Beware - a new front of prettily dressed high intellectual haters enter - see article

[caribou]

Please paste into your computer:
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsne...constitutional-resistance-obergefell-v-hodges

Comment:
This is the latest group of anti-same-sex marriage acolytes who, however, in this incarnation are a bunch of actual legal scholars and philosophers and other real university-supported intellectuals. They are arguing that government officials should nullify the decision by refusing to acknowledge it and put it into practice.
The weakness of their argument is that they are doing precisely what should be done in front of the Supreme Court when arguing a case.
What they seem to want to argue away is that all Supreme Court decisions are the products of human-made reasoning through whichever case law and precedents and chosen oberte dicte (other examples of discourse that a justice can cite to make a point). This means that the US Constitution is a living document subject to the interpretation of those Supreme Court justices who live in the time a case is being argued and decided. The only timelessness is that which any single Supreme Court justice or any group of Supreme Court justices choose to argue as such.These legal scholars and historians and philosophers forget that slavery was written in as protected type of property in the US Constitution and that slavery was only expunged from the US Constitution by the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments which means that these alterations could be overturned and the Dred Scott decision of the Taney Court could be cited as stating that Blacks or people of African ancestry were never intended to be citizens of the US nor were people with any American Indian nation ancestry nor were people of Mexican ancestry.
They also forget that same sex marriage does not mean "gay" marriage unless one considers marriage to be a sexual relations contract, which they do when they argue that marriage was a co-habitational and implied act of coitus for procreation between a man and a woman. These ar some prurient sick bastards and yet they do have some truth if we consider that in most parts of the world women can still be sold off and traded for marriage and coitus as young as the age of 8 years old.

 

[tampa24]

An excerpt from the above article:

"First, society will be harmed [if they allow same sex marriage] by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care."

*****************************************************​

It's interesting how they try to make the case that same-sex marriage threatens the very fabric of the family. You would think it will cause either the extinction of the human race due to a lack of procreation, or the turning out of so many damaged children from these marriages as to be too much for society to bear. Or all of the above.

If we follow their reasoning that the lack of a married two parent heterosexual household harms children, then the 50% heterosexual divorce rate should be of equal or greater concern to them. Why not call out divorced heterosexual parents as being bad citizens who are threatening the future peace, prosperity and wellbeing of our society through their selfish actions? Where's the moral outrage and indignation for heterosexual divorce? While they don't outright condone and countenance heterosexual divorce by parents with children...they certainly appear to give them a pass. Otherwise why is all the concern so focused on the wellbeing of children being raised in same-sex marriage households? The children raised in married gay parent households are holding up the whole sky? And if all of them don't turn out well, then our society surely goes to hell in a hand basket?

They may be lawyers or "scholars" as they want to call themselves, but they are certainly not ready for prime time on any Ivy League debate circuits.

 

[louis33705]

This to me is the perfect poster example that a same-sex household is just as functional as a hetero household.

 

[louis33705]

The Harris Burtka twins

 

[louis33705]

Their home in Harlem

 

[tampa24]

Nice videos Louis. Thank you.

 

[ertas23]

Please paste into your computer:
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsne...constitutional-resistance-obergefell-v-hodges

Comment:
This is the latest group of anti-same-sex marriage acolytes who, however, in this incarnation are a bunch of actual legal scholars and philosophers and other real university-supported intellectuals. They are arguing that government officials should nullify the decision by refusing to acknowledge it and put it into practice.
The weakness of their argument is that they are doing precisely what should be done in front of the Supreme Court when arguing a case.
What they seem to want to argue away is that all Supreme Court decisions are the products of human-made reasoning through whichever case law and precedents and chosen oberte dicte (other examples of discourse that a justice can cite to make a point). This means that the US Constitution is a living document subject to the interpretation of those Supreme Court justices who live in the time a case is being argued and decided. The only timelessness is that which any single Supreme Court justice or any group of Supreme Court justices choose to argue as such.These legal scholars and historians and philosophers forget that slavery was written in as protected type of property in the US Constitution and that slavery was only expunged from the US Constitution by the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments which means that these alterations could be overturned and the Dred Scott decision of the Taney Court could be cited as stating that Blacks or people of African ancestry were never intended to be citizens of the US nor were people with any American Indian nation ancestry nor were people of Mexican ancestry.
They also forget that same sex marriage does not mean "gay" marriage unless one considers marriage to be a sexual relations contract, which they do when they argue that marriage was a co-habitational and implied act of coitus for procreation between a man and a woman. These ar some prurient sick bastards and yet they do have some truth if we consider that in most parts of the world women can still be sold off and traded for marriage and coitus as young as the age of 8 years old.

