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

[Skylar]

Can you cite the case where the legality of polygamy is being adjudicated by the courts this year? Or is this another one of those issues you've just imagined?

Yes, of course! Polyamory. They are "oriented" towards "loving" more than one person. What, isn't that good enough for the LGBTQ label?

Polyamory vs. who? What's the name of this case that the USSC is hearing this year about polygamy?

There is an actual case, right? You haven't been babbling for half a day about another imaginary case that you just made up, have you?

 

[Silhouette]

Can you cite the case where the legality of polygamy is being adjudicated by the courts this year? Or is this another one of those issues you've just imagined?

Yes, of course! Polyamory. They are "oriented" towards "loving" more than one person. What, isn't that good enough for the LGBTQ label?

Polyamory vs. who? What's the name of this case that the USSC is hearing this year about polygamy?

There is an actual case, right? You haven't been babbling for half a day about another imaginary case that you just made up, have you?

The case is "other arrangements between adults than man/woman (as established by almost all the states)". You know that among other things when considering the merits of the "same-sex" marriage case before them, the Court must anticipate "others who will claim along the same legal arguments that they too are being disenfranchised". That includes ALL alternative sexual/relationships besides man/woman between ALL consenting adults...not just some select group that calls itself "same-sex marriage".

 

[Syriusly]

Can you cite the case where the legality of polygamy is being adjudicated by the courts this year? Or is this another one of those issues you've just imagined?

Yes, of course! Polyamory. They are "oriented" towards "loving" more than one person. What, isn't that good enough for the LGBTQ label?

Polyamory vs. who? What's the name of this case that the USSC is hearing this year about polygamy?

There is an actual case, right? You haven't been babbling for half a day about another imaginary case that you just made up, have you?

The case is "other arrangements between adults than man/woman (as established by almost all the states)". You know that among other things when considering the merits of the "same-sex" marriage case before them, the Court must anticipate "others who will claim along the same legal arguments that they too are being disenfranchised". .

Really- just stop making this crap up.

The Court does the exact opposite of that. As noted by Judge Barbara Crabb in the Wisconsin case:

First, and most important, the task of this court is to address the claim presented and not
to engage in speculation about issues not raised that may or may not arise at some later time
in another case. Socha v. Pollard, 621 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2010) (“If [an] order
represents a mere advisory opinion not addressed to resolving a ‘case or controversy,’ then
it marks an attempted exercise of judicial authority beyond constitutional bounds.”).

Courts address the issue at hand- which is why the Supreme Court did not address gay marriage or polygamy or you marrying yourself when it ruled in Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Silhouette]

You may keep your head in the sand Syriusly, but the facts are that SCOTUS DOES consider "same or similar" while debating a current issue and question of law. In fact, Justices brought up the polygamy problem in the Windsor/Prop 8 Hearing in 2013:

Sotomayor in March 2013 speaking to pro gay-lifestyle marriage attorney Ted Olson:

“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked... Ted Olson Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage CNS News

Then of course, famously now, undoubtedly anticipating the slippery-slope of "anything goes" in marriage between consenting adults, the Supremes said this in their final Windsor Opinion:

After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage..Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

Don't keel over from shock, therefore, if the US Supreme Court for this and the child-welfare (100% deprivation of the complimentary gender issue of gay marriage "as parent") thing and a host of other reasons, reaffirms Windsor's conclusions in the new case stating once again that the proper protocol for deciding the legality of gay marriage rests within those discreet communities and their "statewide deliberative process". That when it comes to lifestyles such as "gay" or "polygamy" or "incest", it's up to a state to decide with everyone's voice whether or not these new lifestyles are acceptable to expose children to "in marriage"..

 

[Skylar]

Can you cite the case where the legality of polygamy is being adjudicated by the courts this year? Or is this another one of those issues you've just imagined?

Yes, of course! Polyamory. They are "oriented" towards "loving" more than one person. What, isn't that good enough for the LGBTQ label?

