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

[Syriusly]

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"...

Yes- custody and divorce/marriage are legally separate issues. Because that is the fact- rather than what the voices in your head tell you.

Certainly children benefit from the protections of marriage, but marriage neither mandates or expects children.

The only thing denying marriage equality ensures is that the children of gay couples don't have married parents, which as per Justice Kennedy causes them harm- which you approve of.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

3. Whenever someone says "this person is ALWAYS lying".

As I said- there is simply nothing that true about what you post.

 

[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"..

Yes- custody and divorce/marriage are legally separate issues....

Certainly children benefit from the protections of marriage, but marriage neither mandates or expects children.

.

Yes, and one of those benefits is having the hope of both a mother and father. "Gay marriage" removes that hope for life, imprisoning a child without that benefit. So that contract is void. So says infant-necessities and contract law. Ancient and rock solid. Unless you're trying to argue that children never implicitly shared in the terms of the marriage contract or that it wasn't created specifically with them enjoying the terms I'm discussing. And in that case, good luck. You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

 

[Syriusly]

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"..

Yes- custody and divorce/marriage are legally separate issues....

Certainly children benefit from the protections of marriage, but marriage neither mandates or expects children.

.

Yes, and one of those benefits is having the hope of both a mother and father. "Gay marriage" removes that hope for life, imprisoning a child without that benefit...

Gay marriage does no such thing.

There is no expectation that marriage will result in children.

Nor will 'gay marriage' change the situation of ANY children regarding the gender of who their parents are- the only effect 'gay marriage' has on children is that the children of gay parents go from having unmarried parents to married parents.

Preventing a harm that Justice Kennedy himself noted.

 

[Syriusly]

You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

There is nothing to overcome.

Gay couples are legally marrying all over America, and those with children, are now married parents with children.

Meanwhile, millions of children are being raised by single parents.....

 

[mdk]

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"..

Yes- custody and divorce/marriage are legally separate issues....

Certainly children benefit from the protections of marriage, but marriage neither mandates or expects children.

.

Yes, and one of those benefits is having the hope of both a mother and father. "Gay marriage" removes that hope for life, imprisoning a child without that benefit. So that contract is void. So says infant-necessities and contract law. Ancient and rock solid. Unless you're trying to argue that children never implicitly shared in the terms of the marriage contract or that it wasn't created specifically with them enjoying the terms I'm discussing. And in that case, good luck. You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

Now if only you could get the courts to stop citing actual law/precedent and to start citing your imagination instead. If only...

 

[mdk]

You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

There is nothing to overcome.

Gay couples are legally marrying all over America, and those with children, are now married parents with children.

Meanwhile, millions of children are being raised by single parents.....

But...but...those kids have the hope of having a mom and dad and that is all that matters to Sil, the hope. It doesn't matter if the parent never marries again so long as their is hope that they do.

 

[Silhouette]

You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

There is nothing to overcome...Gay couples are legally marrying all over America, and those with children, are now married parents with children....Meanwhile, millions of children are being raised by single parents.....

Yes and in the case of being raised by BOTH single parents and "gay couples", children are being stripped of a vital necessity....a mother AND father...Remember, the marriage contract was invented to remedy that ill...not reinforce it...

As to "gay rights", there is another issue. As found in New York v Ferber (1982), the US Supreme Court Found that even sensitive civil rights issues, should they harm a child physically or psychologically (one could also insert "socially"), are not dominant and must be placed subdominant to children's rights to have their well being preserved:

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

Even while "gay marriage" (the marriage of just some deviant sex behaviors but not others) is not mentioned at all in the Constitution...the Church of LGBT claims it is while also claiming other sexual behaviors don't have rights to marry...all while citing the 14th Amendment which is all-inclusive (now, apparently..Obergefell 2015). This "constitutional right" cannot infringe upon the right of children to be free from physical, psychological (or sociological) harm.

Gay marriage is WORSE than single parenthood because at least with single hetero parents, the children involved have at least the promise and the enticement offered by states to their single parent to eventually find the complimentary gender to the children's benefit in marriage. Gay marriage strips children of that implicit-right to the marriage contract...AS A NEW INSTITUTION, FOR LIFE...using kids (the gays doing this had moms and dads while they argue kids today don't qualify as same) as guinea pigs in an experiment we all know the end results of...and have for thousands of years...

 

[Syriusly]

You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

There is nothing to overcome...Gay couples are legally marrying all over America, and those with children, are now married parents with children....Meanwhile, millions of children are being raised by single parents.....

