A Disturbing Union of Powers...Two Court Decisions Must Be Overturned

[Syriusly]

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

again, millions of gay people are already parents. Get over yourself.

Adoption, in-vitro, surrogacy- All sorts of way to have kids without oppossite sex marriage.

Yes, and those methods are still being litigated as "fair to the child". ..

Litigated by who?

 

[Skylar]

If you pass an unconstitutional law, it gets overturned by the courts. That's how our system works.

If you have the majority as you claim, pass a Constitutional amendment.

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

More accurately, you say that Obergefell is void. You can't quote any of our laws that say what you do. Not one of your own soruces on contract law recognize marriage as a 'minor contract' or one that marries children to their parents.

That's you citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Back in reality, the USSC has explicitly contradicted you. Twice. Finding that marriage for same sex parents benefits their children. And denying marriage for same sex parents hurts their children.

So you ignore the USSC.

The Obergefell court also found that the the right to marriage isn't dependant on kids or the ability to have them. But stands alone even for those who can't, or won't have kids.

So you ignore the USSC again.

But you ignoring the Obergefell ruling doesn't magically make it disappear. Which is why you fail.

 

[mdk]

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

again, millions of gay people are already parents. Get over yourself.

Adoption, in-vitro, surrogacy- All sorts of way to have kids without oppossite sex marriage.

Yes, and those methods are still being litigated as "fair to the child". You might have visited my thread about how selling children from surrogacy into gay arrangements is selling kids into a motherless/fatherless life without the possibility of parole...a mental prison...for money...and that's equivalent to child trafficking. You say all those neo-ways of having kids like they're cemented in concrete across all 50 states. I suppose that's your next crusade eh?

CA's "Babies For Sale!" Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And NONE of those alternatives are about marriage. Marriage is about bringing together a man and woman in anticipation of providing children with a mother and father. It has been so for thousands of years, that contract. Can't break the terms children enjoy just because you want to. They need both parents. Your whims are legally secondary to their needs. So says infant-necessities and contract law; which is possibly as old and well-established as marriage itself..

Oh, for the love of fuck! Not this 'child trafficking' bullshit again. The only place your definition of 'child trafficking' exists is between your own two ears and the figments of your imagination do not have any actual bearing on the law. You would be wise to remember that.

 

[Skylar]

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

again, millions of gay people are already parents. Get over yourself.

Adoption, in-vitro, surrogacy- All sorts of way to have kids without oppossite sex marriage.

Yes, and those methods are still being litigated as "fair to the child". You might have visited my thread about how selling children from surrogacy into gay arrangements is selling kids into a motherless/fatherless life without the possibility of parole...a mental prison...for money...and that's equivalent to child trafficking. You say all those neo-ways of having kids like they're cemented in concrete across all 50 states. I suppose that's your next crusade eh?

CA's "Babies For Sale!" Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And NONE of those alternatives are about marriage. Marriage is about bringing together a man and woman in anticipation of providing children with a mother and father. It has been so for thousands of years, that contract. Can't break the terms children enjoy just because you want to. They need both parents. Your whims are legally secondary to their needs. So says infant-necessities and contract law; which is possibly as old and well-established as marriage itself..

Oh, for the love of fuck! Not this 'child trafficking' bullshit again. The only place your definition of 'child trafficking' exists is between your own two ears and the figments of your imagination do not have any actual bearing on the law. You would be wise to remember that.

No, MDK, we have to let Sil hang her self and demonstrate just how batshit her own claims are.

As a demonstration to the board on Sil's understanding of the law....she considers surrogacy to be child trafficking.

 

[Syriusly]

No need. Ancient infants and contracts law says that the Obergefell Hearing's results "legal" gay marriage is VOID upon its face, no matter who determines it is not, if it deprives a child or children of both vital mother and father (their original guarantee) in marriage. Obergefell strips them of that right for life. Which can't be.

again, millions of gay people are already parents. Get over yourself.

Adoption, in-vitro, surrogacy- All sorts of way to have kids without oppossite sex marriage.

Yes, and those methods are still being litigated as "fair to the child". You might have visited my thread about how selling children from surrogacy into gay arrangements is selling kids into a motherless/fatherless life without the possibility of parole...a mental prison...for money...and that's equivalent to child trafficking. You say all those neo-ways of having kids like they're cemented in concrete across all 50 states. I suppose that's your next crusade eh?

CA's "Babies For Sale!" Are Private Surrogacy Contracts The Same As Child-Trafficking? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And NONE of those alternatives are about marriage. Marriage is about bringing together a man and woman in anticipation of providing children with a mother and father. It has been so for thousands of years, that contract. Can't break the terms children enjoy just because you want to. They need both parents. Your whims are legally secondary to their needs. So says infant-necessities and contract law; which is possibly as old and well-established as marriage itself..

