US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate/Case

[Silhouette]

The study is about role models, not numbers. The vital complimentary gender is missing. It's the gender the child has and finds lacking in their formative environment. Single parent households are preferable to kids roaming the streets as orphans. It doesn't mean the single parent gets the benefits of marriage, does it? Well, at least not until "anything goes" marriage becomes a federally-forced right.. Monosexuals' children are as in danger of "immediate legal harm" as any other without the benefits of marriage...Don't start preaching to me about the sacred number of "two" as "traditional". If you do, I'll start preaching to you about how man/woman is traditional...and the most healthy for kids' self-esteem...

1. You continue to ignore the fact that the survey, according to the article, is not simply about missing role models, but missing 'positive' role models, which means that there could well be children raised by heterosexual couples that the survey included in their statistics of children harmed by lack of positive same gender role models. 2. You continue to misuse the word monosexual.
Whether two or two hundred, marriage is a union. There cannot be a marriage without multiple participants. It's akin to saying someone is doing something together with themselves. Your argument would be more compelling if you didn't keep obviously making things up in an attempt to strengthen it.

1. This article (quoted again below) FOUND THAT THE LACK IN CHILDREN'S LIVES WAS ABOUT ROLE MODELING. There...better? You can try to mince words to suit your spin all you like. In the end, lack of the child's gendered role model was what was detrimental to them.

2. I'm not misusing the word monosexual. Mono means "one". A person whose sexual preference is to be alone and not in a relationship. Their children number in the tens of millions as opposed to a few paltry thousand caught up in homosexual lifestyles. There are these tens of millions of kids currently without a champion for their "immediate legal harm" for their parent's sexual-lifestyle not gaining the benefits of marriage. Then there are the polysexuals.

"There cannot be a marriage without multiple participants"?

I could just as easily say there cannot be a marriage without a man/woman present. Especially when it comes to the wellbeing of kids:

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

 

[Silhouette]

From that article, a person or a Supreme Court Justice person can emperically-conclude that forcing states to incentivize gay marriage is the same as forcing states to incentivize harm to children.

That is, if you believe marriage is about children first and adults second.

 

[Syriusly]

..What I do find sick and evil is the bigotry of folks like yourself- who would prefer that children in foster care and available for adoption, age out of the system to be abandoned by the State- rather than let them be adopted by a homosexual couple who want to support those children financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives. All just to screw over homosexuals. Sick and Evil.

It's not the motivation Syriusly..]

Oh it is absolutely your motivation.

You use the issue of children just as a tool to attack homosexuals.

I think it's in the best interest of children to be kept as far away from you people as possible. Growing up is hard enough without being exposed to a crazy world where perverted is promoted as normal and acceptable. The very fact you people covet our children to proselytize them into your sick little world gives me the creeps.

So now you are advocating Big Brother taking my wife and my daughter from us? Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals?

Now those are fine Conservative values! My daughter is growing up learning to judge people by their own actions- not because of what bigots like yourself say about them. She looks at someone like you as no different from Governor Wallace announcing that the schools will not be integrated.

And she is right.

 

[Syriusly]

The study is about role models, not numbers. The vital complimentary gender is missing. It's the gender the child has and finds lacking in their formative environment. Single parent households are preferable to kids roaming the streets as orphans. It doesn't mean the single parent gets the benefits of marriage, does it? Well, at least not until "anything goes" marriage becomes a federally-forced right.. Monosexuals' children are as in danger of "immediate legal harm" as any other without the benefits of marriage...Don't start preaching to me about the sacred number of "two" as "traditional". If you do, I'll start preaching to you about how man/woman is traditional...and the most healthy for kids' self-esteem...

1. You continue to ignore the fact that the survey, according to the article, is not simply about missing role models, but missing 'positive' role models, which means that there could well be children raised by heterosexual couples that the survey included in their statistics of children harmed by lack of positive same gender role models. 2. You continue to misuse the word monosexual.
Whether two or two hundred, marriage is a union. There cannot be a marriage without multiple participants. It's akin to saying someone is doing something together with themselves. Your argument would be more compelling if you didn't keep obviously making things up in an attempt to strengthen it.

2. I'm not misusing the word monosexual. Mono means "one". A person whose sexual preference is to be alone and not in a relationship.

You are just making up a definition.

Monosexual - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster

Definition of MONOSEXUAL
: being or relating to a male or a female rather than a bisexual

But then again- you make up most of what you post.

 

[Syriusly]

From that article, a person or a Supreme Court Justice person can emperically-conclude that forcing states to incentivize gay marriage is the same as forcing states to incentivize harm to children.

That is, if you believe marriage is about children first and adults second.

That is, if you believe that the Supreme Court goes to British tabloids for its information.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's what the report is and concludes:

The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that young people without a positive figure of the same gender are 67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts.