Yes and in the case of being raised by BOTH single parents and "gay couples", children are being stripped of a vital necessity....a mother AND father...Remember, the marriage contract was invented to remedy that ill...not reinforce it......

Remember- that is just what the voices in your head are telling you.

Call us back the day divorce is made illegal- because divorce strips children of a vital necessity.

Remember 'No-Fault' divorce is in effect in all 50 states- courts do not prevent divorces because couples have children.
There is no requirement in ANY state that divorce is only allowable if it is in the best interest of a child.

And of course- as always- preventing 'gay marriage' doesn't give any child any other parents- it only ensures that they will be hurt by not having married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

There is nothing to overcome.

Gay couples are legally marrying all over America, and those with children, are now married parents with children.

Meanwhile, millions of children are being raised by single parents.....

But...but...those kids have the hope of having a mom and dad and that is all that matters to Sil, the hope. It doesn't matter if the parent never marries again so long as their is hope that they do.

LOL- you called it- 'those kids have the hope'!.......

 

[mdk]

New York v. Ferber found that it wasn't a violation of the First Amendment to ban the selling and disitrubtion of sexual performances by minors even if it did pass the Miller obscenity test set in Miller v California.

Nowhere in Obergefell v. Hodges is Ferber or Miller cited in the opinions of the majority or the minority. Why? The answer is quite plain. You don't what the hell you are talking about and it is clear you're merely throwing legal shit against the wall in hopes it would stick. It doesn't.

 

[Syriusly]

New York v. Ferber found that it wasn't a violation of the First Amendment to ban the selling and disitrubtion of sexual performances by minors even if it did pass the Miller obscenity test set in Miller v California.

Nowhere in Obergefell v. Hodges is Ferber or Miller cited in the opinions of the majority or the minority. Why? The answer is quite plain. You don't what the hell you are talking about and it is clear you're merely throwing legal shit against the wall in hopes it would stick. It doesn't.

Remember- this is the same poster who believes both that

• Obergefell made polygamy legal in the United States and that
• Obergefell is invalid.

And that gays blackmailed the Pope....and that church shootings are caused by Gays.....and wolves raise children.....

 

[mdk]

New York v. Ferber found that it wasn't a violation of the First Amendment to ban the selling and disitrubtion of sexual performances by minors even if it did pass the Miller obscenity test set in Miller v California.

Nowhere in Obergefell v. Hodges is Ferber or Miller cited in the opinions of the majority or the minority. Why? The answer is quite plain. You don't what the hell you are talking about and it is clear you're merely throwing legal shit against the wall in hopes it would stick. It doesn't.

Remember- this is the same poster who believes both that

• Obergefell made polygamy legal in the United States and that
• Obergefell is invalid.

And that gays blackmailed the Pope....and that church shootings are caused by Gays.....and wolves raise children.....

Like a toddler that just learned a new word, bet the farm that misrepresenting the holding in New York v. Ferber is going to be Sil's new rallying cry. lol

 

[Skylar]

You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

There is nothing to overcome...Gay couples are legally marrying all over America, and those with children, are now married parents with children....Meanwhile, millions of children are being raised by single parents.....

Yes and in the case of being raised by BOTH single parents and "gay couples", children are being stripped of a vital necessity....a mother AND father...Remember, the marriage contract was invented to remedy that ill...not reinforce it...

Says you, citing yourself as the law. Meanwhile, the USSC made it ridiculously clear that no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them:

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.

You can ignore the Supreme Court. But you can't make us or any court ignore them. This is why you keep failing.

As to "gay rights", there is another issue. As found in New York v Ferber (1982), the US Supreme Court Found that even sensitive civil rights issues, should they harm a child physically or psychologically (one could also insert "socially"), are not dominant and must be placed subdominant to children's rights to have their well being preserved:

New York v. Ferber was a supreme court ruling outlawing kiddy porn. It has nothing to do with marriage. The word 'marriage' doesn't even appear in the ruling. Killing your entire argument.

Nor does it find that same sex marriage harms children.Nor does it find that marriage of parents is a minor contract for their children. Nor does it find that children are married to their parents.

You hallucinated all that. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has found that denying same sex marriage hurts children:

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 same sex 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.

With the Supreme Court reiterrating the harm denying same sex marriage causes children in the Obergefell ruling.

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. 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.

And finally, the Supreme Court found that same sex marriage benefits children:

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.” Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests.

