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

[johnwk]

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

The 14th amendment is limited to what it says . . .

Apparently you are not familiar with the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:



The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.



JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Skylar]

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

What's interesting is that the only place I can find this quote....is from you, all over the internet. Lets use the same standard and apply it to what the 14th says:

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” ___(my emphasis) See: Vol.16, American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), “Meaning of Language“, “Ordinary meaning, generally“

From John's blog.

So what word or term in the 14th means anything differently today than it did when the 14th was passed?

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

Does 'state' mean something different today than it did in the 1870? How about 'citizen'? Or 'due process'? Please be specific

 

[johnwk]

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

What's interesting is that the only place I can find this quote....is from you, all over the internet. Lets use the same standard and apply it to what the 14th says:

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” ___(my emphasis) See: Vol.16, American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), “Meaning of Language“, “Ordinary meaning, generally“

From John's blog.

So what word or term in the 14th means anything differently today than it did when the 14th was passed?

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

Does 'state' mean something different today than it did in the 1870? How about 'citizen'? Or 'due process'? Please be specific

The answer to your above questions are "No". Now, what do your questions have to do with the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment?


JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Skylar]

The answer to your above questions are "No".

Well then this passage of the 14th amendment means the same thing now that it did then.

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

And any state that does that would be in violation of the 14th amendment. That was easy.

Now, what do your questions have to do with the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment?

What 'legislative intent'?

 

[rightwinger]

Bout time they took it on, now let's see if they have the balls to not just kick the can down the road

 

[Silhouette]

When all Cases involving marriage were Opined upon, the word marriage was universally-understood to mean only man/woman.

So anyone citing precedent there for "rights" has to do so under that context.

 

[rightwinger]

When all Cases involving marriage were Opined upon, the word marriage was universally-understood to mean only man/woman.

So anyone citing precedent there for "rights" has to do so under that context.

Welcome to the 21st century....you may just enjoy it

 

[rightwinger]

The court will have the advantage of over ten years of legal gay marriage. There is no argument about the dangers to society that will hold water

 

[Silhouette]

The court will have the advantage of over ten years of legal gay marriage. There is no argument about the dangers to society that will hold water

Unless you accept that "society" includes grown children known as adults. If you believe children have a vital place in society then gay marriage has a problem..

 

[rightwinger]

The court will have the advantage of over ten years of legal gay marriage. There is no argument about the dangers to society that will hold water

Unless you accept that "society" includes grown children known as adults. If you believe children have a vital place in society then gay marriage has a problem..

Gay marriage will in no way impact the ability of existing heterosexual couples to have children. There will be no impact on societies ability to reproduce

 

[Skylar]

When all Cases involving marriage were Opined upon, the word marriage was universally-understood to mean only man/woman.

So anyone citing precedent there for "rights" has to do so under that context.

No we don't. You regularly insist that we're restricted to whatever rules you arbitrarily invent. We aren't. Your arbitrary restrictions have no more authority than your arbitrary re imagining of legal terms.

 

[Skylar]

The court will have the advantage of over ten years of legal gay marriage. There is no argument about the dangers to society that will hold water

Unless you accept that "society" includes grown children known as adults. If you believe children have a vital place in society then gay marriage has a problem..

Nope. Again, there is no such dichotomy. Gays and lesbians are already having kids. So the only remaining question regarding their children is...is it better for their parents to be married, or is it not.

You won't even try to answer that question, because you already know the answer. With Justice Kennedy waxing eloquently on the harms caused by the failure to recognize the marriages of their same sex parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays and lesbians never have kids. It's biologically impossible. So one of the kids parents is always missing, 100% of the time in gay or lesbian households.

Let me paint out how gay marriages, even the best of them, harm children/our future citizens/our society therefore...

Even in the best of most loving lesbian households who by the luck of the draw end up with a boy child, there will be a sense in that boy of a vacuum. It isn't how many times a day those lesbians tell him they love him, how many sports games they sign him up for or how much money they make to send him to the best college; it's the implied message in his formative years that does the damage. That implied message is: "Your gender in the adult world is not necessary. Your gender in the adult world is unwanted by women. Your gender is arbitrary, it doesn't matter.."

