Bermuda Becomes First Country to Repeal Same-Sex Marriage After Widespread Criticisms

[Silhouette]

Not once was the Infancy Doctrine cited during legal arguments in the numerous cases surrounding gay marriage.

Exactly. And that's called a mistrial in every case where children had no unique advocate briefing the court.

You know the Infancy Doctrine, which exists backed by metric tons of case law, requires that in civil cases where kids have a weighty stake, they're required to have their own counsel brief the court. Failure to do so numerous times does not affect the potency of the doctrine's protection of kids. Obergefell itself named children as integral to the concept of marriage. Then it denied them representation on a massive retooling of the concept.

That's what's called a legal fail. No matter how many times the fail is repeated.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

Yet our system doesn't require your 'ideal' for children.

Or my ideal- 'loving parents who are able to emotionally and financially support their children'.

Basically right now two teens fumbling in the backseat of the car get to become parents whether they intended to or not, whether they can support them or not.

Personally I prefer loving parents that are committed to raising their children, and responsible enough to do the job.

I don't care what their gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation is- just take care of your kids.

The system does require an ideal where in any civil case where kids have a weighty stake, they must have their own counsel briefing the court. That never happened in Obergefell. Oopsies

Just because neither side of Obergefell- or the Justices of the Supreme Court- believe what the voices in your head are telling you- doesn't automatically make your voices right.

lol

 

[Syriusly]

Not once was the Infancy Doctrine cited during legal arguments in the numerous cases surrounding gay marriage.

Exactly. And that's called a mistrial in every case where children had no unique advocate briefing the court.

You know the Infancy Doctrine, which exists backed by metric tons of case law, requires that in civil cases where kids have a weighty stake, they're required to have their own counsel brief the court. Failure to do so numerous times does not affect the potency of the doctrine's protection of kids. Obergefell itself named children as integral to the concept of marriage. Then it denied them representation on a massive retooling of the concept.

That's what's called a legal fail. No matter how many times the fail is repeated.

Silhouette of course is again just making crap up- in this case she is once again taking a real concept- the Infancy Doctrine- and then just makes up crap about it.

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional state marriage laws 4 times now- Obergefell was just the latest. Not one of those cases had lawyers representing children.

Because children were not part of the suites.

Silhouette just finds a legal concept she can use the name of- and then makes crap up about it- like she does for virtually everything she posts.

 

[mdk]

Not once was the Infancy Doctrine cited during legal arguments in the numerous cases surrounding gay marriage.

Exactly. And that's called a mistrial in every case where children had no unique advocate briefing the court.

You know the Infancy Doctrine, which exists backed by metric tons of case law, requires that in civil cases where kids have a weighty stake, they're required to have their own counsel brief the court. Failure to do so numerous times does not affect the potency of the doctrine's protection of kids. Obergefell itself named children as integral to the concept of marriage. Then it denied them representation on a massive retooling of the concept.

That's what's called a legal fail. No matter how many times the fail is repeated.

You’re still throwing Hail Mary passes even though the game end years ago. How’s that working out for you? lol

 

[Aba Incieni]

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

Neither do single parent children in your world. But I know, you're a homophobe, usually because you have those feelings and it scares you. Don't worry, it'll be alright.

Single parent children is not the ideal situation. And your heterophobia is quite common among your people.

#HeteroPride.

I'm not gay, sorry to burst your bubble. But I have no problem at all with gays. Unlike you. Pity.

Did someone say you were? Sounds like my innocuous statement struck a nerve.

#HeteroPride.

 

[Taz]

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

We do live in a world though of civil due process. Children were declared as integral to the concept of marriage within the Obergefell Opinion itself. Yet they had no representation at the hearing briefing the court. The Infancy Doctrine mandates with supporting case law that any civil hearing in which children have a weighty stake, they must have separate counsel briefing the court. The Obergefell hearing was improper therefore and it's renderings cannot be applicable law.

