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

[Silhouette]

You'll talk about polygamy. You'll talk about 'monosexual parents'. But you've flatly abandoned the discussion of same sex marriage.

What a difference a day makes, eh buddy?

But wouldn't I be a bigot or discriminatory at the very least to leave out all other types of "sexuals' in this "marriage equality" discussion? What's your beef with monosexuals (single parents that also guarantee the lack of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time) and polysexuals alongside homosexuals? Isn't the LGBTQ umbrella wide enough for all alternative adult lifestyles to parent children? (The reason states even care about the word "marriage" in the first place)?

How, specifically, would you leave these people out of the discussion of marriage equality where you're trying to turn the privelege of marriage into a federally-mandated "right"? You are aware that "rights" cannot be disenfranchised from any subsect of deviant sexuals once one of them gains them?

 

[Silhouette]

Well Skylar? Isn't it rather discriminatory to only allow homosexuals the "right" to marry? You wouldn't be wanting to deny monosexuals or polysexuals the "right" to marry, would you? Isn't a conversation about homosexual marriage "rights" the same legal conversation as monosexuals' or polysexuals' "right" to marry? Kennedy would caution you to think of all the "immediate legal harm" to all those children too, wouldn't he?...

Remember also what Sotomayor said:

“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

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, *crickets*....

....that's what I thought....and what Sotomayor was thinking too...

 

[Skylar]

You'll talk about polygamy. You'll talk about 'monosexual parents'. But you've flatly abandoned the discussion of same sex marriage.

What a difference a day makes, eh buddy?

But wouldn't I be a bigot or discriminatory at the very least to leave out all other types of "sexuals' in this "marriage equality" discussion? What's your beef with monosexuals (single parents that also guarantee the lack of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time) and polysexuals alongside homosexuals? Isn't the LGBTQ umbrella wide enough for all alternative adult lifestyles to parent children? (The reason states even care about the word "marriage" in the first place)?

My beef is that this thread is about the supreme court meeting this week to take up the gay marriage debate. And you refuse to discuss gay marriage. Or any case the court is hearing.

If your claims regarding gay marriage had merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, *crickets*....

....that's what I thought....and what Sotomayor was thinking too...

Says the guy that now flatly refuses to discuss gay marriage or any case that the courts are reviewing.

Face it, Silo.......you've abandoned the debate because your arguments didn't make the slighest sense. The Windsor decision clearly subject State marriage laws to constitutional guarantees, despite your refusal to acknowledge as much. And the courts clearly recognized the harm caused to children by denying their same sex parents the right to marry.

You can ignore both. But neither changes.

 

[Silhouette]

My beef is that this thread is about the supreme court meeting this week to take up the gay marriage debate. And you refuse to discuss gay marriage. Or any case the court is hearing.

If your claims regarding gay marriage had merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them.

Look Skylar, the US Supreme Court more than any other court must anticipate "same or similar". I know you know this. I know you like to play dumb. I know you know that rights cannot be denied to anyone...so starting from that given, that you, for a fact, already know...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1285_i4dk.pdf (page 3)
Courts construe ERISA plans, as they do other contracts, by "looking to the terms of the plan" as well as to "other manifestations of the parties’ intent."
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 113. Where the terms of a plan leave gaps, courts must "look outside the plan’s written language" to decide the agreement’s meaning, CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U. S. ___, ___, and they properly take account of the doctrines that typically or traditionally have governed a given situation when no agreement states otherwise. Pp. 12–13.

What that means is, that where perceived gaps might exist to cover "all those who may enjoy a right", the Court will fill in those gaps. And it's why Sotomayor asked this when she did:

“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 what Sotomayor, realizing it or not, was dancing around is "how can we take a privelege and turn it into a right that still excludes some people?"

States define the privelege of marraige because a state has no other interest in it except to incentivize the best formative environment for children. Unfortunately for the same-sex lifestylists, this type of arrangement means any children in that home will be automatically-deprived of the complimentary gender as a role model. In this way a "gay marraige" is structurally no different than a single parent household when it comes to child development psychology.

So the Court had better pay attention to ALL the players in marriage and why marriage is and was a privelege instead of a right in the first place. The most important people in marriage are those growing up under its roof. Why should states be forced to incentivize "anything goes" "as parents" to our nation's future citizens?

If you like, I can find perhaps a thousand links or more to psychological literature that describes how the lack of one of the genders in the home is statistically-detrimental to the children raised in it. After all, half of the children in the home will find their own gender/role model simply not there at all day to day.

 

[Skylar]

Look Skylar, the US Supreme Court more than any other court must anticipate "same or similar". I know you know this. I know you like to play dumb. I know you know that rights cannot be denied to anyone...so starting from that given, that you, for a fact, already know...

When such cases arise, we'll discuss them. But your insistence that we ignore the cases that do exist while pontificating about cases that don't, regarding legal questions that aren't even being asked is pointless evasion.

States define the privelege of marraige because a state has no other interest in it except to incentivize the best formative environment for children.

Marriage isn't a priveldge, its a right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia

You say its not. And you citing you is legally irrelevant.

Unfortunately for the same-sex lifestylists, this type of arrangement means any children in that home will be automatically-deprived of the complimentary gender as a role model. In this way a "gay marraige" is structurally no different than a single parent household when it comes to child development psychology.

Says you. And you're neither a legal or psychological authority. You're talking out of your ass.