The link to the Prince Trust study is here: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Syriusly must not like the post at the top of the page. S/he's spamming several posts in a row trying to get this page disappeared...when s/he's not busy playing "victim of St Mike or Conservative's gay-bashing theater"..Yes, St Mike sure fits the bill of "hyperbole-manufactured-gay-basher".

How many kids have been removed from single parent homes because they are monosexual? Zero.

How many christians have been sued for exercising their religion and refusing to promote homosexual lifestyles in "marriage"? Several.

Meanwhile this bears repeating here:

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

It would fundamentally wreck the foundation of the local penal and civil law systems over time...using precedent. This would be the first time ever that behaviors got special treatment at the federal level...favoritism if you like.. What other behaviors currenlty repugnant to the majority will have their day in Court? "Equality"...don't forget.. Used improprerly, the application of that principle is poised to create great legal havoc.

 

[Silhouette]

The Prince's Trust study isnt' "tabloid trash" Spammer-Syriusly"..

 

[Silhouette]

...."Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."
Making your entire point moot. As the negative effects you assume doesn't appear in same sex households. Yet you ignore every such study showing this, without exception.

A rational person wouldn't.

Anyone would find random examples that buck the rule of the conclusion from the study in post 212 at the top of this page.

But the conclusion's percentage of harm to children without their gender represented as parent is what is relevent here. The preponderence of a given marriage structure to produce harm...not the individual exceptions to the preponderence. That is what the Court must weigh on the scale. Not "this or that individual exception". If they are thinking about a structure that best suits kids, they must look to where the weight on that balance falls..

 

[Skylar]

...."Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."
Making your entire point moot. As the negative effects you assume doesn't appear in same sex households. Yet you ignore every such study showing this, without exception.

A rational person wouldn't.

Anyone would find random examples that buck the rule of the conclusion.

This isn't a single study. These are multiple studies. All of which come to the same conclusion: same sex parents raise healthy children. More healthy than single parents. As healthy as hetero parents.

That you choose to ignore any study that doesn't affirm your beliefs doesn't meant I, the courts, or any rational person is similarly obligated. And the preponderance of evidence lands firmly on one side of this issue:

The children of same sex parents are healthy.

With the courts recognizing that denying marriage to the same sex parents of these children, harms them. That's a viscous one-two punch to your argument. With half of it made by the courts themselves.

But the conclusion's percentage of harm to children with out their gender represented as parent is what is relevent here. The preponderence of a given marriage structure to produce harm...not the individual exceptions to the preponderence.

You're assuming that the results of these many studies are the exception and not the rule. And you've presented nothing to affirm that conclusion. Thus, the weight of evidence falls against you.

That is what the Court must weigh on the scale. Not "this or that individual exception". If they are thinking about a structure that best suits kids, they must look to where the weight on that balance falls..

Actually, no. That's not the scale they'll lijkely be working with. As Kennedy made clear:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Kennedy

Justice Kennedy On Proposition 8 Ban Causes Children Of Same-Sex Parents Immediate Legal Injury

Gays and lesbians already have children. The scale they will weighing their decision against regarding children is this: is it better for these children if their parents are married, or if they're parents are not.

You won't touch that issue with a 10 foot pole. The courts most likely will. As the answer is obvious, with the harm the denial of same sex marriage causes to the children of such couples already thoroughly recognized by the courts:

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 re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor V. US

Its quite unlikely that the courts are going to ignore their own scales and their own findings....and instead use yours.

 

[Syriusly]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege.

Who to believe? You- known for just making crap up- or the Supreme Court?

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's what the report is and concludes:

The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that young people without a positive figure of the same gender are 67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts.

The link to the Prince Trust study is here: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Syriusly must not like the post at the top of the page. c.

Once again - you are delusional.

'positive figure of the same gender'

Reading the report again- what is striking to me- and anyone who is not a raging homophobe is that nowhere in the article does it say what Silhoette wants the report to say.

The Report doesn't say anything about marriage. Doesn't say anything about homosexuals. Doesn't even actually specify parents.

'positive role model of the same gender'- not father, not mother- and specifically positive.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that this report has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[Montrovant]

The study is about role models, not numbers. The vital complimentary gender is missing. It's the gender the child has and finds lacking in their formative environment. Single parent households are preferable to kids roaming the streets as orphans. It doesn't mean the single parent gets the benefits of marriage, does it? Well, at least not until "anything goes" marriage becomes a federally-forced right.. Monosexuals' children are as in danger of "immediate legal harm" as any other without the benefits of marriage...Don't start preaching to me about the sacred number of "two" as "traditional". If you do, I'll start preaching to you about how man/woman is traditional...and the most healthy for kids' self-esteem...

1. You continue to ignore the fact that the survey, according to the article, is not simply about missing role models, but missing 'positive' role models, which means that there could well be children raised by heterosexual couples that the survey included in their statistics of children harmed by lack of positive same gender role models. 2. You continue to misuse the word monosexual.
Whether two or two hundred, marriage is a union. There cannot be a marriage without multiple participants. It's akin to saying someone is doing something together with themselves. Your argument would be more compelling if you didn't keep obviously making things up in an attempt to strengthen it.

