Sotomayor Grants Emergency Stay to Kansas: Halts Gay Marriage.

[Silhouette]

Polygamy? Incest? Children sanctioned to be in homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time? Where the opposite gender as role model is missing 100% of the time? States should be forced to incentivize untold numbers of children yet to be born into these situations?

States don't have to 'incentivize' marriage at all. Totally up to the State if they want to.
But they can't discriminate against same gender couples simply because you don't like homosexuals.

It's a right of a culture to self-determine.

But states WANT to incentivize marriages PRECISELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF FUTURE CHILDREN AND THEREFORE, ITS OWN CORE SOCIETAL STRUCTURE.

This LGBT cult wants to "breed in" their new mentality. States don't want that. This cult wants to take away a state's right to have or not have that be their collective future. MAKE NO MISTAKE, this is a CULT trying to subvert an existing culture by hijacking marriage under the guise of "civil rights".

If you don't believe me, watch their manifesto made in the late 1970s, just after they took over the American Psychological Association and discarded facts and data for "audited group think" (CQR) Read more about that here: Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The manifesto shrouded as "pure entertainment" is called The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Pay attention to the story line. All the components of what is happening today are in there. This is the cult announcing to the world: we are here, we are queer and we've come to upset your apple cart. The manifesto is brazen, it's in-your-face and depicts nothing but spoiled sexual perverts brainwashing two "straights" to discard their entire moral code in favor of the new one. It also involves turning a boy & child of its creator into a sexual toy for this older gay pervert creator/father. Kind of like what the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk did to the minor Jack McKinley and many others like him.

It opens with a straight couple engaged to be married that are caught in a rain storm and their car breaks down. They knock on the castle walls of the demented sex pervert "Dr. Frankenfurter". He then traps them in his world and takes turns raping both of them with his lesbian assistants in the background always. The entire goal of all the castle inhabitants is to destroy the straight notion of marriage and normalcy and turn it into an "anything goes" marriageless sex fest. He destroys their plans to marry normally.

By the end of the movie this couple has removed their conservative clothing and are wearing g-strings, gyrating robotically to the drooling delight of their new master; at his every beckon and call. The apex of the movie is the creation of an innocent boy "Rocky" to which his creator/father Dr. Frankenfurter drools also at the delight of exploiting for sex, while the lesbian duo giggle, looking on..

It's a must-see. It was extraordinary popular with the LGBT crowd. I doubt there is one person in their ranks that hasn't seen it multiple times. They used to really make a big deal of it, holding huge parties and gatherings with live events in theaters as the show was on the screen in the 1980s. They still do in some areas. It is quite properly the LGBT bugle-call. You cannot understand the LGBT movement until you listen to their bugle-call. Then what they're up to becomes quite plain and clear.

A state has a right to resist this rape of its cultural mores. This is not a civil rights movement. This is something else altogether.

 

[Syriusly]

Polygamy? Incest? Children sanctioned to be in homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time? Where the opposite gender as role model is missing 100% of the time? States should be forced to incentivize untold numbers of children yet to be born into these situations?

States don't have to 'incentivize' marriage at all. Totally up to the State if they want to.
But they can't discriminate against same gender couples simply because you don't like homosexuals.

It's a right of a culture to self-determine.

But states WANT to incentivize marriages PRECISELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF FUTURE CHILDREN AND THEREFORE, ITS OWN CORE SOCIETAL STRUCTURE..

There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

The incentives that states provide incentivize marriage- not children.

Prohibition of same gender marriage harms children- allowing marriage equality harms no children


As Justice Kennedy observed:

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

Speaking of children of gay parents in the DOMA case

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

In a sense, this turns on its head one of the main bogeymen used by activists opposed to marriage equality: that gay marriage will somehow harm children and disrupt families. To the contrary, Kennedy argues that striking down DOMA will give dignity to same-sex families and help end the suffering of children caused by the current the law.

 

[Syriusly]

And I'd like to see a county clerk clarify as to why polygamists would be denied a marriage license. There is no marriage law in CA, right?

Feel free to try it out Silhouette- I keep asking you to go see if you can get a marriage license for your polygamous marriage.

You are the only one who thinks polygamous marriage is legal in California now- go test it out.

 

[Silhouette]

And I'd like to see a county clerk clarify as to why polygamists would be denied a marriage license. There is no marriage law in CA, right?

Feel free to try it out Silhouette- I keep asking you to go see if you can get a marriage license for your polygamous marriage.

You are the only one who thinks polygamous marriage is legal in California now- go test it out.

