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

[Aba Incieni]

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?

Our superiors. Those who are neither black, nor women, nor gay, nor muslim, but defend them all as though they were one. The poor dears deserve it because your heart is in helping the downtrodden. Your cause are those you think of as your inferiors. They need your help.

In this case, the lowly gays seek your assistance. You need to up your game. For them.

#HeteroPride.

 

[Taz]

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?

Our superiors. Those who are neither black, nor women, nor gay, nor muslim, but defend them all as though they were one. The poor dears deserve it because your heart is in helping the downtrodden. Your cause are those you think of as your inferiors. They need your help.

In this case, the lowly gays seek your assistance. You need to up your game. For them.

So my people are "our superiors"? Which are "my inferiors"? Wtf are you talking about? I think YOU need help.

 

[Aba Incieni]

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?

Our superiors. Those who are neither black, nor women, nor gay, nor muslim, but defend them all as though they were one. The poor dears deserve it because your heart is in helping the downtrodden. Your cause are those you think of as your inferiors. They need your help.

In this case, the lowly gays seek your assistance. You need to up your game. For them.

So my people are "our superiors"? Which are "my inferiors? Wtf are you talking about? I think YOU need help.

You people are our superiors. We are your inferiors. We need your help. You are none of the things for which you argue so stridently. Are you black? A woman? Gay? muslim?

 

[Taz]

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?

Our superiors. Those who are neither black, nor women, nor gay, nor muslim, but defend them all as though they were one. The poor dears deserve it because your heart is in helping the downtrodden. Your cause are those you think of as your inferiors. They need your help.

In this case, the lowly gays seek your assistance. You need to up your game. For them.

So my people are "our superiors"? Which are "my inferiors? Wtf are you talking about? I think YOU need help.

You people are our superiors. We are your inferiors. We need your help. You are none of the things for which you argue so stridently. Are you black? A woman? Gay? muslim?

I don't fight for blacks or muslims.

 

[Aba Incieni]

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?

Our superiors. Those who are neither black, nor women, nor gay, nor muslim, but defend them all as though they were one. The poor dears deserve it because your heart is in helping the downtrodden. Your cause are those you think of as your inferiors. They need your help.

In this case, the lowly gays seek your assistance. You need to up your game. For them.

So my people are "our superiors"? Which are "my inferiors? Wtf are you talking about? I think YOU need help.

You people are our superiors. We are your inferiors. We need your help. You are none of the things for which you argue so stridently. Are you black? A woman? Gay? muslim?

I don't fight for blacks or muslims.

Only gays and women are your inferiors. They need your assistance.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

It very simple. Obergefell said in it's opinion that children are intrinsic to the idea of marriage. Marriage is a contract that people enter into for life. So it's terms are lifelong. Obergefell fundamentally revised the contract from kids past enjoyment of both father & mother. And it did so without children having separate counsel briefing the court.

The Infancy Doctrine which exists to protect kids from contracts with adults that harm them, says that in any civil case where kids have a stake, as Obergefell itself confirmed they do in marriage, the Infancy Doctrine requires that kids have unique counsel briefing the court. That never happened in Obergefell. Nor as mdk reminded me, did it happen at any of the lower court hearings on changing marriage in a way that banishes kids from either a mother or father for life.

To answer your other what-if questions, the court didn't go into detail other than to point out that kids are intrinsic to the entire concept of marriage, whether or not they arrive. They probably deduced that because marriage was literally invented to benefit children since time immemorial. And kids are dominant entities in divorce. And kids almost always arrive in the married home which indeed was/is created always as a potential harbor tailored mostly for them.

Too bad none of the courts followed procedure and mandated child-counsel briefing as required for the hearings to actually be legal ones.

 

[Taz]

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

Our superiors. Those who are neither black, nor women, nor gay, nor muslim, but defend them all as though they were one. The poor dears deserve it because your heart is in helping the downtrodden. Your cause are those you think of as your inferiors. They need your help.

In this case, the lowly gays seek your assistance. You need to up your game. For them.

So my people are "our superiors"? Which are "my inferiors? Wtf are you talking about? I think YOU need help.

You people are our superiors. We are your inferiors. We need your help. You are none of the things for which you argue so stridently. Are you black? A woman? Gay? muslim?

I don't fight for blacks or muslims.

Only gays and women are your inferiors. They need your assistance.

Why are gays and women my inferiors?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

It very simple. Obergefell said in it's opinion that children are intrinsic to the idea of marriage. Marriage is a contract that people enter into for life. So it's terms are lifelong. Obergefell fundamentally revised the contract from kids past enjoyment of both father & mother. And it did so without children having separate counsel briefing the court..