Kangaroo hearings such as Obergefell do not have any power over anyone, much less the referendums of millions upon millions of voters. Any state so seeking to defy Obergefell may do so with appealable impunity.

So gays will go back to having children but not being married. Would that satisfy you?

This is not a question of compassion for gays or the poor kids dragged into their lifestyles. It's a question of the relevance of fathers and mothers in the marriage contract. No counsel for children as required by the Infancy Doctrine in such a civil case was invited or present to brief the court on that relevance. So Obergefell was a mistrial.

So why focus on that small detail, what's your real point here, that you're against gay marriage and think that this microscopic tidbit is going to change anything?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Children are a huge consideration in all divorce proceedings. Rather than being banished, they are the main consideration.

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Both Sides Now, but "Clouds Get in the Way"

It's ideal for entitled degenerate sickos.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

. But I know, you're a homophobe, usually because you have those feelings and it scares you.

Dragging Us Into Their Snakepit

Some suicidal cults need to be phobed, especially ones with predatory chants preaching that everybody else secretly wants to join them.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Both Sides Now, but "Clouds Get in the Way"

It's ideal for entitled degenerate sickos.

Hey stop talking about the Trump administration in this thread!

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

. But I know, you're a homophobe, usually because you have those feelings and it scares you.

Dragging Us Into Their Snakepit

Some suicidal cults need to be phobed, especially ones with predatory chants preaching that everybody else secretly wants to join them.

The Justice Department is already investigating the Trump campaign.

 

[Taz]

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

Neither do single parent children in your world. But I know, you're a homophobe, usually because you have those feelings and it scares you. Don't worry, it'll be alright.

Single parent children is not the ideal situation. And your heterophobia is quite common among your people.

#HeteroPride.

I'm not gay, sorry to burst your bubble. But I have no problem at all with gays. Unlike you. Pity.

Did someone say you were? Sounds like my innocuous statement struck a nerve.

#HeteroPride.

"your heterophobia is quite common among your people." So there is heterophobia among heteros? Or sane people? What people are mine?

 

[Taz]

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

. But I know, you're a homophobe, usually because you have those feelings and it scares you.

Dragging Us Into Their Snakepit

Some suicidal cults need to be phobed, especially ones with predatory chants preaching that everybody else secretly wants to join them.

Buddy, I have no idea wtf you're talking about. It could be time for your meds.

 

[Borillar]

I'd like to see a case made on the father/mother banishment contracts aka: gay marriage. Can't wait to see the verbal gymnastics on demoting the importance of fatherhood or motherhood into irrelevance.

I am not following your reasoning. What does a gay couple getting married have to do with this "father/mother banishment contracts" that you keep mentioning? What if they don't have any intention of having children? What if they plan on adopting? What about straight couples who don't want kids?

 

[Borillar]

We would repeal it too...if we were free to do so like Bermuda. But our liberal overlords have overruled us, set aside our democratically passed laws, and dictated marriage between homosexuals from their benches.

The SCOTUS decided they would determine what laws enacted by Congress were constitutional. It was never supposed to be their power. Congress should take that stolen power away and only allow the Courts to decide cases between opposing parties. We should not be ruled by a fucking judge with an agenda.

I bet you'd have been perfectly happy if said judge ruled the other way.

 

[Borillar]

They wouldn't marry their same gender, either.

How does 2 gays calling their union a marriage affect you?

It affects the sanctity of marriage. Else why not marry Bossie the bull and his offspring. Still marriage and how does it affect you?

So it doesn’t actually affect you at all. Thanks for clearing that up. As for the sanctity of marriage, I think that the millions of divorces has pretty much killed that idea.

It affects the sanctity of my marriage. Are you dull?

Marriage means something to some people. It holds meaning because it is between man and woman. If your cats can marry each other it cheapens the sanctity of all marriage.

Divorce cheapens the sanctity of marriage as well. Just like two men pretending they are married.