If you were a county clerk, how, precisely, would you arrange your words to explain to a polygamy group at your desk applying for a marriage license in California, that they could not legally marry?

I want you to form your answer as a monologue directed towards this hypothetical polygamy group with yourself as a hypothetical county clerk.

Go.

OK, (below vv)...so you refuse. Good thing you're not a lawyer arguing before the pending Hearing for LGBT cultees. Because the Justices are going to ask that very question, the conservative ones for sure. And Kennedy will be sitting there listening and thinking... "yes, If I were a country clerk, exactly what rationale would I cite to deny polygamists a marriage license who were right behind a gay couple in line at my desk?...that it isn't in line with tradition of just two people?"....

Oh yes, Kennedy will for a fact be thinking those very thoughts. I hope you can provide him in advance a lucid and substantive, logical retort that doesn't look like arbitrary discrimination based on "tradition"...or "what's best for kids". Gay marriages strip children of at least one blood parent 100% of the time...

 

[Syriusly]

And I'd like to see a county clerk clarify as to why polygamists would be denied a marriage license. There is no marriage law in CA, right?

Feel free to try it out Silhouette- I keep asking you to go see if you can get a marriage license for your polygamous marriage.

You are the only one who thinks polygamous marriage is legal in California now- go test it out.

If you were a county clerk, how, precisely, would you arrange your words to explain to a polygamy group at your desk applying for a marriage license in California, that they could not legally marry?

I want you to form your answer as a monologue directed towards this hypothetical polygamy group with yourself as a hypothetical county clerk.

Go.

Feel free to try it out Silhouette- I keep asking you to go see if you can get a marriage license for your polygamous marriage.

You are the only one who thinks polygamous marriage is legal in California now- go test it out.

 

[The Rabbi]

With any luck the court will decide they really shouldn't be setting policy like this and it rightly belongs to the states to decide via the democratic process.

That's an odd thing to say. Your position assumes that there is no constitutional question. Or, at the very least, hopes for judicial activism to kick in and for the court to punt their duties away.

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.
The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage. Based on Windsor the answer is obviously Yes.

....the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888),

Next.

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “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, 404 (1975).

That subject to part really irks you...

No it doesnt irk me at all. You're projecting.
There is no issue because the measure isnt directed at gays. If the gays succeed then anyone who wants to marry another of the same gender could. So it isnt an issue of discrimination at all.

To a point you are correct- all these cases do is apply all of the state's marriage laws equally to same gender couples as to opposite gender couples.

All of the marriage laws were of course passed in order to prevent gay marriage- but the laws themselves applied to anyone of the same gender marrying.

Thanks for admitting I am corect.

 

[Syriusly]

That's an odd thing to say. Your position assumes that there is no constitutional question. Or, at the very least, hopes for judicial activism to kick in and for the court to punt their duties away.

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.
The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage. Based on Windsor the answer is obviously Yes.

....the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888),

Next.

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “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, 404 (1975).

That subject to part really irks you...

No it doesnt irk me at all. You're projecting.
There is no issue because the measure isnt directed at gays. If the gays succeed then anyone who wants to marry another of the same gender could. So it isnt an issue of discrimination at all.

To a point you are correct- all these cases do is apply all of the state's marriage laws equally to same gender couples as to opposite gender couples.

All of the marriage laws were of course passed in order to prevent gay marriage- but the laws themselves applied to anyone of the same gender marrying.

Thanks for admitting I am corect.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

 

[Silhouette]

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Do you think it is fair, or would be fair and in the interest of blind equality for all, for Justice Sotomayor to uphold a stay on polygamy in any state? Why or why not?

 

[Listening]

Anyone who believes that KS must authorize polygamous marriage based on the recent ruling clearly does not understand ruling, and in Sil's case, will not be instructed by those who do.

The Rabbi clearly does not understand that Jacksonian democracy does not overrule Article III of the U. S. Constitution except by amendment.

What way would you deny polygamists in Kansas? Tradition?

Polygamous marriage is against the law in Kansas.

Same gender marriage isn't.

Simple as that.

Gay marriage was against the law in California....until the courts said it wasn't.

Why don't polygamists get the same consideration ?

Make your case then.

It's already been made.....Marriage Equality.

Everyone is so quick to call this a civil rights or human rights issue.

Why does it matter.

Why does anyone care if a daughter wants to marry her father...for that matter.

It is, after all, their business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Listening, if you really believe what you are saying, you still don't understand.

