Specific Legal Mandates Why Gay Marriage Is Illegal Everywhere in the United States

[Skylar]

Inspired here: The South's Last, Desperate Stand from post #255

The Argument Justifying Obergefell...in a nutshell (thank you for your concise distillation Dana):

The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying....So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about....The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.

Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.

If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.

The Opposing Argument: (All Parties Weren't Present At Obergefell)

Law doesn't live in a vacuum dear. And no judge should know that better than the top of the line where there is no further appeal. The marriage contract never was limited to the people wearing the rings. In fact, it was created for the benefit of children and by extension, the society that had to deal with their personalities after they grew up. Long ago society recognized the inferior situations children wound up in as a result of their procreation and adults in their midst. And marriage was created precisely because society recognized that the best adjusted adults came from balanced homes where boys had a father and girls had a mother.

So, there were more parties to the Obergefell proposed contract revision. Only they weren't invited to the legal vacuum. Instead, they were illegally omitted from the Proceedings, to their demise. And, no contract involving kids implicitly, ESPECIALLY THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT WHICH WAS CREATED TO PROTECT THEM EXACTLY FROM CONDITIONS CREATED IN OBERGEFELL..may exist that exists to the detriment of children and their vital needs.

Sorry: Besides, any such contract that strips children of a vital component of their lives is void upon its face; REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT CHILDREN ARE EVEN AN IMPLICIT PART OF THAT CONTRACT. So, describe to me which gay male marriage provides a girl with a mother? And describe to me which lesbian marriage provides a boy with a father? Neither? They are void. Everywhere. So says necessities re: infants and contract law...a most ancient and pernicious case-law supported bedrock of American law..

Again: THE REASON MARRIAGE WAS CREATED WAS NOT FOR ADULTS, IT WAS FOR CHILDREN AND SOCIETY. CHILDREN AND SOCIETY WERE OVERRULED AND A NEW CONTRACT CREATED WHICH ENTIRELY ERASED THE MEANING (TO CHILDREN AND SOCIETY'S DETRIMENT) OF THE WORD "MARRIAGE" AS THE WORLD HAD UNDERSTOOD IT FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS. Which is illegal. Obergefell was a mistrial. All parties to a case, particularly one where they share a contract, must have representation. This did not happen in Obergefell. It was a Kangaroo Court: a Shutout.

Anticipated Rebuttal: (Ginsburg, Kennedy, Loving v Virginia)

"Gay people were cohabitating with children anyway. We just wanted to make it legal so their children could enjoy recognition and benefits of marriage. Ginsburg cited how "separate but equal" with regards to civil unions was unfair. Kennedy echoed that for children's sake"

Opposition to Anticipated Rebuttal: (Fish aren't Land Mammals)

Remember WHY marriage was created. It's legal skeleton is "to provide children with both a mother and father"..to remedy all the inferior situations children found and find themselves in for their and society's ultimate reward. Requiring that gays share marriage is like requiring that fish be acknowledged as land mammals. Civil Unions were enough. More than enough. No matter what any court does, it will not remove the stigma and detriment to children trapped in gay unions that strips them of both a mother and father. That stigma and detriment remain to them whenever anyone sees them in public with "their two parents". The lack is undeniable and evident upon its face.

You do not erase the meaning of the existence of a thing which has firm and immutable outlines in order to include things outside of it which don't even remotely fit the interior of its space. And with marriage, this means IT CAN NEVER MEAN ANYTHING ELSE BUT MAN/WOMAN for the very reason it was created.

Loving v Virginia fit within those lines because the ancient skeleton of marriage "mother and father for children" was not in any way disrupted. So this is exactly how Obergefell cannot and could not use Loving to justify its existence. It defies a physical reality and the meaning of the creation of the word marriage...and the persistent intent behind that creation which has held fast for supremely excellent reasons for over a thousand years.

Divorce: (Children Still Need Mother & Father)

Divorce is granted, reluctantly, where the conditions for children has become intolerable. Again, the existence of divorce does not negate the reason for marriage. It is still about the children's best interest. And indeed, family courts spend a great deal of time worrying about the children of divorce and maintaining that vital mother/father contact after divorce. There being the reaffirmation of the marriage inception: to preserve a mother and father for children.. Later, after divorce, a state entices the estranged mother and father to "try again for the sake of the children" to find a new complimentary-gender spouse to provide that happy home for the kids.