That never has to ever be uttered in a lesbian home to a boy in it. It simply is a fact assimilated by the forming mind in that house. That child (if my child developmental psyche 101 memories aren't too rusty) will internalize those messages to mean "YOU in the adult world are not necessary. YOU in the adult world are unwanted by women. YOU are arbitrary and don't matter." Adults have firmed up their minds, built their walls of defense around their psyches...but kids have not. They are wide open and this type of implied message is internalized by them no matter the abundance of spoken words or actions to the contrary. Kids get the big picture while adults are confident in their myopia. It's a function of how the brain processes the world relative to one's age..

Same goes with a girl in a gay man's home. But since neither man has a womb and they have to adopt, more likely this scenario won't exist as often there because gay men will most likely be wanting to bring home little boys from the adoption agency instead of little girls. But in case they do want girls, it applies here too.

Once again, the Prince's Trust study:

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

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Gays and lesbians never have kids. It's biologically impossible. So one of the kids parents is always missing, 100% of the time in gay or lesbian households.

Let me paint out how gay marriages, even the best of them, harm children/our future citizens/our society therefore...

Even in the best of most loving lesbian households who by the luck of the draw end up with a boy child, there will be a sense in that boy of a vacuum. It isn't how many times a day those lesbians tell him they love him, how many sports games they sign him up for or how much money they make to send him to the best college; it's the implied message in his formative years that does the damage. That implied message is: "Your gender in the adult world is not necessary. Your gender in the adult world is unwanted by women. Your gender is arbitrary, it doesn't matter.."

That never has to ever be uttered in a lesbian home to a boy in it. It simply is a fact assimilated by the forming mind in that house. That child (if my child developmental psyche 101 memories aren't too rusty) will internalize those messages to mean "YOU in the adult world are not necessary. YOU in the adult world are unwanted by women. YOU are arbitrary and don't matter." Adults have firmed up their minds, built their walls of defense around their psyches...but kids have not. They are wide open and this type of implied message is internalized by them no matter the abundance of spoken words or actions to the contrary. Kids get the big picture while adults are confident in their myopia. It's a function of how the brain processes the world relative to one's age..

Same goes with a girl in a gay man's home. But since neither man has a womb and they have to adopt, more likely this scenario won't exist as often there because gay men will most likely be wanting to bring home little boys from the adoption agency instead of little girls. But in case they do want girls, it applies here too.

Once again, the Prince's Trust study:

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

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.

Damn......you are fucking creepy

 

[Silhouette]

Damn......you are fucking creepy

Why, because I took a course in child developmental psychology? You realize that in order to get a teaching credential, that course is required. So pretty much every teacher you see is at least rudimentarily familiar with how a child views the world and assimilates it into their sense of self.

Pretty mundane stuff if you visit a book once in awhile..

 

[Silhouette]

Sure is telling about the world when sanity looks "fucking creepy"...coming from the LGBT perspective. It leaves no question in the final tally that the insane really are running the APA.

 

[Montrovant]

You continue to ignore every point brought up that contradicts or questions your conclusions. Have fun continuing to make the same claims, posting the same old links, and not listening to any opposing viewpoint.

 

[Silhouette]

You continue to ignore every point brought up that contradicts or questions your conclusions. Have fun continuing to make the same claims, posting the same old links, and not listening to any opposing viewpoint.

The opposing viewpoint, that "anything goes marriage" should be legal, is repugnant to the majority and a detriment to children. There is nothing about "anything goes" marriage that is appealing therefore. So I reject it, utterly, as a sane person and as a registered voter of a discreet community (a separate state) that has every right to regulate which behaviors are legitimized and which are not.

 

[rightwinger]

Damn......you are fucking creepy

Why, because I took a course in child developmental psychology? You realize that in order to get a teaching credential, that course is required. So pretty much every teacher you see is at least rudimentarily familiar with how a child views the world and assimilates it into their sense of self.

Pretty mundane stuff if you visit a book once in awhile..

No......you are fucking creepy as you twist your fag hating ideals as somehow.......for the children
No study of children of homosexual couples supports you

 

[Montrovant]

You continue to ignore every point brought up that contradicts or questions your conclusions. Have fun continuing to make the same claims, posting the same old links, and not listening to any opposing viewpoint.

The opposing viewpoint, that "anything goes marriage" should be legal, is repugnant to the majority and a detriment to children. There is nothing about "anything goes" marriage that is appealing therefore. So I reject it, utterly, as a sane person and as a registered voter of a discreet community (a separate state) that has every right to regulate which behaviors are legitimized and which are not.

That you think the only opposing viewpoint that's been expressed in this thread is that 'anything goes marriage' should be legal shows just how dark the blinders you wear are.