Caribou - Don't you wonder what stand these individuals take on divorce (remarriage after doing so)? infidelity? eating shellfish? cutting one's hair including beard? consumption of the cud of swine? (now, please, I respect those whose faith says this must be followed yet they do not, based on their beliefs, condemn those who do eat of said flesh) - ink one's flesh (tattoos)? practice circumcision? go to a palm reader or other psychic? gossip? defend your spouse in a fight or argument? curse at a parent? toil on Sunday? women who speak up in church? stone your non-virgin wife? Good old Leviticus Exodus and Deuteronomy! All actions ban you from eternal rest and condemn you to an eternity of fire and brimstone! I hope everyone of these stately scholars is divorced and remarried, having sex with underage partners, consume only lobster and shrimp with pork sauce, and on and on and on and on. Separation of Church and State - my ass. Tax the shit out of them and they will shut the fuck up.

You are so spot on with your noting about slavery, Drew Scott making African-heritage folk non-citizens (and 3/5 at best!!) . If both Madison and Lincoln were alive today, they'd have championed the equality issue about which these folks soil their names and practices.

 

[tampa24]

Please paste into your computer:
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsne...constitutional-resistance-obergefell-v-hodges

Comment:
This is the latest group of anti-same-sex marriage acolytes who, however, in this incarnation are a bunch of actual legal scholars and philosophers and other real university-supported intellectuals. They are arguing that government officials should nullify the decision by refusing to acknowledge it and put it into practice.

The weakness of their argument is that they are doing precisely what should be done in front of the Supreme Court when arguing a case.
What they seem to want to argue away is that all Supreme Court decisions are the products of human-made reasoning through whichever case law and precedents and chosen oberte dicte (other examples of discourse that a justice can cite to make a point). This means that the US Constitution is a living document subject to the interpretation of those Supreme Court justices who live in the time a case is being argued and decided.

The only timelessness is that which any single Supreme Court justice or any group of Supreme Court justices choose to argue as such.These legal scholars and historians and philosophers forget that slavery was written in as protected type of property in the US Constitution and that slavery was only expunged from the US Constitution by the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments which means that these alterations could be overturned and the Dred Scott decision of the Taney Court could be cited as stating that Blacks or people of African ancestry were never intended to be citizens of the US nor were people with any American Indian nation ancestry nor were people of Mexican ancestry.

They also forget that same sex marriage does not mean "gay" marriage unless one considers marriage to be a sexual relations contract, which they do when they argue that marriage was a co-habitational and implied act of coitus for procreation between a man and a woman. These ar some prurient sick bastards and yet they do have some truth if we consider that in most parts of the world women can still be sold off and traded for marriage and coitus as young as the age of 8 years old.

Caribou - Don't you wonder what stand these individuals take on divorce (remarriage after doing so)? infidelity? eating shellfish? cutting one's hair including beard? consumption of the cud of swine? (now, please, I respect those whose faith says this must be followed yet they do not, based on their beliefs, condemn those who do eat of said flesh) - ink one's flesh (tattoos)? practice circumcision? go to a palm reader or other psychic? gossip? defend your spouse in a fight or argument? curse at a parent? toil on Sunday? women who speak up in church? stone your non-virgin wife? Good old Leviticus Exodus and Deuteronomy! All actions ban you from eternal rest and condemn you to an eternity of fire and brimstone! I hope everyone of these stately scholars is divorced and remarried, having sex with underage partners, consume only lobster and shrimp with pork sauce, and on and on and on and on. Separation of Church and State - my ass. Tax the shit out of them and they will shut the fuck up.

You are so spot on with your noting about slavery, Drew Scott making African-heritage folk non-citizens (and 3/5 at best!!) . If both Madison and Lincoln were alive today, they'd have championed the equality issue about which these folks soil their names and practices.

It's telling also the lengths they go to in order to play up and continually reinforce their scholarly bona-fides. One senses not only the arrogance of the pedestal from which they try to speak down from, but also a desperation not to be labeled part of the lunatic fringe. After reading such a one-sided essay with more holes in its logic and reasoning than a wheel of Swiss cheese, who could ever think them fringe? Let alone lunatic? haha I don't think my education would have been well served by being a student in any of their classes.