Polyamory vs. who? What's the name of this case that the USSC is hearing this year about polygamy?

There is an actual case, right? You haven't been babbling for half a day about another imaginary case that you just made up, have you?

The case is "other arrangements between adults than man/woman (as established by almost all the states)".

There's no case 'other arrangements between adults than man/woman (as established by almost all the states)' being heard by the USSC this year. So you've been talking about yet another imaginary case that you just made up.

Why didn't you just say so from the very beginning?

 

[Silhouette]

There's no case 'other arrangements between adults than man/woman (as established by almost all the states)' being heard by the USSC this year. So you've been talking about yet another imaginary case that you just made up.

Why didn't you just say so from the very beginning?

Read Sotomayor's question from my last post. It's her question, not mine..

“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked... Ted Olson Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage CNS News

 

[Syriusly]

You may keep your head in the sand Syriusly, but the facts are that SCOTUS DOES consider "same or similar" while debating a current issue and question of law. In fact, Justices brought up the polygamy problem in the Windsor/Prop 8 Hearing in 2013:

Sotomayor in March 2013 speaking to pro gay-lifestyle marriage attorney Ted Olson:

“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked... Ted Olson Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage CNS News

..

And nowhere in the decision is the issue of polygamy discussed. Justices can ask any questions that they want- like Justice Kennedy's famous question about the harm coming to children of gay parents by the bigots who want to deny them marriage- but the court addresses the case in hand- and not speculation about your strawmen.

First, and most important, the task of this court is to address the claim presented and not
to engage in speculation about issues not raised that may or may not arise at some later time
in another case. Socha v. Pollard, 621 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2010) (“If [an] order
represents a mere advisory opinion not addressed to resolving a ‘case or controversy,’ then
it marks an attempted exercise of judicial authority beyond constitutional bounds.”).

 

[Skylar]

After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage..Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

Again, for the 20th time......the laws of the state are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

Why do you bother ignoring this simple fact? Its not like anyone reading the thread won't notice our dozens of citations of Windsor where the courts explicitly state as much. Its not like anyone reading the thread won't notice that you ignore any mention of the constitutional guarantees that all state marriage laws are subject to.

And the USSC certainly isn't going to ignore its own ruling just because its inconvenient to your argument. So what possible purpose could be served in ignoring any mention of 'constitutional guarentees' cited by Windsor? I just don't get it.

Especially since every single federal court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated these very constitutional guarantees. Making them immediately relevant.

And yet you completely ignore them. Huh.

Don't keel over from shock, therefore, if the US Supreme Court for this and the child-welfare (100% deprivation of the complimentary gender issue of gay marriage "as parent") thing and a host of other reasons, reaffirms Windsor's conclusions in the new case stating once again that the proper protocol for deciding the legality of gay marriage rests within those discreet communities and their "statewide deliberative process".

Save of course that the 'complimentary gender' schtick is yours. The USSC have never made this the basis of any ruling on gay marriage. Worse, the USSC has found harm to children in DENYING gay marriage;

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 familiesby 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.

Windsor v. US

The USSC has never found any harm to children from same sex marriage. They have found harm to children from the denial of same sex marriage. Exactly the opposite of your assumptions.

Worse, your assumptions are just silly. As gays and lesbians are already having kids. The only question of relevance to the courts is whether its better for the parents of those children to be married, or to be forbidden from marriage. And the courts have clearly taken a side that forbidding marriage harms those children.

So why would the courts ignore their own findings of actual harm and instead accept your imaginary harm?

I can't think of a single reason.

That when it comes to lifestyles such as "gay" or "polygamy" or "incest", it's up to a state to decide with everyone's voice whether or not these new lifestyles are acceptable to expose children to "in marriage"..

Unless that 'voice' calls for laws that violate the constitutional guarantees that all state marriage laws are subject to. As almost every federal court to adjudicate the issue has found.

