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

[Silhouette]

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.

Since when is case law "hair(sic)brained"?

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982) https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (page 30)
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

Or this one:

Incapacity Law | Contract and Capacity Law A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Removing all hope of a child gaining a mother or father for the duration of that child's entire formative years is harsh an onerous. It would be more advantageous to the child to be with a single normal parent because even in that inferior situation to marriage, the child still has hope that one day his or her parent will marry and provide a father or mother to compliment the lack. Gay marriage is a life sentence for a child...a mental prison with no escape for life.

 

[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.

Since when is case law "hair(sic)brained"?

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982) https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (page 30)
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

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

The case law isn't but your interpretations of the law certainly are harebrained.

 

[Silhouette]

The case law isn't but your interpretations of the law certainly are harebrained.

I didn't write the paragraphs accompanying the case law above. Someone else did. Presumably a lawyer. In the case of NY vs Ferber, the lines were taken directly from the USSC Opinion of 1982..

 

[mdk]

Who cares if the child remains in a single parent household forever? All that matters is the hope...

 

[mdk]

The case law isn't but your interpretations of the law certainly are harebrained.

I didn't write the paragraphs accompanying the case law above. Someone else did. Presumably a lawyer. In the case of NY vs Ferber, the lines were taken directly from the USSC Opinion of 1982..

Of course you didn't write them. They are far too lucid.

I wonder why Feber was never cited in any of the opinions in June's ruling? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Feber isn't relevant and you have no idea what you're talking about. lol

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder why Feber was never cited in any of the opinions in June's ruling? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Feber isn't relevant and you have no idea what you're talking about. lol

Because nobody thought of advancing the argument that disenfranchising a child from either a mother or father for life as a new term of the marriage contract was harsh and onerous to children. The Infant Doctrine is arcane and not a lot of lawyers are familiar with it. I'm getting acquainted though. Better late than never..

 

[Skylar]

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..

Ferber v. New York isn't about marriage. Its about kiddy porn. It never so much as mentions marriage. Nor affirms any claim you've made about marriage.

While the Supreme Court has contradicted your claims about marriage 4 separate times.

There's a reason why you're always, always wrong with your legal predictions: you keep ignoring the law and the courts, inserting what you imagine in its place.

 

[mdk]

I wonder why Feber was never cited in any of the opinions in June's ruling? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Feber isn't relevant and you have no idea what you're talking about. lol

Because nobody thought of advancing the argument that disenfranchising a child from either a mother or father for life as a new term of the marriage contract was harsh and onerous to children. The Infant Doctrine is arcane and not a lot of lawyers are familiar with it. I'm getting acquainted though. Better late than never..

The countless lawyers that argued against gay marriage never thought of citing Feber but you did. Perhaps they didn't cite b/c it has nothing to do with marriage. I am sure that couldn't be the reason. I bet there is some grand conspiracy. Did gays block the case from the internet again like they did with The Prince's Trust before June's ruling? lol

 

[mdk]

How much do you want to bet Feber gets added to ever growing list of legal batshit in Sil's sig line? lol

 

[Silhouette]

The countless lawyers that argued against gay marriage never thought of citing Feber but you did. Perhaps they didn't cite b/c it has nothing to do with marriage. I am sure that couldn't be the reason. I bet there is some grand conspiracy. Did gays block the case from the internet again like they did with The Prince's Trust before June's ruling? lol

I just told you this. Are you incapable of reading english?

Because nobody thought of advancing the argument that disenfranchising a child from either a mother or father for life as a new term of the marriage contract was harsh and onerous to children. The Infant Doctrine is arcane and not a lot of lawyers are familiar with it. I'm getting acquainted though. Better late than never..

 

[Skylar]

I wonder why Feber was never cited in any of the opinions in June's ruling? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Feber isn't relevant and you have no idea what you're talking about. lol

Because nobody thought of advancing the argument that disenfranchising a child from either a mother or father for life as a new term of the marriage contract was harsh and onerous to children.

Or.....the court recognized that denying same sex marriage hurts children while affirming marriage of same sex parents helps 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.

And of course, the Supreme Court already affirmed that the right to married is predicated on neither children nor 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.

Remember...just because you ignore the Supreme Court destroying your argument 4 separate times doesn't mean that we're obligated to similarly ignore it. Or that any court will.

This is why you're *always* wrong in your predictions of legal outcomes: you keep ignoring the law and the courts in favor of whatever you imagine.

 

[SixFoot]

All children deserve a mother and a father.

 

[Silhouette]

How much do want to bet Feber gets added to ever growing batshit in Sil's sig line? lol

It sounds like this case law is bothering you a little. Instead of spamming it into oblivion, you should talk to the points the Court made and refrain from belittling me. Your fear is showing..

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982) https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (page 30)
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

Or this one:

Incapacity Law | Contract and Capacity Law A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Removing all hope of a child gaining a mother or father for the duration of that child's entire formative years is harsh an onerous. It would be more advantageous to the child to be with a single normal parent because even in that inferior situation to marriage, the child still has hope that one day his or her parent will marry and provide a father or mother to compliment the lack. Gay marriage is a life sentence for a child...a mental prison with no escape for life.

