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

[Syriusly]

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?.

Oh the irony

 

[Syriusly]

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

I look forward to Silhouette's alternate history fan fiction on Feber..

 

[Silhouette]

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

I look forward to Silhouette's alternate history fan fiction on Feber..

New York vs Ferber (google it and read it for yourself) was a case where a man wanted to sell or rent child porn videos and the state clamped down on him. He cried "my civil rights to free speech!".. and there was much deliberation over that back and forth. First he won, then he didn't, appeals and finally USSC Hearing. The Highest Court in our land affirmed that even when adults have a clear and concise constitutional civil right; if it is exercised to the physical or psychological harm to children, that right is not dominant to children's protection. Single parenthood is better than gay marriage because gay marriage completely removes the hope of a mother or father to children involved...FOR LIFE... Single parents meanwhile may remarry. Removing hope from a child of an onerous situation never ending is psychological cruelty.

That is what happened. That is the Law as we currently sit. Gay marriage in Obergefell reversed NY v Ferber when the Court said "It's OK for adults to institutionally strip children of either a mother or father for life"...ignoring the mastadon in the living room which is that marriage was created over a thousand years ago precisely to remedy any child's life that found them lacking the need of both a mother and father....

So, even if gays were saintly, pure, chaste and wonderful (though we've seen the opposite going on in their parades across the nation), their contemporary wishes of wanting to be part of the marriage contract together cannot subvert children's need of marriage to remedy "being fatherless or motherless". So, gay marriage is illegal according to NY vs Ferber. If a child can be predicted to come to harm from an adult exercise of a "civil right" (newly created and added to the constitution for just some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others, outside the Legislature's powers), that civil right can not be exercised in that particular instance.

Sorry. And if you disagree, look up NY v Ferber yourselves..but here's a snippet:

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...

And don't forget Fawcett v. Smethurst which says an onerous contract which hurts or tortures children in evident or subtle ways cannot be legal:

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).

So where the LGBT cult cries "gay marriage remedies single parenthood!" ; we find that it does not. And in fact it erases any hope of a child having both a mother and father: THE reason marriage was created a thousand years ago.

"Onerous" defined: (dictionary dot com)

burdensome, oppressive, or troublesome; causing hardship:
onerous duties.

Children come in both genders needing specific role models of same to properly adjust to the adult world in which they find...both genders operating the joint...

Troublesome, causing hardship: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[SwimExpert]

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

 

[mdk]

Compromise: Gay marriage is illegal in Imaginationland and in The United States it remains legal. Deal?

 

[Silhouette]

One way for states to remedy the "gay marriage" tyrannical decree would be to pass laws that say "OK, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes marriages that provide both a mother and father to children we know will statistically be involved, nevermind the rare exceptions. So, enjoy your rights of survivorship, your rights of hospital visitations and so on, but do not expect tax breaks or the "legal right" to adopt in our state. You don't qualify."

I'd like to see some of the more ethical states pass such laws on behalf of children and then of course the gays will sue them. Then the question of Ferber and Fawcett can come up in argument for the states. States will argue that it makes absolutely no sense at all for them to incentivize with tax breaks, the union of two people whose very union creates harm to the children involved "as married". Churning out hamstrung young adults who missed half of their upbringing as a "newly forced institution" is intolerable to grace with incentives or tax breaks. A state gets nothing out of that deal but woe, indigence, drug addition and malformed adults...higher prison rolls etc. States must not be forced to tolerate this.

Read the survey top to bottom and discover that lacking an intimate-devoted and regular role model of the same gender in a daily way leaves children crippled mentally as young adults: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Give it up, little homosexual paranoid. You lost, and society has already moved on.

Wrong! Society really hasn't spoken on this issue since it was the supreme court that supposedly made this legal. I don't remember a national vote on this issue and in the case society changes its mind there is no way the supreme court will reverse its decisions based on what society thinks. It is almost like a dictatorship.

The next thing that is wrong with what you said is that supreme court really doesn't have the last say on the constitution. There is a little known clause that basically gives congress the power to revoke the supreme courts jurisdiction over any case it wants. This means that Roe V Wade isn't actually written in stone since the legislative branch can remove their jurisdiction over such cases. A similar thing can be done with abnormal marriages such as the above mentioned case.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why can't we tax gay marriage in the same way we tax people who don't buy health insurance. It may seem like penalizing gay marriage but the supreme court has already said that such taxes are not penalties. We can actually use the same precedent established in Obamacare to justify this. Imagine if this kind of case made its way to the supreme court. They either hold it up and say we can tax the shit out of gay couples or strike it down and undo their earlier precedent validating the constitutionality of Obamacare. Wouldn't that be diabolical?

 

[mdk]

One way for states to remedy the "gay marriage" tyrannical decree would be to pass laws that say "OK, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes marriages that provide both a mother and father to children we know will statistically be involved, nevermind the rare exceptions. So, enjoy your rights of survivorship, your rights of hospital visitations and so on, but do not expect tax breaks or the "legal right" to adopt in our state. You don't qualify."

I'd like to see some of the more ethical states pass such laws on behalf of children and then of course the gays will sue them. Then the question of Ferber and Fawcett can come up in argument for the states. States will argue that it makes absolutely no sense at all for them to incentivize with tax breaks, the union of two people whose very union creates harm to the children involved "as married". Churning out hamstrung young adults who missed half of their upbringing as a "newly forced institution" is intolerable to grace with incentives or tax breaks. A state gets nothing out of that deal but woe, indigence, drug addition and malformed adults...higher prison rolls etc. States must not be forced to tolerate this.

Read the survey top to bottom and discover that lacking an intimate-devoted and regular role model of the same gender in a daily way leaves children crippled mentally as young adults: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

One state. One. That is how many agree with your nonsense and smears about gay families.