Their incarnation into a lifetime of legal scholarship is not one they appear to have individually or collectively made the best of. The evidence we see before us would tend to prove that this will not be their last time on the merry-go-round.

 

[tampa24]

Separation of Church and State - my ass. Tax the shit out of them and they will shut the fuck up.

In spite of the fact that I take great issues with organized religion, yet still attend church...I LOVE IT!!

Good one Ertas! Give 'em hell.

 

[ertas23]

It's telling also the lengths they go to in order to play up and continually reinforce their scholarly bona-fides. One senses not only the arrogance of the pedestal from which they try to speak down from, but also a desperation not to be labeled part of the lunatic fringe. After reading such a one-sided essay with more holes in its logic and reasoning than a wheel of Swiss cheese, who could ever think them fringe? Let alone lunatic? haha I don't think my education would have been well served by being a student in any of their classes.

Nicely stated Tampa! The following is what really gets my dander up! ---- You've already cited an overall reflection of from where they come.

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out: This statement has me terrified. They are addressing the fact that three cases regarding marriage equality are on the court's docket. They have submitted their treatise in preparation for an amicus curiae brief whereby they will burden the court to review their challenges to this year's ruling in favor of a new ruling supporting their causal justification. Perhaps the same majority will prevail and disavow their claims. In any case, this causes me feelings of oreboding.

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative normative is not a typically justified defense before the courts - the 14th Amendment, however, IS!, and particularly desirable desirable? for whom? And they twisted C.J. Stevens' comments in their declaration of war!, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. Hence, any individual who chooses to NOT MARRY should be convicted of not supporting their role in cultivating for societies perpetuation? These people are so damn wrapped/warped in their religious convictions they are blind to the law of the land - the Constitution - and it's guarantee one has the privilege and right to happiness! This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care. OK - those who divorce or abandon their responsibility to exhibiting continuous and unconditional maternal and paternal influence and care should be jailed or executed? Jeeeze!! So, what do they do with divorce? Neglect? Abandonment?

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union—the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman—will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy. Oh my god! You've nailed this one down, Tampa. Now we need to start a treatise that states that any hetero couple who has undertaken the mission of always "being there" for their progeny be publicly condemned for not following through. I wonder how many of those signers are divorced, not involved in their children's lives, not paying child support, etc. How is that remedied? More church services I suppose. Or, maybe federal grants to religious organizations that advocate their perspective and provide services to those who are not or are unwilling to do the follow-through on their commitment to remain one man and one woman jointly committed to remaining in the same household to carry out their obligation to perfectly follow through on their obligations as stated

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions. I can hardly wait till the courts allow me to marry my pet centipede!!

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined. Right, so let's once again attempt to silence all those who do not "fit" the picture of the perfect family that creates the perfect society. Perhaps they'd like to initiate the wearing of the pink triangle on our arms again ala Nazi Germany?

Their incarnation into a lifetime of legal scholarship is not one they appear to have individually or collectively made the best of. The evidence we see before us would tend to prove that this will not be their last time on the merry-go-round.

That's a not-thought-out spontaneous response. But, I am so pissed off I'm seeing red (hence, the type color. I might not make any sense because the listing of issues doesn't encourage continuity.

 

[tampa24]

That's a not-thought-out spontaneous response. But, I am so pissed off I'm seeing red (hence, the type color. I might not make any sense because the listing of issues doesn't encourage continuity.

I feel your pain and disgust over this Ertas.

You're so right when they argue for normative/normal as a basis for legal justification. When you have supposed legal scholars arguing that "normative" societal standards should be upheld at all times, it just makes me roll my eyes. It was once completely normative to enslave kidnapped Africans and their offspring in the U.S. It was considered normative to have regular lynchings in the Jim Crowe south with the local police and judges looking the other way. It was/(is?) normative to discriminate against blacks, physically intimidate them and or even attack them on issues of: voting rights, peaceful assembly, and in jobs and housing. It was considered normative to intimidate, assault and even murder gays and trans, with little consequence or public disapproval.

Since these issues were all normative and accepted practices, with historical precedent to back them up, should the courts overturn rulings to the contrary of these historical norms for instance and return us to the status-quo ante?