 

[Silhouette]

And nowhere in the decision is the issue of polygamy discussed. Justices can ask any questions that they want- like Justice Kennedy's famous question about the harm coming to children of gay parents by the bigots who want to deny them marriage- but the court addresses the case in hand- and not speculation about your strawmen.

Yet the quote from the 14th page of the Opinion is the quote from the 14th page of the Opinion. The proof of the direction they lean is in the pudding.

After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage..Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

 

[Skylar]

After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage..Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

Again, for the 21th time......the marriage laws of the state are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

Why do you bother ignoring this simple fact? Its not like anyone reading the thread won't notice our dozens of citations of Windsor where the courts explicitly state as much. Its not like anyone reading the thread won't notice that you ignore any mention of the constitutional guarantees that all state marriage laws are subject to.

And the USSC certainly isn't going to ignore its own ruling just because its inconvenient to your argument. So what possible purpose could be served in ignoring any mention of 'constitutional guarentees' cited by Windsor? I just don't get it.

Especially since every single federal court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated these very constitutional guarantees. Making them immediately relevant.

And yet you completely ignore them. Huh.

 

[Syriusly]

There's no case 'other arrangements between adults than man/woman (as established by almost all the states)' being heard by the USSC this year. So you've been talking about yet another imaginary case that you just made up.

Why didn't you just say so from the very beginning?

Read Sotomayor's question from my last post. It's her question, not mine..

“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked... Ted Olson Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage CNS News

Lets read Ted Olsen's reply to the question:

Sotomayor:
“Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to – that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?” she asked.

Ted Olson::
“Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said. “And if you -- if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct.

“If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status,” Olson said.

Olson said banning gay marriage was “picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental.”

Ted Olson's reply is better than any I have ever made- but then again- Ted Olson is a respected former Solicitor General who worked for Reagan and Bush- he should be able to reply better than me.

 

[Silhouette]

“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked... Ted Olson Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage CNS News

Lets read Ted Olsen's reply to the question:
.

Unfortunately for you, Ted Olson is not a Supreme Court Justice...Here's what THEY said at the end of the day:

page 14 of the Opinion:
After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage..Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

 

[Skylar]

After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage..Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

Again, for the 22th time......the Windsor court found that the marriage laws of the state are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

Why do you bother ignoring this simple fact? Its not like anyone reading the thread won't notice our dozens of citations of Windsor where the courts explicitly state as much. Its not like anyone reading the thread won't notice that you ignore any mention of the constitutional guarantees that all state marriage laws are subject to.

And the USSC certainly isn't going to ignore its own ruling just because its inconvenient to your argument. So what possible purpose could be served in ignoring any mention of 'constitutional guarentees' cited by Windsor? I just don't get it.

Especially since every single federal court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated these very constitutional guarantees. Making them immediately relevant.

And yet you completely ignore them. That's just....bizarre.

 

[Katzndogz]

You have to be honest about why a state would incentivize ANY marriage. It is to form that structure into which a state expects children to arrive naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting. It provides that vital complimentary gendered role model structure that children of both sexes may look up to for a source of self-esteem and learning about how to integrate into society best that is filled with both genders.

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Males and females engage in mating. That the mating is sterile doesn't interfere with the biological urge of males and females to mate. Homosexuals do not engage in mating. They are biologically incapable of mating. A sterile or neutered dog and a spayed female dog will still mate, They just don't have puppies.

Of course childless couples do not receive the same benefits as those with children. They don't get to claim tax deductions, they don't qualify for earned income tax credits. They do not distribute inheritance to children they don't have. A poor childless couple does not qualify for the same HUD housing benefits as someone with children.

The standard that should be applied is whether the behavior is aberrational enough to justify withholding of legal recognition. Once aberrational behavior is accepted as normal, it doesn't stop with homosexuality anymore than encouraging divorce stopped with just legions of divorced people and their disadvantaged and dysfunctional children.

 

[Syriusly]

“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked... Ted Olson Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage CNS News

Lets read Ted Olsen's reply to the question:
.