 

[Skylar]

The countless lawyers that argued against gay marriage never thought of citing Feber but you did. Perhaps they didn't cite b/c it has nothing to do with marriage. I am sure that couldn't be the reason. I bet there is some grand conspiracy. Did gays block the case from the internet again like they did with The Prince's Trust before June's ruling? lol

I just told you this. Are you incapable of reading english?

Because nobody thought of advancing the argument that disenfranchising a child from either a mother or father for life as a new term of the marriage contract was harsh and onerous to children. The Infant Doctrine is arcane and not a lot of lawyers are familiar with it. I'm getting acquainted though. Better late than never..

The 'Infant Doctrine' doesn't include any mention of marriage, that children are married to their parents, that the marriage of parents is a 'minor contract' for children, or that same sex marriage harms children.

You made all that up. And your imagination is, of course, pseudo-legal nonsense signifying nothing.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court did find that the right to marry isn't based on children or the ability to have them, applies even to those who have no children nor can have them, that denying same sex marriage hurts children by the hundreds of thousands, and that same sex marriage benefits children by the hundreds of thousands.

Destroying your argument yet again.

The Supreme Court vs. any pseudo-legal nonsense you wish to imagine has the same winner every time: Not you.

 

[Skylar]

Removing all hope of a child gaining a mother or father for the duration of that child's entire formative years is harsh an onerous.

Says you, citing you. Which means nothing. Nor does any case you've cited even mention marriage. Nor does it back any of the pseudo-legal gibberish you've imagined about marriage.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has explicitly contradicted you, finding that denying same sex marriage is harmful to children. That the right to marry has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. And that same sex marriage benefits 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 reiterating 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.

And of course, the Supreme Court already affirmed that the right to married is predicated on neither children nor 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 ignore it all. And the laughably pretend that if you ignore it, every court is obligated to ignore it as well. Including, even more bizarrely, the very court that wrote those rulings.

Um, no. Your imagination obligates no one to do anything.

 

[mdk]

How much do want to bet Feber gets added to ever growing batshit in Sil's sig line? lol

It sounds like this case law is bothering you a little. Instead of spamming it into oblivion, you should talk to the points the Court made and refrain from belittling me. Your fear is showing..

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982) https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (page 30)
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

Or this one:

Incapacity Law | Contract and Capacity Law A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Removing all hope of a child gaining a mother or father for the duration of that child's entire formative years is harsh an onerous. It would be more advantageous to the child to be with a single normal parent because even in that inferior situation to marriage, the child still has hope that one day his or her parent will marry and provide a father or mother to compliment the lack. Gay marriage is a life sentence for a child...a mental prison with no escape for life.

It's okay if children are raised in a single headed household b/c there is hope and that hope apparently erases all your concerns. Now if they are being raised by a gay couple suddenly you take issue and a apply standard that doesn't exist for anyone but gay people. That is not only illogical, it is also illegal.

It's clear that your end game is about removing biological and adoptive children from the homes of gay people. Unless you get your hands on Monkey's Paw, I would count on this coming to pass.

 

[Silhouette]

"Gay people" (people doing odd sex) may be saints, but they still deprive children involved in the marriage contract of either a father or mother for life. And, that's a problem..

 

[Skylar]

"Gay people" (people doing odd sex) may be saints, but they still deprive children involved in the marriage contract of either a father or mother for life. And, that's a problem..

That's what you say. The courts have found that denying same sex marriage hurts children of same sex parents. And that allowing same sex marriage helps these same children. All while finding that no one's right to marry is predicated upon children or the ability to have them.

There's a reason why you've ignored each and every of the Supreme Court's contradictions of your assertion about marriage. And refuse to discuss any of them.

But neither we nor the courts are similarly obligated to ignore the Supreme Court on the matter just because its inconvenient to your pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Syriusly]

Removing all hope of a child gaining a mother or father for the duration of that child's entire formative years is harsh an onerous..

According to you.

the Infant Doctrine is arcane and not a lot of lawyers are familiar with it.

Meaning you are making it up as you go

 

[Syriusly]

"Gay people" (people doing odd sex) may be saints, but they still deprive children involved in the marriage contract of either a father or mother for life. And, that's a problem..

"gay people"- may or may not have sex- odd or otherwise- just as 'straight people' may or may not have sex- odd or otherwise- but as you know- gay and straight is defined not by having sex- but by sexual attraction.

Marriage doesn't deny children anything- there is no requirement for children in a marriage nor does marriage with children prevent couples from divorcing.

Nor does marriage deny children of gay parents anything- denying marriage to the gay parents of children denies them married parents.

The only effect of gay marriage is if there are children, then their parents are married. Banning 'gay marriage' only ensures that they have no married parents.

And of course that is what you want- you want those children to be harmed by denying them married parents.