Both the new Senate Majority Leader and the House Speaker are quietly in favor of this issue going away, and if that means SCOTUS "yo, dude, yeah", they will go along with it, I believe, quiet happily.

 

[Syriusly]

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Do you think it is fair, or would be fair and in the interest of blind equality for all, for Justice Sotomayor to uphold a stay on polygamy in any state? Why or why not?

Sotomayor can't uphold a stay that doesn't exist.

Silhouette- if you want to test the laws against polygamy- go be the test case- go for it.

 

[Skylar]

It's a right of a culture to self-determine.

And unsurprisingly, that's the exact same argument that the folks opposing interracial marriage used.

When it violates constitutional guarantees.....no, its not the right of culture to self-determine.

But states WANT to incentivize marriages PRECISELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF FUTURE CHILDREN AND THEREFORE, ITS OWN CORE SOCIETAL STRUCTURE.

Any adoption or artificial insemination would violate the standards you cite. Almost all adoptions and artificial inseminations are done by straight couples. Yet no straight couple has been refused the right to marry because they fail to meet these standards. Why then would deny gays and lesbians the same right to marriage for failing to meet a standard that thousands of straights do every day?

NO ONE is denied the right to marry because they can't procreate or won't procreate. No one. The standard simply doesn't exsist in any law. Why then would we make it up.....and then even more laughably, exempt all straight couples and apply the standard only to gays?

It makes no sense. And is a clear 14th amendment violate, wiping its ass with the 'equal' in equal protection in the law'.

This LGBT cult wants to "breed in" their new mentality. States don't want that. This cult wants to take away a state's right to have or not have that be their collective future. MAKE NO MISTAKE, this is a CULT trying to subvert an existing culture by hijacking marriage under the guise of "civil rights".

Your hate and loathing of the LGBT community is seeping through again. And your real motivations are becoming apparent again.

The manifesto shrouded as "pure entertainment" is called The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is the gay's manifesto?

Laughing.....did the gays get together and vote on this? Or did you as their self appointed 'representative' simply declare it to be so?

A state has a right to resist this rape of its cultural mores. This is not a civil rights movement. This is something else altogether.

Again, same language used by the segregationist. Same language used by those who oppose interracial marriage. Perhaps you'd like to turn into the skid and write a personal manifesto titled 'My Struggle'.

And as a matter of fact, the States do not have the right to deny fundamental rights, nor abrogate constitutional guarantees. No matter how much you might want to.

 

[Skylar]

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Do you think it is fair, or would be fair and in the interest of blind equality for all, for Justice Sotomayor to uphold a stay on polygamy in any state? Why or why not?

Sotomayor can't uphold a stay that doesn't exist.

Silhouette- if you want to test the laws against polygamy- go be the test case- go for it.

Silho is still lamenting about how California's appeal on the constitutionality Prop 8 not being granted a stay is a violation of equal protection under the law.

With the obvious problem with such reasoning beginning with the fact that California has no such appeal. So clearly the concept of 'exist' and 'doesn't exist' doesn't limit his arguments.

 

[Silhouette]

No, Listening, if you really believe what you are saying, you still don't understand.

Both the new Senate Majority Leader and the House Speaker are quietly in favor of this issue going away, and if that means SCOTUS "yo, dude, yeah", they will go along with it, I believe, quiet happily.

They are in favor of it quietly going away because they want to lull the democratic party into thinking it won't be brought up in late Summer/early Fall 2016 in a HUGE WAY...it's a trap in other words..

A trap meant to rake in hispanic votes. That the dems are rolling out the red carpet for thinking they've got 2016 in the bag as a result.

I can tell you first hand from knowing personally quite a number of hispanics newly in-country that they don't give a rat's ass how they got here, who "favored them in". Once they're here they are like any other American, vacant of gratitude and looking forward where THEY want to go, not beholden to some gringo who stupidly let them in. The catholic church will ring the bell at the given moment. If you think for one moment that the Vatican has forgotten that the LGBT cult operatives (inseparable from the democratic platform) were the first group in over 700 years to unseat a sitting Pople, THINK AGAIN. Italian organized power has never been really big on "forgive and forget" on an orchestrated Hit like that one was...

Meanwhile, hispanics also have this to look forward to. They will bite the hand that fed them if that hand comes disfigured enough..

****************
States WANT to incentivize marriages PRECISELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF FUTURE CHILDREN AND THEREFORE, ITS OWN CORE SOCIETAL STRUCTURE.
This LGBT cult wants to "breed in" their new mentality. States don't want that. This cult wants to take away a state's right to have or not have that be their collective future. MAKE NO MISTAKE, this is a CULT trying to subvert an existing culture by hijacking marriage under the guise of "civil rights".

