Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

[Silhouette]

You mean the state didn't require her to remarry for the children's sake- or presuming she was ever married- prevent her from divorcing- because 'contractual law' wouldn't allow that?

What contract are the children of single parents bound by? None. Their situation is hoped to be temporary. That's why states give incentives to marrieds.

What contract are the children involved in "gay marriage" bound by? The marriage contract; which is for life, under specific and legally-binding terms.

ergo, "gay marriage" is institutionalized mental prison (abuse) to children. And hence the reason I'm reporting it to States' authorities...who are bound by law to investigate my allegations without prejudice or examination for "frivolity".

 

[mdk]

What contract are the children of single parents bound by? None. Their situation is hoped to be temporary. That's why states give incentives to marrieds.

The same contract as everyone else is bound by. None.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You mean the state didn't require her to remarry for the children's sake- or presuming she was ever married- prevent her from divorcing- because 'contractual law' wouldn't allow that?

What contract are the children of single parents bound by? None. Their situation is hoped to be temporary. That's why states give incentives to marrieds.

What contract are the children involved in "gay marriage" bound by? The marriage contract; which is for life, under specific and legally-binding terms.

ergo, "gay marriage" is institutionalized mental prison (abuse) to children. And hence the reason I'm reporting it to States' authorities...who are bound by law to investigate my allegations without prejudice or examination for "frivolity".

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm. That's crazy...

 

[Syriusly]

You mean the state didn't require her to remarry for the children's sake- or presuming she was ever married- prevent her from divorcing- because 'contractual law' wouldn't allow that?

What contract are the children of single parents bound by? None. .

But if the parents were married- before they became single parents- where was that contract preventing that divorce?
Or if there was no marriage- just an unfortunate single mother who got pregnant a few times by a few different men- where was the state protecting the 'right' of those children to have a married mother and father?

Once again- you argue only for harming homosexuals- and their children- not surprisingly- it never applies to the vast majority of children being raised without either a mother or a father.

 

[ogibillm]

The op's sick obsession continues.

You know...you could be right.. My insisting children have both a mother and father could be just a "sick obsession". Let's test it under investigation and prosecution in the courts to see if it's just me or there's actual child abuse going on. See OP for mandates on investigating (2) (C)...

so what are you doing to outlaw divorce?
what are you doing to require unwed parents to marry?

 

[Skylar]

You mean the state didn't require her to remarry for the children's sake- or presuming she was ever married- prevent her from divorcing- because 'contractual law' wouldn't allow that?

What contract are the children of single parents bound by? None. Their situation is hoped to be temporary. That's why states give incentives to marrieds.

What contract are the children involved in "gay marriage" bound by? The marriage contract; which is for life, under specific and legally-binding terms.

ergo, "gay marriage" is institutionalized mental prison (abuse) to children. And hence the reason I'm reporting it to States' authorities...who are bound by law to investigate my allegations without prejudice or examination for "frivolity".

For perhaps the 50th time, show us any law or court that recognizes that the marriage of parents creates a 'minor contract' for their children.

You can't. That pseudo-legal gibberish is your imagination. Its also the basis of your *entire* understanding of contract law and your entire argument. Sorry, Sil....but your imagination is not contract law.

Worse, your standard is depriving a child of a 'mother and a father'. Which single parenting does. 'Hope' isn't a 'mother and a father'. Not being under some imaginary 'contract' isn't a 'mother and a father'. Single parents fail your own standards.

But since you *were* a single parent, you give yourself a pass despite failing the exact same standards you condemn gays for. We have a word for that: hypocrisy.

 

[Silhouette]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

 

[mdk]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

What a crock. The GOP controls Congress, a majority of state legislatures, and, a majority of the governors' chairs. Yet gay marriage is still legal. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Skylar]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

Weren't you the one that said as soon as the republicans took the senate the issue would change with both Kagan and Ginsberg being impeached?

That was more than a year ago. And....nothing. So now you're just pushed back your date and 'predicted again'.

You remind me of the doomsday cultists with the ever revised dates for the end of the world. When one prediction fails, they ignore it and make up another.