For those who doubt that a lack of a mother or father is detrimental to children, please read the link in my signature of children raised in gay homes and their amicus briefs describing their suffering the lack of the complimentary gender. Also, read this link which is the largest survey of its kind of youth adjustment. This particular survey focused on the lack of the gender-specific role model...about a daily mother or father figure missing in youths' lives: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

There's no requirement that 'all children' have a 'representative' at a Supreme Court hearing lest the results are a 'mistrial'. You imagined it.

Ending your entire 'legal argument'. As the 'requirements' that you insist weren't met....don't exist.

 

[Skylar]

Perhaps Sil's 41st thread on this exact same topic will magically make gay marriage illegal again.

41 is correct. Posts like Sil's are what mental illness looks like.

 

[mdk]

Perhaps Sil's 41st thread on this exact same topic will magically make gay marriage illegal again.

41 is correct. Posts like Sil's are what mental illness looks like.

I am still rather proud of Metally Sil.

 

[Skylar]

Soooo should kids have a say in divorce ?

According to Sil the courts only reluctantly grant divorces to married couples withchildren. By reluctantly, she means ever damn time. Don't be fooled for the hottest of seconds as Sil only care about children if she can find a way to harm gay people. If she can't, she discards them like moldy leftovers.

And since children almost never have 'representation' in a divorce, per Sil's 'legal' logic, almost all divorces are void.

Sigh...its almost like she's making this horseshit up as she goes along and doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

 

[Skylar]

I still don't see what gay marriage has to do wh kids . Would u rather the kids have unmarried parents in their house ?

And that's the elephant in the living room; denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts those children significantly:

"And it 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.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

.....all while helping no child.

Sil's 'solution' quite literally hurts tens of thousands of children and helps none. The exact opposite of her claims.

But she's willing to hurt any number of children....as long as it lets her hurt gay folks.

 

[Silhouette]

And since children almost never have 'representation' in a divorce, per Sil's 'legal' logic, almost all divorces are void.

Sigh...its almost like she's making this horseshit up as she goes along and doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

Children always have representation in divorce proceedings in that the judge is mandated via non-discretionary statutes to maintain their interest in having both a mother and father after divorce. Note how Skylar carefully keeps saying "almost never". He knows about guardians ad litem. Those are the representatives of children in divorce. When the Court sees that both parents are so consumed with fighting with each other to be good representatives for the children's more broad interest of having good contact with both mother and father, the court appoints a representative for the children. In all scenarios, the court is keenly interested in the childrens' contact with both mother and father for life.

In Obergefell, children were flatly omitted. As if they shared no implicit part in the marriage contract up for revision. Children would've had vastly more representation in a mere divorce proceeding than they had at Obergefell; which was ZERO representation. The Justices responsible quoted no mandates in statutes or case law to support their illegal position that they could use kids as lab rats; even with plenty of evidence that boys need fathers and girls need mothers from thousands of sociological studies of which they had their pick to consult before writing up their armchair child-psychology Opinion which cut away clean a child's contact with their mother or father for life. Divorce would've treated children better than Obergefell did..

 

[rightwinger]

And since children almost never have 'representation' in a divorce, per Sil's 'legal' logic, almost all divorces are void.

Sigh...its almost like she's making this horseshit up as she goes along and doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

Children always have representation in divorce proceedings in that the judge is mandated via non-discretionary statutes to maintain their interest in having both a mother and father after divorce. Note how Skylar carefully keeps saying "almost never". He knows about guardians ad litem. Those are the representatives of children in divorce. When the Court sees that both parents are so consumed with fighting with each other to be good representatives for the children's more broad interest of having good contact with both mother and father, the court appoints a representative for the children. In all scenarios, the court is keenly interested in the childrens' contact with both mother and father for life.

In Obergefell, children were flatly omitted. As if they shared no implicit part in the marriage contract up for revision.

How does a child who has not even been conceived qualify for legal representation?