If you don't believe me, watch their manifesto made in the late 1970s, just after they took over the American Psychological Association and discarded facts and data for "audited group think" (CQR) Read more about that here: Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The manifesto shrouded as "pure entertainment" is called The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Pay attention to the story line. All the components of what is happening today are in there. This is the cult announcing to the world: we are here, we are queer and we've come to upset your apple cart. The manifesto is brazen, it's in-your-face and depicts nothing but spoiled sexual perverts brainwashing two "straights" to discard their entire moral code in favor of the new one. It also involves turning a boy & child of its creator into a sexual toy for this older gay pervert creator/father. Kind of like what the LGBT cult icon Harvey Milk did to the minor Jack McKinley and many others like him.

It opens with a straight couple engaged to be married that are caught in a rain storm and their car breaks down. They knock on the castle walls of the demented sex pervert "Dr. Frankenfurter". He then traps them in his world and takes turns raping both of them with his lesbian assistants in the background always. The entire goal of all the castle inhabitants is to destroy the straight notion of marriage and normalcy and turn it into an "anything goes" marriageless sex fest. He destroys their plans to marry normally.

By the end of the movie this couple has removed their conservative clothing and are wearing g-strings, gyrating robotically to the drooling delight of their new master; at his every beckon and call. The apex of the movie is the creation of an innocent boy "Rocky" to which his creator/father Dr. Frankenfurter drools also at the delight of exploiting for sex, while the lesbian duo giggle, looking on..

It's a must-see. It was extraordinary popular with the LGBT crowd. I doubt there is one person in their ranks that hasn't seen it multiple times. They used to really make a big deal of it, holding huge parties and gatherings with live events in theaters as the show was on the screen in the 1980s. They still do in some areas. It is quite properly the LGBT bugle-call. You cannot understand the LGBT movement until you listen to their bugle-call. Then what they're up to becomes quite plain and clear.

A state has a right to resist this rape of its cultural mores. This is not a civil rights movement. This is something else altogether.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And this culture is self determining that Sil and her small minority are wrong.

And Sil's comments have some weight, just on the side of error.

 

[Syriusly]

No, Listening, if you really believe what you are saying, you still don't understand.

Both the new Senate Majority Leader and the House Speaker are quietly in favor of this issue going away, and if that means SCOTUS "yo, dude, yeah", they will go along with it, I believe, quiet happily.

They are in favor of it quietly going away because they want to lull the democratic party into thinking it won't be brought up in late Summer/early Fall 2016 in a HUGE WAY...it's a trap in other words..

A trap meant to rake in hispanic votes. That the dems are rolling out the red carpet for thinking they've got 2016 in the bag as a result.

I can tell you first hand from knowing personally quite a number of hispanics newly in-country that they don't give a rat's ass how they got here, who "favored them in"..

More bat guano craziness from Silhouette.

I pretty much put these 'hispanics' in the same truthiness category as her mass murdering child hood friend.

 

[Syriusly]

[
The manifesto shrouded as "pure entertainment" is called The Rocky Horror Picture Show. r.

LOL....I bet Silhouette has seen Rocky Horror Picture show as many times as she has seen Gay Pride Parades....

 

[The Rabbi]

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Do you think it is fair, or would be fair and in the interest of blind equality for all, for Justice Sotomayor to uphold a stay on polygamy in any state? Why or why not?

Sotomayor can't uphold a stay that doesn't exist.

Silhouette- if you want to test the laws against polygamy- go be the test case- go for it.

Silho is still lamenting about how California's appeal on the constitutionality Prop 8 not being granted a stay is a violation of equal protection under the law.

With the obvious problem with such reasoning beginning with the fact that California has no such appeal. So clearly the concept of 'exist' and 'doesn't exist' doesn't limit his arguments.

Gross misunderstandig of equal protection noted.

 

[Skylar]

Gross misunderstandig of equal protection noted.

Rabbi.....you have no understanding of what equal protection is the law is, nor have even read the 14th amendment.

Run along, kiddo. The adults are talking.

 

[Skylar]

[
The manifesto shrouded as "pure entertainment" is called The Rocky Horror Picture Show. r.

LOL....I bet Silhouette has seen Rocky Horror Picture show as many times as she has seen Gay Pride Parades....

Again, this entire 'manifesto' and 'harm to children' schtick is playing out inside Silho's head. All with Silho citing himself as the sole source.

And he wonders why the courts aren't abiding his legal pronouncements.