 

[mdk]

Why can't we tax gay marriage in the same way we tax people who don't buy health insurance. It may seem like penalizing gay marriage but the supreme court has already said that such taxes are not penalties. We can actually use the same precedent established in Obamacare to justify this. Imagine if this kind of case made its way to the supreme court. They either hold it up and say we can tax the shit out of gay couples or strike it down and undo their earlier precedent validating the constitutionality of Obamacare. Wouldn't that be diabolical?

I love this idea. We'll call it a Pole Tax.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Liberals basically believe if those in power tell them it is OK then it is OK. I always kind of thought that we were all equals so if someone tells me something is correct then I would have to ask for some kind of justification for it. I can think of very few situations where I would blindly believe what someone else is telling me. I don't know why it would change if that person was from the government. Perhaps "liberals" really are not as liberal as they say they are because how can anyone claim to be free if they believe that those above them in life must be believed blindly? Why not just call them your master and say things like "Oh yes'm ma'am" to whatever the government tells them.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why can't we tax gay marriage in the same way we tax people who don't buy health insurance. It may seem like penalizing gay marriage but the supreme court has already said that such taxes are not penalties. We can actually use the same precedent established in Obamacare to justify this. Imagine if this kind of case made its way to the supreme court. They either hold it up and say we can tax the shit out of gay couples or strike it down and undo their earlier precedent validating the constitutionality of Obamacare. Wouldn't that be diabolical?

I love this idea. We'll call it a Pole Tax.

I love your idea. We will call it sarcasm. LOL

 

[mdk]

Liberals basically believe if those in power tell them it is OK then it is OK. I always kind of thought that we were all equals so if someone tells me something is correct then I would have to ask for some kind of justification for it. I can think of very few situations where I would blindly believe what someone else is telling me. I don't know why it would change if that person was from the government. Perhaps "liberals" really are not as liberal as they say they are because how can anyone claim to be free if they believe that those above them in life must be believed blindly? Why not just call them your master and say things like "Oh yes'm ma'am" to whatever the government tells them.

Your argument is silly on it's face. If liberals did what the government told them to do, gay marriage and gay sex would still be illegal. If you are going to blindly assign positions to people you should at least think it through first.

 

[Syriusly]

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

I look forward to Silhouette's alternate history fan fiction on Feber..

New York vs Ferber (google it and read it for yourself) was a case where a man wanted to sell or rent child porn videos and the state clamped down on him.

Why do you think anyone has to follow the ruling in New York versus Ferber?

 

[Syriusly]

One way for states to remedy the "gay marriage" tyrannical decree would be to pass laws that say "OK, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes marriages that provide both a mother and father to children we know will statistically be involved, nevermind the rare exceptions. So, enjoy your rights of survivorship, your rights of hospital visitations and so on, but do not expect tax breaks or the "legal right" to adopt in our state. You don't qualify."Y

Well some states may try that.

Except for two things.

• What tax breaks?
• And of course 'nevermind the rare exceptions' is one of the reasons why the State law's against gay marriage were a violation of the 14th Amendment. State law doesn't care whether married couples have kids. State law doesn't care whether married couples can have children. Your 'solution' is just another way of saying "Silhouette thinks gays are bad and should be discriminated against'.

Which is what all of your posts are.

 

[Syriusly]

Give it up, little homosexual paranoid. You lost, and society has already moved on.

Wrong! Society really hasn't spoken on this issue since it was the supreme court that supposedly made this legal. I don't remember a national vote on this issue and in the case society changes its mind there is no way the supreme court will reverse its decisions based on what society thinks. It is almost like a dictatorship.

The next thing that is wrong with what you said is that supreme court really doesn't have the last say on the constitution. There is a little known clause that basically gives congress the power to revoke the supreme courts jurisdiction over any case it wants. This means that Roe V Wade isn't actually written in stone since the legislative branch can remove their jurisdiction over such cases. A similar thing can be done with abnormal marriages such as the above mentioned case.

We don't have national elections.

Why do you think that the United States Constitution is a dictatorship?

There is no such clause except the one you imagine written in invisible ink on your National Treasure copy of the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals basically believe if those in power tell them it is OK then it is OK. I always kind of thought that we were all equals so if someone tells me something is correct then I would have to ask for some kind of justification for it. I can think of very few situations where I would blindly believe what someone else is telling me. I don't know why it would change if that person was from the government. Perhaps "liberals" really are not as liberal as they say they are because how can anyone claim to be free if they believe that those above them in life must be believed blindly? Why not just call them your master and say things like "Oh yes'm ma'am" to whatever the government tells them.

Sounds like you are just listening to the voices in your head to much.

There is one kind of marriage in the United States- and despite the efforts of people like yourself- who try to tell Americans how they can live their lives- Americans who are happen to be gay can now marry each other.

I know that it upsets you that you can no longer tell them who they can marry.

 

[WheelieAddict]

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

Legal gay marriage is the law of the land and will remain so long after you are gone. Let that sink in.........

 

[Silhouette]

Legal gay marriage is the law of the land and will remain so long after you are gone. Let that sink in.........

New York vs. Ferber (1982) is the law of the land, creating legal dominance of children's physical and psychological wellness over adult civil rights. And that will remain so and be reaffirmed so within our lifetimes. Let that sink in...

 

[WheelieAddict]

Legal gay marriage is the law of the land and will remain so long after you are gone. Let that sink in.........

New York vs. Ferber (1982) is the law of the land, creating legal dominance of children's physical and psychological wellness over adult civil rights. And that will remain so and be reaffirmed so within our lifetimes. Let that sink in...

(1982) Fail