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

[Silhouette]

Rights have limitations. Now you know.

Would you, oh homosexual marriage advocate, disenfranchise other sexual lifestyles from enjoying the switch of marriage from its current status: a state-defined privelege that entices best formative environment for kids, to a federally-imposed "right" which is up for grabs for all US citizens of all walks?

What's your beef with monosexuals? Polysexuals? Why aren't they under your big rainbow tent? Are you a bigot?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

When any two can get married then we will work on three or more. Cart after the horse, not before. And yes, rights have limitations. Like the limitations Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the favorite of most here, Gun Rights.

 

[Silhouette]

When any two can get married then we will work on three or more. Cart after the horse, not before. And yes, rights have limitations. Like the limitations Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the favorite of most here, Gun Rights.

What makes the number "two" so special when love and relationships or the choice not to have one have already outgrown that number?

I (and the US Supreme Court, esp. Sotomayor) are going to need a detailed answer to that question....you know...for the sake of all the tens of millions of kids "in immediate legal harm" from everyone not enjoying marriage as a right...

Let me guess...you're going to cite "tradition" or "complexity" to cling to the number 2, yes?



Well, the tradition argument falls on its face right out of the chute doesn't it? Complexity would only apply if you were concerned that lawyers in the US couldn't draw up contracts to handle it. You ARE about people's freedom to make their lives as complex as they wish? Or are you about restricting those freedoms? For the sake of what? And whom? Children?????

The same children you want to assign to a home where one gender is always missing as a role model? Even though those kids may have that gender themselves and vitally need that role model?

Yes....I'd love to hear your complex answer. But I'll bet instead I'll get some good old LGBT bullying and a strawman or six. Twelve spammed posts from Syriusly, a new page...and then I'll post all this again and ask you a second time, and a third...until you answer...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Rights have limitations. Now you know.

Would you, oh homosexual marriage advocate, disenfranchise other sexual lifestyles from enjoying the switch of marriage from its current status: a state-defined privelege that entices best formative environment for kids, to a federally-imposed "right" which is up for grabs for all US citizens of all walks?

What's your beef with monosexuals? Polysexuals? Why aren't they under your big rainbow tent? Are you a bigot?

When the tent covers any two, three will be up for grabs. And I'm fine with it, just like I'm fine with a lot of things that you'd freak out about, like siblings getting married of which there is only one good argument against and it isn't "that's icky".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When any two can get married then we will work on three or more. Cart after the horse, not before. And yes, rights have limitations. Like the limitations Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the favorite of most here, Gun Rights.

What makes the number "two" so special when love and relationships or the choice not to have one have already outgrown that number?

I (and the US Supreme Court, esp. Sotomayor) are going to need a detailed answer to that question....you know...for the sake of all the tens of millions of kids "in immediate legal harm" from everyone not enjoying marriage as a right...

Two is special because right now we let two adults marry each other, but not all adults yet and that is being fixed.

 

[Silhouette]

Two is special because right now we let two adults marry each other, but not all adults yet and that is being fixed.

So you're citing tradition. We traditionally allow two people to marry. Well, we traditionally allow only men and women to marry. Glad to see you are on the side of tradition finally.

That settles that. Either you agree or you are a bigot against multiple people in love or those who do not choose a relationship. You 'hate' all their children in "immediate legal harm" from not enjoying the benefits of marriage..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Two is special because right now we let two adults marry each other, but not all adults yet and that is being fixed.

So you're citing tradition. We traditionally allow two people to marry. Well, we traditionally allow only men and women to marry. Glad to see you are on the side of tradition finally.

That settles that. Either you agree or you are a bigot against multiple people in love or those who do not choose a relationship. You 'hate' all their children in "immediate legal harm" from not enjoying the benefits of marriage..

It's not Tradition, it's the Law. Two adults can marry. No more, no less.

 

[bodecea]

Two of the biggest reasons for civil marriage right now are child and property custody and inheritance rights. If only two marry, nothing more needs to be drawn up. If spouse A dies, the default is Spouse B. That dynamic does not work if you add more spouses to the mix. Now you need MORE that a marriage license.

 

[Syriusly]

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,

Owning a gun is a right.