 

[mdk]

Just checked...gay marriage is legal everywhere in the United States. Better luck tomorrow, mentally Sil.

 

[amrchaos]

And since children almost never have 'representation' in a divorce, per Sil's 'legal' logic, almost all divorces are void.

Sigh...its almost like she's making this horseshit up as she goes along and doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

Children always have representation in divorce proceedings in that the judge is mandated via non-discretionary statutes to maintain their interest in having both a mother and father after divorce. Note how Skylar carefully keeps saying "almost never". He knows about guardians ad litem. Those are the representatives of children in divorce. When the Court sees that both parents are so consumed with fighting with each other to be good representatives for the children's more broad interest of having good contact with both mother and father, the court appoints a representative for the children. In all scenarios, the court is keenly interested in the childrens' contact with both mother and father for life.

In Obergefell, children were flatly omitted. As if they shared no implicit part in the marriage contract up for revision. Children would've had vastly more representation in a mere divorce proceeding than they had at Obergefell; which was ZERO representation. The Justices responsible quoted no mandates in statutes or case law to support their illegal position that they could use kids as lab rats; even with plenty of evidence that boys need fathers and girls need mothers from thousands of sociological studies of which they had their pick to consult before writing up their armchair child-psychology Opinion which cut away clean a child's contact with their mother or father for life. Divorce would've treated children better than Obergefell did..

Divorce does not remove a parent from the life of a child.

Only in cases where one of the parent is harmful to a child development is the total barring of a parent considered.

Silhouette, yuo are presenting nonsense.

My parents went through divorce when I was young, I was not part of any legal deliberations to my knowing.

Despite not living together, I still had contact with my father and much f his family. The only real difference was that he did not live with and there was a whole lot less arguing.

I don't think whomever wrote this never thought f the negatives of forcing people to stay married when the relationship has deteriorated. In some marriages, the relationship can be marred with hatred and violence between the spouses and the kids get used as weapons.

Silhuette, the author is ignoring alot just to present a narrow, self defined, reason for marriage that most people will argue is not necessary.

People get married for more than kids. In fact, there are couples that can't have children that still get married.

To put it bluntly: Having and raising Children are a side project that a married couple may/may not agree to. Children are nt the reason for getting married in itself.

 

[Silhouette]

Read people!

 

[Silhouette]

Divorce does not remove a parent from the life of a child...Only in cases where one of the parent is harmful to a child development is the total barring of a parent considered.

Silhouette, yuo are presenting nonsense.

You might want to re-read what I wrote pal. I said that divorce was better for children than Obergefell because at least non-discretionary statutes represent their interests to keeping their mother and father for life...unlike Obergefell (gay marriage) which permanently divorces them from one or the other for life.

Here vv is what was said...read it carefully!

And since children almost never have 'representation' in a divorce, per Sil's 'legal' logic, almost all divorces are void.

Sigh...its almost like she's making this horseshit up as she goes along and doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

Children always have representation in divorce proceedings in that the judge is mandated via non-discretionary statutes to maintain their interest in having both a mother and father after divorce. Note how Skylar carefully keeps saying "almost never". He knows about guardians ad litem. Those are the representatives of children in divorce. When the Court sees that both parents are so consumed with fighting with each other to be good representatives for the children's more broad interest of having good contact with both mother and father, the court appoints a representative for the children. In all scenarios, the court is keenly interested in the childrens' contact with both mother and father for life.

In Obergefell, children were flatly omitted. As if they shared no implicit part in the marriage contract up for revision. Children would've had vastly more representation in a mere divorce proceeding than they had at Obergefell; which was ZERO representation. The Justices responsible quoted no mandates in statutes or case law to support their illegal position that they could use kids as lab rats; even with plenty of evidence that boys need fathers and girls need mothers from thousands of sociological studies of which they had their pick to consult before writing up their armchair child-psychology Opinion which cut away clean a child's contact with their mother or father for life. Divorce would've treated children better than Obergefell did..

*****

As you said AMrChaos, in a sense, marriage never ends in divorce where kids are involved. Any two divorcees will tell you that they still have to interact with their ex constantly in raising the kids together. And...the court mandates that they do this very nicely, or else there are custody consequences...the court preserves their marriage in essence despite what they wanted in divorce. And the ONLY reason the court steps in and babysits this relationship between adults...mandating it be cordial...is for the children. The divorce never really is final until those kids are raised up of age.

