Bans on SSM are unconstitutional.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet to consider whether they should tackle the issue of same-sex marriage this term or give the lower courts more time to grapple with the question and flesh out the legal theories involved.
What is perhaps most interesting about the evolution of this issue is that to date all the courts addressing the question have missed one remarkably simple proposition:

Bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law because they punish children in an effort to control the conduct of adults.

Punishing children for matters beyond their control is patently impermissible as a matter of Supreme Court precedent regarding the constitutional rights of children. In the first of these cases, ( Levy vs Louisiana - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/68/case.html ) the court considered a Louisiana law that forbade children born out of wedlock from receiving benefits upon the wrongful death of their mother. Louisiana argued that the law was a perfectly legitimate means of expressing moral disapproval of extramarital liaisons. The Supreme Court, however, determined that the law violated equal protection because it is fundamentally unfair and irrational for a state to deny important benefits to children merely to express moral disapproval of the conduct of adults—or to incentivize adults to behave in a particular way.

In a similar case decided several years later, ( Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/164/case.html ) the court addressed another Louisiana statute that intentionally disadvantaged children born out of wedlock. Specifically, the law at issue preferred “legitimate” children to “illegitimate” children in distributing worker’s compensation benefits upon the death of a parent. The court invalidated the statute, holding that, under the equal protection clause, both classes of children must be permitted to recover equally. “No child,” the court wrote, “is responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual—as well as unjust—way of deterring the parent.”

In yet another case ( Plyler v. Doe - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/case.html ) decided a decade later, the court relied on the same logic in holding that states could not constitutionally deny public education to undocumented immigrant children in an effort to discourage their parents from entering the country illegally. The constitutional conclusion from this line of cases is clear: No matter how reprehensible a state finds certain adult conduct, it cannot curb that conduct through laws that punish children.

The parallels between the laws struck down in these cases and bans against same-sex marriage are unavoidable. States that ban gay marriage once argued that they did so in order to condemn homosexuality; today, they argue that gay marriage must be forbidden in order to somehow incentivize straight marriage. No matter the rationale, the effect of these laws is clear: Gay marriage bans deny the children of same-sex couples critical benefits, both economically and psychologically. Even if one believes that gay marriage bans are a justifiable effort to control the conduct of adults, it is simply unconstitutional to punish children based on that belief.

In 2013, an amicus brief was filed explaining why the court’s child-centered equal protection precedent should make United States v. Windsor an easy case to decide. But while Justice Anthony Kennedy did discuss harm to children in his groundbreaking Windsor opinion, (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-307/opinion3.html ) he did not explicitly recognize the legal theory that the harm to children alone should render gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

Extract from Kennedy's Windsor Opinion - The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558 , and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. 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. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 199. And it denies or re- duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

 

Why should they even be allowed to adopt children in the first place? Students have shown that children adopted by them have higher rates of being abused.

 

bollocks

 

How do you know those studies are false?

 

Put them up, let's have a look at them .. oh and no biased sites please, link only to peer reviewed studies.

Here is one you can look at, though as it doesn't adhere to your erroneous opinion you probably won't read it.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gay.pdf

 

How can I tell if a site is biased or not?

 

Use what ever site you like to get the just of the study, then go search out the actual study itself .. it really isn't rocket science to do.

Try here for starters - http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...=m9gpVNedOqSV7AaeoYDYAg&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QgQMwAA

Here is one - A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Affects of Homosexual Parenting on Children's Sexual and Social Functioning - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J087v20n01_06#.VCnY1RawE_4

 

That's the conclusion I came to when I was still a christian. At the time I didn't agree with the lifestyle but I didn't see what moral basis we could make as a nation that declares itself as the land of the free to deny people that right. It just logically didn't fit in my opinion.

 

Why are you calling me a troll and being so vulgar?

 

Because you're trolling. And I wasn't being vulgar.

 

What makes you think im trolling?

 

What makes you think you're not?

 

First, you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*). You claimed studies have said something, yet failed to post any. Then upon request you dodged.

Post some studies that show that children of homosexual patents are more likely to be abused. Since you claimed that, the burden of proof is yours.

I think it's bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and/or backward religious propaganda.

 

I actually read those studies on a religious website.

 

which students?

 

Are they valid science? Just because it is on a religious website doesn't mean they aren't.

But due to your reluctance to post them, I am under the impression that you truly know they are bunk.

- - - Updated - - -

None apparently.

 

I meant studies, not students.

 

Which studies?

Are there any? Post them

 

I read them on a religious website, so I guess theyre probably biased and bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Your claim is not true until proven.

I don't believe you. I think you have antecedently held beliefs, and you will find info to support those beliefs and ignore anything that raises questions about them.

You are biased, that's okay everybody is about this or that. You do have to understand that bias in order to have a logical conversation.

Non-existent studies don't prove anything. All I have to go on is your claim that there are studies, studies you refuse to post because you are suspicious of their validity.

 

To be honest, I actually posted that comment about the studies impulsively. I didnt know what else to post in this thread-so I just posted something stupid.

 

There is no need to quit being a lady about it. Your beliefs are simply not backed up by anything.

 

Also like to add that your response was off topic anyway, the question is not whether homosexual people should be allowed to adopt, but whether the banning of SSM is in fact unconstitutional based on previous Supreme Court rulings that children, who are already adopted into SSM, cannot be punished as a means of controlling what adults do.

Whether you believe that it is right or wrong for SSM couples to adopt means nothing as there are already thousands of SSM couples who HAVE adopted, so unless you are advocated removing those children from them (are you?) then the OP stands.

 

Students or studies have not shown that.

The study you were may be referring to indicated that the children were in adoption BECAUSE they had been abused...not that they were abused by the adoptive parents. Gay or otherwise.

 

The point of the article is that children are being disenfranchised by marriage bans and their constitutional rights are being deprived.

I don't believe that argument is anywhere close to the most convincing of the legitimate constitutional arguments...not to say it is not a legitimate argument... just that it may not be cited in judicial reasoning when SSmarriage bans are ruled unconstitutional.