose parents are denied marriage- there is no harm to children whose parents are allowed to marry.