And marriage means something to gay people so why should you get to tell them what to do? Heterosexuals cheapen marriage with divorce already so who cares?

This. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Seems the only "sanctity" involved in marriage is the commitment that each party has for each other.

 

[Borillar]

But why do you hate gays so much? And there is no such thing as sanctity of marriage, it’s just an excuse to openly hate homos.

Why do gays hate anticipated kids so much that they'd create a (illegal) contract that banishes them from either a mother or father for life?

What anticipated kids? What "banishment?" WTF are you talking about?

 

[Syriusly]

I'd like to see a case made on the father/mother banishment contracts aka: gay marriage. Can't wait to see the verbal gymnastics on demoting the importance of fatherhood or motherhood into irrelevance.

I am not following your reasoning. What does a gay couple getting married have to do with this "father/mother banishment contracts" that you keep mentioning? What if they don't have any intention of having children? What if they plan on adopting? What about straight couples who don't want kids?

Your mistake was trying to find some 'reasoning' in Silly's post.

Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't suddenly provide a magical father or mother to their imaginary future children- but it does prevent their existing children from having married parents.

 

[Borillar]

Gay marriage is a contract that cannot legally exist. Obergefell went into great detail about how children are intrinsic to (the) marriage (contract). Yet foolishly none of the Justices were versed on the Infancy Doctrine which first declares that at any civil hearing where children have a stake, they must have separate counsel (there was no such counsel briefing Obergefell) And,second that no contract involving children in any way may contain terms that banishes kids from a vital thing to them.

So unless a court (properly, with separate child counsel briefing) determines fathers are no longer vital to sons or mothers to daughters, Obergefell is null & void. I.e.: ü Obergefell was arrived at illegally & ratified a brand new contract that violates the Infancy Doctrine. Such contracts aren't merely challengeable, they are void before their ink is dry.

So any marriage without kids should be null and void?

 

[Wyatt earp]

How does 2 gays calling their union a marriage affect you?

It affects the sanctity of marriage. Else why not marry Bossie the bull and his offspring. Still marriage and how does it affect you?

So it doesn’t actually affect you at all. Thanks for clearing that up. As for the sanctity of marriage, I think that the millions of divorces has pretty much killed that idea.

It affects the sanctity of my marriage. Are you dull?

Marriage means something to some people. It holds meaning because it is between man and woman. If your cats can marry each other it cheapens the sanctity of all marriage.

Divorce cheapens the sanctity of marriage as well. Just like two men pretending they are married.

And marriage means something to gay people so why should you get to tell them what to do? Heterosexuals cheapen marriage with divorce already so who cares?

This. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Seems the only "sanctity" involved in marriage is the commitment that each party has for each other.

And just make it worse by calling gays getting married instead of the correct term "civil unions" destroys it even more..



Good job!

 

[Syriusly]

It affects the sanctity of marriage. Else why not marry Bossie the bull and his offspring. Still marriage and how does it affect you?

So it doesn’t actually affect you at all. Thanks for clearing that up. As for the sanctity of marriage, I think that the millions of divorces has pretty much killed that idea.

It affects the sanctity of my marriage. Are you dull?

Marriage means something to some people. It holds meaning because it is between man and woman. If your cats can marry each other it cheapens the sanctity of all marriage.

Divorce cheapens the sanctity of marriage as well. Just like two men pretending they are married.

And marriage means something to gay people so why should you get to tell them what to do? Heterosexuals cheapen marriage with divorce already so who cares?

This. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Seems the only "sanctity" involved in marriage is the commitment that each party has for each other.

And just make it worse by calling gays getting married instead of the correct term "civil unions" destroys it even more..

Well that will legally be the correct term in Bermuda.

The correct term in the United States is 'marriage'

The contards fought long and hard to ensure that 'civil unions' would not be recognized in the states that didn't recognize 'gay marriage' either.