And that also supports the immutable fact that marriage is all about the children, not the adults.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no requirement that 'all children' have a 'representative' at a Supreme Court hearing lest the results are a 'mistrial'. You imagined it.

Ending your entire 'legal argument'. As the 'requirements' that you insist weren't met....don't exist.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are fully aware that if a contract's specific terms are up for revision, all parties to that contract, expressed or implicit, are not to be without representation at that Hearing. Obergefell was in fact a mistrial.

 

[rightwinger]

There's no requirement that 'all children' have a 'representative' at a Supreme Court hearing lest the results are a 'mistrial'. You imagined it.

Ending your entire 'legal argument'. As the 'requirements' that you insist weren't met....don't exist.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are fully aware that if a contract's specific terms are up for revision, all parties to that contract, expressed or implicit, are not to be without representation at that Hearing. Obergefell was in fact a mistrial.

The two parties in the contract are signing in front of a witness

There are no requirements that children either born or unborn agree to a marriage contract

 

[Skylar]

There's no requirement that 'all children' have a 'representative' at a Supreme Court hearing lest the results are a 'mistrial'. You imagined it.

Ending your entire 'legal argument'. As the 'requirements' that you insist weren't met....don't exist.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are fully aware that if a contract's specific terms are up for revision, all parties to that contract, expressed or implicit, are not to be without representation at that Hearing. Obergefell was in fact a mistrial.

Yawning....

No court nor law recognizes marriage of parents as a "contract for minors" for their children. No law nor court recognizes that children are 'married to their parents.

You made all that shit up.

Nor is there any requirement that the USSC to have a 'representative' for 'children' at a hearing else its a 'mistrial'.

You made all that shit up, too.

See how this works? Your imagination isn't law. And no one is bound in the slightest to whatever pseudo-legal batshit you make up. Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

There's no requirement that 'all children' have a 'representative' at a Supreme Court hearing lest the results are a 'mistrial'. You imagined it.

Ending your entire 'legal argument'. As the 'requirements' that you insist weren't met....don't exist.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are fully aware that if a contract's specific terms are up for revision, all parties to that contract, expressed or implicit, are not to be without representation at that Hearing. Obergefell was in fact a mistrial.

The two parties in the contract are signing in front of a witness

There are no requirements that children either born or unborn agree to a marriage contract

Nope. Nor is any marriage predicated upon children or the ability to have them. No state requires that a couple have kids or be able to in order to marry. With with the Supreme Court reiterating this same principle in the Obergefell ruling:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

So Sil ignores the Supreme Court. And then insists that the Supreme Court is bound to whatever rambling pseudo-legal gibberish Sil makes up.

Nope.

 

[Skylar]

Children always have representation in divorce proceedings in that the judge is mandated via non-discretionary statutes to maintain their interest in having both a mother and father after divorce. Note how Skylar carefully keeps saying "almost never". He knows about guardians ad litem.

First off, you have no idea what you're talking about. As you already insisted that the children themselves must have representation and claimed that a judge can't do it.

Who were the attorneys in either Windsor or Obergefell for the interests of children? Because, as you know, a judge cannot both represent a party to a contract and preside over the decision on its new revision at the same time.

Post 71
Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

But now a judge IS representation for children? Laughing...its like watching a dog chase its own tail. Your new pseudo-legal gibberish is contradicting your old pseudo-legal gibberish. And through it all, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Second, guardians ad litem are exceedingly rare and almost never used. And even then they act as a fact finder for the judge. There's no requirement that guardians ad litem be assigned, and they almost never are. Yet inexplicably you insist that unless the Supreme Court did, there was a 'mistrial'.

Per your own logic, a judge cannot represent a child in a court proceeding. And almost no divorce proceedings have 'representatives' for 'children', almost all divorce proceedings are 'illegal' and 'mistrials'.

Back in reality, your 'requirement' doesn't exist. And you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Your imagination isn't law. You can't get around that.