Oh, for the love of fuck! Not this 'child trafficking' bullshit again. The only place your definition of 'child trafficking' exists is between your own two ears and the figments of your imagination do not have any actual bearing on the law. You would be wise to remember that.

No, MDK, we have to let Sil hang her self and demonstrate just how batshit her own claims are.

As a demonstration to the board on Sil's understanding of the law....she considers surrogacy to be child trafficking.

Which reminds me of what I heard this morning- this terrifying case of 'child trafficking'

http://jezebel.com/texas-grandma-is-surrogate-for-daughter-gives-birth-to-1751732901

A 54-year-old woman in Plano, Texas gave birth to her own granddaughter by acting as the surrogate for her daughter. After several infertility treatments resulted in multiple miscarriages for 28-year-old Kelley McKissack, her mother, Tracey Thompson, offered to be her surrogate — even though she went through menopause several years prior.

After the treatments, McKissack and her husband had four fertilized embryos left, the Associated Press reports. They were implanted in Thompson last April. Thompson had to receive medical treatments in order to prepare her body for the pregnancy.

 

[Silhouette]

A 54-year-old woman in Plano, Texas gave birth to her own granddaughter by acting as the surrogate for her daughter. After several infertility treatments resulted in multiple miscarriages for 28-year-old Kelley McKissack, her mother, Tracey Thompson, offered to be her surrogate — even though she went through menopause several years prior.

After the treatments, McKissack and her husband had four fertilized embryos left, the Associated Press reports. They were implanted in Thompson last April. Thompson had to receive medical treatments in order to prepare her body for the pregnancy.

What does that have to do with children's enjoyments of the marriage contract as to necessities of having both a mother and father? "Outside marriage contract" isn't relevant to inside the marriage contract. Of course all manner of situations involving children exist outside the marriage contract. That's why it was created in the first place: to guarantee children in it a better life; a life with both a mother and father for girls and boys.

 

[Skylar]

A 54-year-old woman in Plano, Texas gave birth to her own granddaughter by acting as the surrogate for her daughter. After several infertility treatments resulted in multiple miscarriages for 28-year-old Kelley McKissack, her mother, Tracey Thompson, offered to be her surrogate — even though she went through menopause several years prior.

After the treatments, McKissack and her husband had four fertilized embryos left, the Associated Press reports. They were implanted in Thompson last April. Thompson had to receive medical treatments in order to prepare her body for the pregnancy.

What does that have to do with children's enjoyments of the marriage contract as to necessities of having both a mother and father?

You're the one who started babbling about 'child trafficking'. If its irrelevant to the thread, then you're offering up red herrings.

Remembering of course that you're citing entertainment law for child actors, insisting its marriage law. Which it isn't. Nor does any source you've ever offered recognize it as such.

Worse, the Obergefell decision explicitly contradicts you. Recognizing the denial of same sex marriage hurts children. And the marriage of same sex parents hurts children.

And of course, the Obegefell decision explicitly disconnects marriage from children or the ability to have them:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Killing your argument yet again.

Remember, Sil......you have no idea what you're talking about. And you're citing your imagination as law.

It isn't.

 

[Syriusly]

A 54-year-old woman in Plano, Texas gave birth to her own granddaughter by acting as the surrogate for her daughter. After several infertility treatments resulted in multiple miscarriages for 28-year-old Kelley McKissack, her mother, Tracey Thompson, offered to be her surrogate — even though she went through menopause several years prior.

After the treatments, McKissack and her husband had four fertilized embryos left, the Associated Press reports. They were implanted in Thompson last April. Thompson had to receive medical treatments in order to prepare her body for the pregnancy.

What does that have to do with children's enjoyments of the marriage contract as to necessities of having both a mother and father? .

I was talking about 'child trafficking'- you know- what you said 'surrogacy' is the same as.

Are you going to be asking for the arrest of the grandmother on child trafficking charges?

 

[Silhouette]

Surrogacy to gay homes, specifically. Do read and quote all of what I say, and not just part of it, leaving the key points out of the context.. Surrogacy to gay homes strips a child of either a mother or father for life (a type of mental prison)...for money. = child trafficking.

 

[g5000]

so this is the argument? That the White House had a light display ready in solidarity with a decision everyone new was coming?

I remember the good old days when conspiracy theories had some weight. Altered photos of Oswald. Weird shadows on the moon landing photos.

Now...what the fuck? Colored lights are a sign of the Illuminati?

Illuminati! Get it?

I guess it just goes to show that when nutjobs breed, the next generation is damn near brain stem dead.

 

[Syriusly]

Surrogacy to gay homes.

Really?

Surrogacy to gay homes is 'child trafficking' but not to non-gay homes?