Further, its irrelevant. As gays and lesbians are already having kids. Leaving us with only the question of whether its better for those children if their parents are married or if they are not. And the Windsor court really picked a team on that question:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor V. US

So why would the court ignore their own findings....and instead rule using your personal opinion?

So the Court had better pay attention to ALL the players in marriage and why marriage is and was a privelege instead of a right in the first place. The most important people in marriage are those growing up under its roof. Why should states be forced to incentivize "anything goes" "as parents" to our nation's future citizens?

Its far more likely that the USSC will pay attention to the fact that they've found marriage to be a right, not a priveledge. Rather than abiding whatever made up definitions you choose to invent.

 

[Syriusly]

Well have that strawman discussion with Justice Kennedy.

I am sure that he will find it as fascinating as I do....

Justice Kennedy:
"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?

Syriusly....
There is an immediate legal injury to children of polygamists and those raised also by wolves..

Feel free to tell us more about these children in America that you believe are being raised by wolves.

Meanwhile, Justice Kennedy was speaking about the injury to children by denying their parents marriage:

Justice Kennedy:
"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?

 

[Syriusly]

They are legally-inseperable; as Justice Sotomayor alluded to in her questioning of attorney Ted Olson in March 2013..

Yet neither the decisions in DOMA or Prop 8 mention them.

Once again Silhouette is delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

Well Skylar? Isn't it rather discriminatory to only allow homosexuals the "right" to marry?

[/QUOTE]

No one is arguing that only homosexuals have a right to marry.

What is being argued is that laws that prevent them from marrying are discriminatory.

No other marriages are being argued or considered.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, *crickets*....

....that's what I thought....and what Sotomayor was thinking too...

And what Kennedy was thinking

"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?"

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, *crickets*....

....that's what I thought....and what Sotomayor was thinking too...

And what Kennedy was thinking

"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?"

And what about the immediate legal injury to the children of monosexuals (single parents) and polysexuals (polygamists)? Would marriage equality not apply to all alternative lifestyles?

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, *crickets*....

....that's what I thought....and what Sotomayor was thinking too...

And what Kennedy was thinking

"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?"

And what about the immediate legal injury to the children of monosexuals (single parents) and polysexuals (polygamists)? Would marriage equality not apply to all alternative lifestyles?

What case are you referring to?

 

[Silhouette]

And what about the immediate legal injury to the children of monosexuals (single parents) and polysexuals (polygamists)? Would marriage equality not apply to all alternative lifestyles?

What case are you referring to?

The marriage equality case the US Supreme Court Justices met about today. If marriage is to be changed from a state-defined privelege into a federally-mandated right, this case includes all forms of alternative lifestyles; unless you're advocating that some people may not be allowed to enjoy a federal right?

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, *crickets*....

....that's what I thought....and what Sotomayor was thinking too...

And what Kennedy was thinking

"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?"

And what about the immediate legal injury to the children of monosexuals (single parents) and polysexuals (polygamists)? Would marriage equality not apply to all alternative lifestyles?

Not surprisingly, Justice Kennedy didn't mention them.

Since a) single parents are not monosexuals and b) the case wasn't about single parents and c) the case was entirely about denying marriage to same gender couples- and how you want those children to suffer 'immediate legal injury'.

 

[Syriusly]

And what about the immediate legal injury to the children of monosexuals (single parents) and polysexuals (polygamists)? Would marriage equality not apply to all alternative lifestyles?

What case are you referring to?

The marriage equality case the US Supreme Court Justices met about today. If marriage is to be changed from a state-defined privelege into a federally-mandated right,

Marriage is a federally mandated right.

States can only restrict such rights if they have a compelling interest to do so.

As usual- you are delusional.

 

[Skylar]

And what about the immediate legal injury to the children of monosexuals (single parents) and polysexuals (polygamists)? Would marriage equality not apply to all alternative lifestyles?

What case are you referring to?

The marriage equality case the US Supreme Court Justices met about today. If marriage is to be changed from a state-defined privelege into a federally-mandated right, this case includes all forms of alternative lifestyles; unless you're advocating that some people may not be allowed to enjoy a federal right?

Which one? Can you name the case you're referring to? Or is this like Maddow's rant....where its turns out to be just more of your vacant imagination?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a federally mandated right.

States can only restrict such rights if they have a compelling interest to do so.

As usual- you are delusional.

If marriage is a right, then anyone could get married in any conceivable combination to whoever they like, whenever they like; kids in the house be damned... A person in love with themself and fully dedicated to themself for life could marry themself. Think of the tens of millions of kids "in immediate legal harm" from these people mistakenly believing all this time that they could not do this.

If homosexuals don't need the complimentary gender in the home, neither do monosexuals (singles). Equal rights for ALL!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is a federally mandated right.

States can only restrict such rights if they have a compelling interest to do so.

As usual- you are delusional.

If marriage is a right, then anyone could get married in any conceivable combination to whoever they like, whenever they like.

Rights have limitations. Now you know.

 

[Silhouette]

Rights have limitations. Now you know.

"Rights have limitations"...really? Like in California for example? Sutton visited your little logic/irony problem in his Opinion from the 6th circuit.

What makes the homosexual lifestyle any more "magical" "special" or "important" than monosexual or polysexual lifestyles? Do you want the Brown's children of Nevada/Utah to suffer "immediate legal harm" because of your "my sexual tweak lifestyle is more important than your sexual tweak lifestyle" bigotry?