The Justices responsible quoted no mandates in statutes or case law to support their illegal position that they could use kids as lab rats; even with plenty of evidence that boys need fathers and girls need mothers from thousands of sociological studies of which they had their pick to consult before writing up their armchair child-psychology Opinion which cut away clean a child's contact with their mother or father for life. Divorce would've treated children better than Obergefell did..

Sil, you've never read the Obergefell ruling. As they cite caselaw in support of children repeatedly. In fact, safeguards for children was the third of 4 basis of the ruling. Which you'd know if you'd actually read it.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.

But Obergefell omits children from the ruling? Laughing.....you've literally hallucinated your own version of the ruling. As the *actual* Obergefell ruling goes on and on about the children of same sex parents:

By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows 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.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).

Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27. As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

With the Windsor ruling cited by the court going into detail about the harms caused to children when their parents aren't allowed to be married:

And it 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....

...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

But the court 'omitted' children from the ruling? Again, you don't know you're talking about. You've never read the Obergefell ruling. The ruling explicitly contradicts you, finding the exact *opposite* of your claims; that denying same sex marriage hurt children. While recognizing same sex marriage helps children.

You disagree with the findings of the court. And then laughably insist that because you disagree with their findings, the ruling is 'illegal', a 'mistrial', 'void' and all other manner of psuedo-legal gibberish.

Nope. The ruling is authoritative. And your agreement with it is irrelevant.

Remember: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

And since children almost never have 'representation' in a divorce, per Sil's 'legal' logic, almost all divorces are void.

Sigh...its almost like she's making this horseshit up as she goes along and doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

Children always have representation in divorce proceedings in that the judge is mandated via non-discretionary statutes to maintain their interest in having both a mother and father after divorce.

Which of course is just another Silhouettism.

There is no such mandate.

The judge in a divorce doesn't consider the children as part of the divorce hearings- i.e. the judge will not refuse a divorce based upon the best interests of the children- the interests of the children are considered only as part of custody hearings.

And in such custody hearings, the judge can exclude one parent from custody.

There simply is nothing true that Sihouette posts.

 

[Syriusly]

There's no requirement that 'all children' have a 'representative' at a Supreme Court hearing lest the results are a 'mistrial'. You imagined it.

Ending your entire 'legal argument'. As the 'requirements' that you insist weren't met....don't exist.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are fully aware that if a contract's specific terms are up for revision, all parties to that contract, expressed or implicit, are not to be without representation at that Hearing. Obergefell was in fact a mistrial.

Obergefell was in fact a very important ruling by the Supreme Court that is the controlling precedent in the entire United States.

And everything you post about Obergefell is just fantasies of the voices in you head.

 

[Syriusly]

Can I just point out the vast ignorance and stupidity of the claim of the OP?

"why Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states"

Obergefell did not make marriage equality legal in all 50 states- Obergefell overturned State laws that were unconstitutional.

Many other states had already legalized marriage equality- by ballot or by legislative actions. Other states had their own laws overturned by their own State Supreme Courts.

Obergefell had no effect on any of those states.

But Silly doesn't even understand that.

 

[Silhouette]

1. The judge in a divorce doesn't consider the children as part of the divorce hearings- i.e. the judge will not refuse a divorce based upon the best interests of the children- the interests of the children are considered only as part of custody hearings....2. And in such custody hearings, the judge can exclude one parent from custody....3. There simply is nothing true that Sihouette posts.

1. So, custody & divorce/marriage are legally a universe apart according to you? Of course, naturally. Because it fits the "children aren't implicit parts of the marriage contract" (new spin, because they plead the opposite to get Windsor & Obergefell) neo-gay narrative.. Wow, you guys are legally very VERY ...shall we say..."flexible"..

2. At such "completely non-related to the divorce" custody hearings, a parent would ONLY be excluded if the court felt that parent was wholly unfit to be around children so much to the extent that even their own child must be protected from them. In all other cases, the court BENDS OVER BACKWARDS to see that that rogue mother or father at least gets supervised visitation...still maintaining the vital decree of marriage: "a mother and father"...

3. Whenever someone says "this person is ALWAYS lying"...you have to suspect the accuser. Because it is extremely unlikely that anyone is always lying. Even Syriusly occasionally tells the truth.