 

[daws101]

The op's sick obsession continues.

You know...you could be right.. My insisting children have both a mother and father could be just a "sick obsession". Let's test it under investigation and prosecution in the courts to see if it's just me or there's actual child abuse going on. See OP for mandates on investigating (2) (C)...

so what are you doing to outlaw divorce?
what are you doing to require unwed parents to marry?

The Catholic Church did that for hundreds of years and yet it did jackshit to solve the problem.
Funny thing is, silly wet yammers endlessly about how the government is too much on the side of LGBT people..

 

[daws101]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

Why? you'll still be obsessed and shit out of luck.

 

[Silhouette]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

Why? you'll still be obsessed and shit out of luck.

You think. for instance, that the Kleins will not prevail at SCOTUS? I wouldn't bet on that..

 

[daws101]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

Why? you'll still be obsessed and shit out of luck.

You think. for instance, that the Kleins will not prevail at SCOTUS? I wouldn't bet on that..

They won't and neither will you.

 

[Syriusly]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

Next year you will still be making delusional claims.

Unless they have taken your keyboard away by then.

 

[Syriusly]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

Why? you'll still be obsessed and shit out of luck.

You think. for instance, that the Kleins will not prevail at SCOTUS? I wouldn't bet on that..

I think the Kleins won't even get to the Supreme Court.

 

[Silhouette]

I think the Kleins won't even get to the Supreme Court.

So what you're actually saying is, that your cult has undermined the Constitution to such a degree, with help from activist judges in the appellate system, that a case where Christians were destroyed for refusing to promote/play along with another faith diametrically opposed to their beliefs and teachings (Church of LGBT), won't even see arguments at the Last Stop to see if this infringes on their 1st & 14th Amendment rights eh?

Thanks for showing your cards.

 

[Skylar]

Any luck with that yet? Nope? Hmmm.

We're in an election year. Currently the LGBT cult is in power. Ask me that again about this time next year...

Why? you'll still be obsessed and shit out of luck.

You think. for instance, that the Kleins will not prevail at SCOTUS? I wouldn't bet on that..

Yeah, but you said the same thing about Obergefell, insisting the court would back the states in banning same sex marriage. And you were wrong.

You said the same thing about the the relevance of the Loving Decision to same sex marriage. And you were wrong.

You said the same thing about the temporary stay that the USSC granted Utah. And you were wrong.

You said the same thing about the impeachment of Kagan and Ginsberg when the republicans took the senate. And you were wrong.

You said the same thing about Kim Davis' request for cert from the Supreme Court. And you were wrong.

(Do you notice the pattern yet?)

In fact, you've never once made a legal prediction that was accurate. Every single time you've told us what the court would do.....you were wrong. Your record of failure in predicting legal outcomes....is perfect.

But this time its different, huh?

 

[Skylar]

I think the Kleins won't even get to the Supreme Court.

So what you're actually saying is, that your cult has undermined the Constitution to such a degree, with help from activist judges in the appellate system, that a case where Christians were destroyed for refusing to promote/play along with another faith diametrically opposed to their beliefs and teachings (Church of LGBT), won't even see arguments at the Last Stop to see if this infringes on their 1st & 14th Amendment rights eh?

Thanks for showing your cards.

Nope. Just that you have no idea what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to any law or any court.

 

[daws101]

I think the Kleins won't even get to the Supreme Court.

So what you're actually saying is, that your cult has undermined the Constitution to such a degree, with help from activist judges in the appellate system, that a case where Christians were destroyed for refusing to promote/play along with another faith diametrically opposed to their beliefs and teachings (Church of LGBT), won't even see arguments at the Last Stop to see if this infringes on their 1st & 14th Amendment rights eh?

Thanks for showing your cards.

Btw Syriusly didn't say that it did.

 

[Silhouette]

you have no idea what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to any law or any court.

Let's say an adult signed or assented to or spoke aloud in front of witnesses any contract involving children other than marriage that says "oh, and by the way, one of the terms of this contract is that the children involved currently or any that will be involved no longer have access or hope of access to either a mother or father for life."

We would not allow that contract.