Yet in most states convicted felons are not allowed to own guns.

You not only do not know what rights are, you are frankly delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

Two is special because right now we let two adults marry each other, but not all adults yet and that is being fixed.

So you're citing tradition. We traditionally allow two people to marry. Well, we traditionally allow only men and women to marry. Glad to see you are on the side of tradition finally.

That settles that. Either you agree or you are a bigot against multiple people in love or those who do not choose a relationship. You 'hate' all their children in "immediate legal harm" from not enjoying the benefits of marriage..

If you want to argue for polygamy- then that is your 'right'.

The difference between you and I, is that I believe that a same gender couple deserve to be treated exactly the same as a heterosexual couple.

Exactly the same as my wife and I.

 

[Syriusly]

When any two can get married then we will work on three or more. Cart after the horse, not before. And yes, rights have limitations. Like the limitations Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the favorite of most here, Gun Rights.

What makes the number "two" so special when love and relationships or the choice not to have one have already outgrown that number?

I (and the US Supreme Court, esp. Sotomayor) are going to need a detailed answer to that question....you know...for the sake of all the tens of millions of kids "in immediate legal harm" from everyone not enjoying marriage as a right.....

No one cares what you 'need' and Sotomayor clearly didn't need a detailed answer since she was able to cast her vote on both DOMA and Prop 8 without it.

I am sure that someone will raise the argument. I expect it will be treated exactly as it has been in the majority of courts so far- which is to say that courts decide the case before them- not the cases that are not before them.

 

[Silhouette]

No one cares what you 'need' and Sotomayor clearly didn't need a detailed answer since she was able to cast her vote on both DOMA and Prop 8 without it.

I am sure that someone will raise the argument. I expect it will be treated exactly as it has been in the majority of courts so far- which is to say that courts decide the case before them- not the cases that are not before them.

But the case before them IS "will the US Supreme Court interpret the Constitution as extending marriage as a "right" as opposed to a state-granted privelege; with the plaintiff's being those of a "class" (if you can call behaviors/lifestyles that) of alternative-sexual lifestylists...who just happen to be of, but aren't limited to "all those other people currently practicing non-monogamous or non hetero, or non-partnerative lifestyles."

The US Supeme Court may not narrow its vision in this case because they don't want to be hearing Turley's case: "Brown vs Utah" on next year's calendar with all the same identical arguments; and a complete inability to deny them...as Europe is finding out when some countries there too-hastily leapt in "bleeding heart" to homosexuals, without anticipating monosexuals (single by choice/circumstance), polysexuals (polygamists) and incest lifestylists would be right on their legal heels in court.

You bet the discussion will come up. And it's going to get a wee bit more air time this go-around since the question of "why do states have vested interest regulating marriage anyway/historically?" is going to get a lot of air time. And that reason is, to regulate by enticement (not heavy handed police action) that formative environment that children find themselves in.

The structure of marriage; not the individual players.

BTW, the structure of gay marriage is identical to single parents in that it guarantees the lack 100% of the time of the vital complimentary gender as role model/parent to children who will find that vacuum of their own gender 50% of the time.

 

[Silhouette]

Two of the biggest reasons for civil marriage right now are child and property custody and inheritance rights. If only two marry, nothing more needs to be drawn up. If spouse A dies, the default is Spouse B. That dynamic does not work if you add more spouses to the mix. Now you need MORE that a marriage license.

Sorry, freedom of relationships and association trump "it's too complex". If you take marriage away from the current status of a state-granted privelege to a federally-mandated right, you know damn well you're argument is bigoted and discriminatory towards your cousins, polysexuals.

For that matter, granting the benefits of marriage to single parents would be the simplest arrangment of all. Far simpler than two people. After all, gay marriage and single marriage are structurally the same in that they deprive the children of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time. 50% of those children will have a vacuum of a vital role model. Think of the tens of MILLIONS of children currently "in danger of legal harm" from denying marraige to all the sexual/relationship alternative lifestyles..

Marriages and divorces are already quagmires of custody, division of property etc. Your argument sounds bigoted bodecea.

 

[Skylar]

No one cares what you 'need' and Sotomayor clearly didn't need a detailed answer since she was able to cast her vote on both DOMA and Prop 8 without it.