Unfortunately for you, Ted Olson is not a Supreme Court Justice...Here's what THEY said at the end of the day:
]

No- here is what they said at the end of the day in the case that Ted Olson was arguing:

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District
Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to
consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Thereby reverting to the Federal Court's overturn of Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

You have to be honest about why a state would incentivize ANY marriage. It is to form that structure into which a state expects children to arrive naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting. It provides that vital complimentary gendered role model structure that children of both sexes may look up to for a source of self-esteem and learning about how to integrate into society best that is filled with both genders.

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Males and females engage in mating. That the mating is sterile doesn't interfere with the biological urge of males and females to mate. Homosexuals do not engage in mating. They are biologically incapable of mating. A sterile or neutered dog and a spayed female dog will still mate, They just don't have puppies.

Fascinating.

What does that have to do with marriage? Or the claim that marriage is about children?

A man who has had his penis blown off in Iraq can still get married- and he would be biologically incapable of 'mating' as you so coyly label it.

Should he be legally prevented from marrying?

 

[Syriusly]

You have to be honest about why a state would incentivize ANY marriage. It is to form that structure into which a state expects children to arrive naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting. It provides that vital complimentary gendered role model structure that children of both sexes may look up to for a source of self-esteem and learning about how to integrate into society best that is filled with both genders.

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Of course childless couples do not receive the same benefits as those with children. They don't get to claim tax deductions, they don't qualify for earned income tax credits. They do not distribute inheritance to children they don't have. A poor childless couple does not qualify for the same HUD housing benefits as someone with children.
.

Tax deductions for children occur with or without marriage. Inheritance occurs with or without marriage. HUD housing benefits occur with or without marriage.

You are just pointing out great examples of how there is no linkage between marriage and any legal 'incentives' to having children.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course childless couples do not receive the same benefits as those with children. They don't get to claim tax deductions, they don't qualify for earned income tax credits. They do not distribute inheritance to children they don't have. A poor childless couple does not qualify for the same HUD housing benefits as someone with children.

The standard that should be applied is whether the behavior is aberrational enough to justify withholding of legal recognition. Once aberrational behavior is accepted as normal, it doesn't stop with homosexuality anymore than encouraging divorce stopped with just legions of divorced people and their disadvantaged and dysfunctional children.

Nope, that's too close to a police state. The state is only involved therefore in incentivizing the best structure for childrearing...and that structure most promising to be welcoming children into its midst. That would be the formative environment where children get the vital benefit of interaction daily with both complimentary genders "as parent" to insure their most well-rounded transition into adulthood and as future citizens who arent' winding up indigent, in jails or in mental institutions.

A state has a right to set incentives for this privelege of raising children. Of course, children can be raised by wolves, but that doesn't mean that alternative lifestyle has to therefore "become sanctioned in marriage for the sake of the children!".. How silly.

The state doesn't control the individuals involved in marriage, only the structure. And they do so for the sake of children. If a sterile man/woman want to marry then they can, because they do not violate the structure and the state is perineally anticipating that natural, adoptive, fostered or grandparented children will come into that sterile midst at some point. In fact, a sterile, married hetero couple are the perfect candidates for qualifying for adoption that is so dearly needed to provide father/mother homes that are best for kids..

 

[Syriusly]

You have to be honest about why a state would incentivize ANY marriage. It is to form that structure into which a state expects children to arrive naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting. It provides that vital complimentary gendered role model structure that children of both sexes may look up to for a source of self-esteem and learning about how to integrate into society best that is filled with both genders.

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

The standard that should be applied is whether the behavior is aberrational enough to justify withholding of legal recognition. Once aberrational behavior is accepted as normal, it doesn't stop with homosexuality anymore than encouraging divorce stopped with just legions of divorced people and their disadvantaged and dysfunctional children.

Oh then that is easy- the answer is no- doesn't justify withholding legal recognition.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course, children can be raised by wolves, .

Usually they eat them.