And affirm again that same sex marriage benefits children, recognizing gays and lesbians as creating loving, supportive families:

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. 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. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

The Supreme Court contradicts you 4 times. And never backs any of your hapless pseudo-legal gibberish about marriage. So you ignore the Supreme Court.

But why would a rational person ignore the Supreme Court destroying your entire argument 4 times over? Especially in a discussion of law.

Remember, you're nobody. And have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

You have a K2-sized mountain of evidence you're going to have to overcome...

There is nothing to overcome...Gay couples are legally marrying all over America, and those with children, are now married parents with children....Meanwhile, millions of children are being raised by single parents.....

Yes and in the case of being raised by BOTH single parents and "gay couples", children are being stripped of a vital necessity....a mother AND father...Remember, the marriage contract was invented to remedy that ill...not reinforce it...

Says you, citing yourself as the law. Meanwhile, the USSC made it ridiculously clear that no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them:

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.

You can ignore the Supreme Court. But you can't make us or any court ignore them. This is why you keep failing.

As to "gay rights", there is another issue. As found in New York v Ferber (1982), the US Supreme Court Found that even sensitive civil rights issues, should they harm a child physically or psychologically (one could also insert "socially"), are not dominant and must be placed subdominant to children's rights to have their well being preserved:

New York v. Ferber was a supreme court ruling outlawing kiddy porn. It has nothing to do with marriage. The word 'marriage' doesn't even appear in the ruling. Killing your entire argument.

Nor does it find that same sex marriage harms children.Nor does it find that marriage of parents is a minor contract for their children. Nor does it find that children are married to their parents.

You hallucinated all that. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has found that denying same sex marriage hurts children:

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 same sex 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.

With the Supreme Court reiterrating the harm denying same sex marriage causes children in the Obergefell ruling.

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.

And finally, the Supreme Court found that same sex marriage benefits children:

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.” Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests.

And affirm again that same sex marriage benefits children, recognizing gays and lesbians as creating loving, supportive families:

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. 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. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

The Supreme Court contradicts you 4 times. And never backs any of the hapless pseudo-legal gibberish about marriage. So you ignore the Supreme Court.

But why would a rational person ignore the Supreme Court destroying your entire argument? Especially in a discussion of law.

Remember, you're nobody. And have no idea what you're talking about.

Everything Sklyar said.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SCOTUS has opined Sil, and so it will be until it changes its mind, or the Constitution is amended.

Neither are even on the horizon.

And that 'amendment' would need to repeal the 14th Amendment, which isn't going to happen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interesting, someone voted to strip children of a vital necessity in order to prop up "gay marraige". Next stop, voting to strip children of vital necessities in order to have "gay marrieds" adopt children.. Which sort of violates the first or second question on any generic adoption application: "Would you always put the children's needs in front of your own wants..." This voter on this poll would have to honestly answer "No, no I wouldn't"

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage (contract) law in each of the states, contract law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.

Obergefell did not 'change' any state's marriage law, it did not 'redefine' marriage, as marriage is between two consenting adults – same- or opposite-sex, and it is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation, seeking to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are, such as gay Americans.

The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment safeguard the rights of citizens from the fear, ignorance, hate, stupidity, and bigotry exhibited by this thread's premise.

 

[Silhouette]

Like a toddler that just learned a new word, bet the farm that misrepresenting the holding in New York v. Ferber is going to be Sil's new rallying cry. lol

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

Are you baiting me to start a new thread topic? Verbally berate me one more time and "New York v Ferber" gets its own thread..

 

[mdk]

Like a toddler that just learned a new word, bet the farm that misrepresenting the holding in New York v. Ferber is going to be Sil's new rallying cry. lol

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

Are you baiting me to start a new thread topic? Verbally berate me one more time and "New York v Ferber" gets its own thread..

Yes, you are misrepresenting the finding and lamely trying to tie it to gay marriage. Tell me, why wasn't this precedent cited in any of the opinions of the Justices? Neither the majority nor the dissident cite Feber. Perhaps they got sidetracked by reading The Prince's Trust you sent them? lol

Does this now mean you believe gay marriage to be a constitutionally protected right?

 

[mdk]

Are you baiting me to start a new thread topic? Verbally berate me one more time and "New York v Ferber" gets its own thread..

As if you didn't already have one in the works or needed to be baited. lol. Every single one of your harebrained legal schemes to deny gay marriages gets it's own thread. Why should this one be any different? I can't wait to read your idiotic poll choices.