I am sure that someone will raise the argument. I expect it will be treated exactly as it has been in the majority of courts so far- which is to say that courts decide the case before them- not the cases that are not before them.

But the case before them IS "will the US Supreme Court interpret the Constitution as extending marriage as a "right" as opposed to a state-granted privelege; with the plaintiff's being those of a "class" (if you can call behaviors/lifestyles that) of alternative-sexual lifestylists...who just happen to be of, but aren't limited to "all those other people currently practicing non-monogamous or non hetero, or non-partnerative lifestyles."

Again, Silo....you don't know what you're talking about. The issue of whether or not marriage is a right was settled generations again. With the USSC having affirmed and reaffirmed that marriage is a right, like 6 times.

You simply ignore the USSC and then imagine that since you ignored them, the USSC has to re-decide the issue. Um, no. They don't. Your willful ignorance creates no legal questions that need answering.

Which case is the USSC hearing regarding polygamy?

The US Supeme Court may not narrow its vision in this case because they don't want to be hearing Turley's case: "Brown vs Utah" on next year's calendar with all the same identical arguments; and a complete inability to deny them...as Europe is finding out when some countries there too-hastily leapt in "bleeding heart" to homosexuals, without anticipating monosexuals (single by choice/circumstance), polysexuals (polygamists) and incest lifestylists would be right on their legal heels in court.

When the USSC has it on their dockets, we can discuss it. As we'll have specifics to discuss.

 

[Syriusly]

[. After all, gay marriage and single marriage are structurally

Silhouette- tell us how 'single marriage' would work?

Would you be marrying yourself for instance?

Tell us all us all how exactly that would work? Would you be filing joint returns with yourself?

Who would get custody of the dog if you decided to divorce yourself?

 

[Syriusly]

No one cares what you 'need' and Sotomayor clearly didn't need a detailed answer since she was able to cast her vote on both DOMA and Prop 8 without it.

I am sure that someone will raise the argument. I expect it will be treated exactly as it has been in the majority of courts so far- which is to say that courts decide the case before them- not the cases that are not before them.

But the case before them IS "will the US Supreme Court interpret the Constitution as extending marriage as a "right" as opposed to a state-granted privelege;

No- that isn't the case- the Supreme Court has long ago settled that issue. Marriage is a right.

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"

 

[Skylar]

Excellent question, syrius........as your own spouse, would you be able to make medical decisions for yourself? Just like you can now?

Do you get to inheret your own property when you die?

If your job provides medical benefits, does that mean you can use them? Just like you can now?

Since you don't have to testify against a spouse, does that mean you don't have to self incriminate? Just like now?

And when you divorce yourself, do you have to pay you child support?

 

[Syriusly]

Rights have limitations. Now you know.

"Rights have limitations"...really? Like in California for example?

yes Rights have their limitations.

Felons in California are not allowed to own guns- along with some others

Under PC 29800, three groups of people are prohibited from owning or acquiring guns:

1. convicted felons,
2. anyone convicted of specific misdemeanors, and
3. narcotic drug addicts.1

 

[Syriusly]

Excellent question, syrius........as your own spouse, would you be able to make medical decisions for yourself? Just like you can now?

Do you get to inheret your own property when you die?

If your job provides medical benefits, does that mean you can use them? Just like you can now?

Since you don't have to testify against a spouse, does that mean you don't have to self incriminate? Just like now?

And when you divorce yourself, do you have to pay you child support?

When you have sex about yourself, and fantasize about yourself- isn't that the ultimate form of homosexuality?

 

[Skylar]

Excellent question, syrius........as your own spouse, would you be able to make medical decisions for yourself? Just like you can now?

Do you get to inheret your own property when you die?

If your job provides medical benefits, does that mean you can use them? Just like you can now?

Since you don't have to testify against a spouse, does that mean you don't have to self incriminate? Just like now?

And when you divorce yourself, do you have to pay you child support?

When you have sex about yourself, and fantasize about yourself- isn't that the ultimate form of homosexuality?

Wait...if you have sex with someone else, does that mean you cheated? Or you're just a kinky swinger?