Why?

Because you are a flaming bigot.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, and those methods are still being litigated as "fair to the child". You might have visited my thread about how selling children from surrogacy into gay arrangements is selling kids into a motherless/fatherless life without the possibility of parole...a mental prison...for money...and that's equivalent to child trafficking. You say all those neo-ways of having kids like they're cemented in concrete across all 50 states. I suppose that's your next crusade eh?

Guy, frankly, I'd rather have a kid with a gay couple who will bother to parent than some rich couple that let their biological clocks run down tricking some teenager out of her kid only to fob the kid off on a nanny who is here illegally.

And NONE of those alternatives are about marriage. Marriage is about bringing together a man and woman in anticipation of providing children with a mother and father. It has been so for thousands of years, that contract. Can't break the terms children enjoy just because you want to. They need both parents. Your whims are legally secondary to their needs. So says infant-necessities and contract law; which is possibly as old and well-established as marriage itself..

Guy, if you want to go back to what Marriage was thousands of years ago.

You should still be able to have your wife stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night.

You should still be able to marry your rape victim if you give her father 50 shekels of silver.

You should still be able to kill your children if they mouth off to you.

BECAUSE ALL THIS SHIT IS IN THE FUCKING BIBLE!!!!!

Or you can take the rational, sensible approach that we should base our laws on what makes sense now. Not what people did in the past when child abuse and domestic violence were considered okay.

 

[JoeB131]

Now...what the fuck? Colored lights are a sign of the Illuminati?

Illuminati! Get it?

Yes.

I get it.

You should be totally ashamed of yourself.

Just sayin'.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, if Silhouette just switched out Illuminati for "Gay"- she would sound much like those Konspiracy theorists

 

[Silhouette]

Really? Surrogacy to gay homes is 'child trafficking' but not to non-gay homes? Why?

Because you are a flaming bigot.

I explained why...but when you spam a page where you read the explanation to your own question already and it disappears, then you get to pretend like I'm a "bigot without explanation" and you "win" the debate.

So I'll remind you again. Surrogacy to gays for money means selling a child into a psychological prison where they are deprived of either a mother or father for life, without the possibility of parole.

Does that refresh your memory about the difference of surrogacy to hetero marrieds vs gay "marrieds"?

 

[JoeB131]

I explained why...but when you spam a page where you read the explanation to your own question already and it disappears, then you get to pretend like I'm a "bigot without explanation" and you "win" the debate.

So I'll remind you again. Surrogacy to gays for money means selling a child into a psychological prison where they are deprived of either a mother or father for life, without the possibility of parole.

Does that refresh your memory about the difference of surrogacy to hetero marrieds vs gay "marrieds"?

Again, I know gay people who are fantastic parents, I know straight people who have the parenting skills of feral wolves.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

No need to talk about it. I'm counting on the Big Guy In The Sky to put things right.

Well, if hoping your imaginary friend in the sky is going to take care of you, that's great and all.

I want to deal with real problems in the here and now.

So one more time. DO you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "I think it's icky (when it's two dude)" and "My Imaginary Pixie in the Sky says it's bad."

Im all for gay marriage, support it 100%, but I have to say that you really are one offensive arrogant piece of shit arent you?

 

[Syriusly]

Really? Surrogacy to gay homes is 'child trafficking' but not to non-gay homes? Why?

Because you are a flaming bigot.

So I'll remind you again. Surrogacy to gays for money means selling a child into a psychological prison where they are deprived of either a mother or father for life, without the possibility of parole.?

So if 'surrogacy to gays for money means selling- what about surrogacy for money for straight people?

What if this couple were lesbians- and the grandmother was one of their mother- oh right then you have the 'psychological prison' part- which apparently you think that is what every child being raised by a single parent is putting their kids through.

What a fucking rude thing to say to every single parent- gay or straight- trying to raise their kids the best that they can.

 

[Syriusly]

No need to talk about it. I'm counting on the Big Guy In The Sky to put things right.

Well, if hoping your imaginary friend in the sky is going to take care of you, that's great and all.

I want to deal with real problems in the here and now.

So one more time. DO you have any arguments against gay marriage other than "I think it's icky (when it's two dude)" and "My Imaginary Pixie in the Sky says it's bad."

Im all for gay marriage, support it 100%, but I have to say that you really are one offensive arrogant piece of shit arent you?

really- you find that post offensive? Really- here at USMB?

 

[Silhouette]

So if 'surrogacy to gays for money means selling- what about surrogacy for money for straight people?

.

I love how you've read the entire thread on this topic and pretend not to know what my position is. Surrogacy in dire circumstances, to married hetero couples (so kids have both a mom and dad they need) and with a guardian ad litem overseeing the entire process.

You remember that, don't you? Of course you do...