1. This article (quoted again below) FOUND THAT THE LACK IN CHILDREN'S LIVES WAS ABOUT ROLE MODELING. There...better? You can try to mince words to suit your spin all you like. In the end, lack of the child's gendered role model was what was detrimental to them.

2. I'm not misusing the word monosexual. Mono means "one". A person whose sexual preference is to be alone and not in a relationship. Their children number in the tens of millions as opposed to a few paltry thousand caught up in homosexual lifestyles. There are these tens of millions of kids currently without a champion for their "immediate legal harm" for their parent's sexual-lifestyle not gaining the benefits of marriage. Then there are the polysexuals.

"There cannot be a marriage without multiple participants"?

I could just as easily say there cannot be a marriage without a man/woman present. Especially when it comes to the wellbeing of kids:

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

I love how you jump from 'This article (quoted again below) FOUND THAT THE LACK IN CHILDREN'S LIVES WAS ABOUT ROLE MODELING.' to lack of gendered role model. Did you actually read the article? It says, repeatedly, that the lack of a positive role model is the issue. Lack of a positive role model is not the same as lack of a role model. Having a negative role model would still be a lack of a positive role model. In fact, in the example at the end of the article, the young man says he would have been better off with a father OR an older brother, and that he had male role models in his life but they were negative ones.

I'd also point out that the article you are repeatedly linking is from 2010. I've looked at the recent Prince's Trust Youth Index reports and they say little to nothing about lack of same gender role models. For example, here's the most recent report : http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/PDF/Youth_Index_2015_Report.PDF

I wonder why they wouldn't focus on what you seem to think is the obvious reason behind all of the issues these young people have?

As to the difference between saying marriage is between one man and one woman, and saying marriage is the joining of more than one thing : Well, besides the obvious fact that marriage as a romantic union between people has involved more than one man and one woman for a long, long time (feel free to look at the polygamous unions in the Old Testament, as an example), marriage is also a word with a definition not involving the romantic union of humans. It can indicate a union of pretty much anything, so long as it is a union and not merely a single object. Here, let's look at a definition from Merriam-Webster : "an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>" Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary So while it most often is used to describe a romantic union between people, the word has other uses. In every case, it is a union, though. That requires more than a single thing. It could be 2 or 200, it's still a union. The one man, one woman argument is based on tradition rather than definition.

 

[Skylar]

High court to hear gay marriage cases in April

High court to hear gay marriage cases in April - Yahoo News

Ah, snap.

 

[Skylar]

So.......the USSC preserved every single ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Prop 8 overturned, six different US district courts overturned gay marriage bans, and each and every time the Supreme Court allowed those rulings to stand.

But the first ruling that affirms gay marriage bans, and the courts don't allow it to stand. They take it up.

I predict gay marriage legal across the country in June.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only Sil is illiterate enough to ask "Will they abandon Windsor's findings that states get to decide and how (through a deliberative process pro and con on gay marriage)?

The end game is here.

1. Either SCOTUS will grant marriage equality,

2. Or allow the courts and states continue to work toward marriage equality.

3. There will be no return to the previous state of affairs.

 

[bodecea]

High court to hear gay marriage cases in April

High court to hear gay marriage cases in April - Yahoo News

Ah, snap.

It's ON!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So.......the USSC preserved every single ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Prop 8 overturned, six different US district courts overturned gay marriage bans, and each and every time the Supreme Court allowed those rulings to stand.

But the first ruling that affirms gay marriage bans, and the courts don't allow it to stand. They take it up.

I predict gay marriage legal across the country in June.

It's almost guaranteed, actually. It's really only a matter of which side Kennedy will fall on. It'll be 5-4 or 6-3 in favor, either way.

 

[bodecea]

So.......the USSC preserved every single ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Prop 8 overturned, six different US district courts overturned gay marriage bans, and each and every time the Supreme Court allowed those rulings to stand.

But the first ruling that affirms gay marriage bans, and the courts don't allow it to stand. They take it up.

I predict gay marriage legal across the country in June.

And the RNC will breath a great sigh of relief.............that it is a done deal before the height of the Presidential Primary Season.

 

[johnwk]

Will the Court uphold the documented legislative intent of the 14th Amendment?


The only important question is, will the members of the Court decide the question based upon the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as expressed by its framers [the 39th Congress] and those who ratified the amendment? Or, will a majority of the Court engage in judicial tyranny and render an opinion based upon their personal sense of justice and fairness?

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Skylar]

Will the Court uphold the documented legislative intent of the 14th Amendment?

The 14th amendment is limited to what it says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1, 14th Amendment

Any state law that does that is invalid.

And please don't start these vast block spams from your blog again. If you have something to say, type it out. If you have something to spam, just post the link.