As always- Silhouette is lying.

Obergefell specifically notes that preventing couples from marrying harms children- in other words Obergefell specifically points out that what Silhouette advocates- hurts children- and she keeps pushing to hurt children.

Citing Obergefell:
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples

 

[Silhouette]

^^ you purposefully left out the part of that clause that identifies kids as intrinsic to the whole of marriage. Did you do that because if you did include it, I would remind you therefore that kids were required to have counsel briefing Obergefell & other cases, but never got that mandated representation on their unique stake in the arrangement of what marriage is?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why should whether one considers something nasty be the "judge" to what freedoms we should have?

I think lesbians are fucking bulldykes but I also believe in freedom. so,

 

[Silhouette]

Why should whether one considers something nasty be the "judge" to what freedoms we should have?

I think lesbians are fucking bulldykes but I also believe in freedom. so,

Do you believe that kids should have had separate counsel briefing the courts on motherless/fatherless (gay) marriage? Because that's what the law says had to happen...but didn't.

 

[Silhouette]

Im really glad mdk pointed out that in all the cases on gay marriage there was no required separate counsel briefing the court on children's unique benefits from the marriage contract that was up for radical revision.

Every single hearing without such counsel was a mistrial.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

I have no idea wtf you're talking about. .

"Hey, Kids! Don't Take Meds, Take Peds!"

Why should we believe you don't know what kind of creeps you defend? Posters wise to Netwit tricks don't have to accept your dishonest denials.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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?

Our superiors. Those who are neither black, nor women, nor gay, nor muslim, but defend them all as though they were one. The poor dears deserve it because your heart is in helping the downtrodden. Your cause are those you think of as your inferiors. They need your help.

In this case, the lowly gays seek your assistance. You need to up your game. For them.

#HeteroPride.

Heiristocratic Guillotine-Fodder

Postmodern Liberalism is a power fantasy forced on us by spoiled born-rich snobs. That should have been obvious, because it started with the Kennedys.

 

[Silhouette]

Well it wasnt actually forced on us with gay marriage because at no hearing on it was separate counsel present briefing the court on children's unique interests in the marriage contract.

 

[mdk]

Im really glad mdk pointed out that in all the cases on gay marriage there was no required separate counsel briefing the court on children's unique benefits from the marriage contract that was up for radical revision.

Every single hearing without such counsel was a mistrial.

If only a separate counsel briefing the court was required. If only...

 

[Silhouette]

Im really glad mdk pointed out that in all the cases on gay marriage there was no required separate counsel briefing the court on children's unique benefits from the marriage contract that was up for radical revision.

Every single hearing without such counsel was a mistrial.

If only a separate counsel briefing the court was required. If only...

It is. Pay attention to the underlined below and the fact that Obergefell itself said that children are integral to the concept of marriage as a whole. This of course is upheld in divorce proceedings which take into account children's needs first and adults secondary to them in the dissolving of the contract: which is not wholly dissolved until the children have derived their entire benefits from it (contact with both mother and father). There can be no more extraordinary circumstance to a child than a civil court preparing to ratify a contract which banishes them from either a father or mother for life (gay marriage). Nothing is more compelling to a child than that.

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(Page 8 of PDF Page 53 of actual document; at the bottom paragraph)

..Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

All this change!!! HOW CAN YOU COPE!!!!!

Your snark aside; the real question is how can kids cope with Obergefell. It ratified a brand new contract which banishes kids from either a mother or father for life. And it did so without their unique interests having counsel to brief the court. Which is a mistrial. Obergefell was a mistrial. Upon that phantom foundation you have the gall to tell people to accept illegal injustice "as law".

So you’d outlaw single parents as well?

Single parents don't possess a contract banishing children involved from the missing gendered parent for life. Gay marriage does this.

It isn't a matter of "outlawing". Infancy Doctrine deals with contracts that can or cannot exist with respect to children. Gay marriage contracts cannot exist because their terms banish children who are anticipated contractual beneficiaries, from something vital to them.

Also the Infancy Doctrine mandates that at any civil hearing in which children have a weighty stake, they must have separate counsel briefing the court on their unique interests. That never happened at Obergefell.

Therefore, Obergefell was a mistrial and isn't even worth the paper it was written on.

The infancy doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or the agreements between spouses. Nothing. The infancy doctrine reserves to a minor the power to disaffirm a contract to which the minor is a party. Naturally a minor cannot disaffirm a marriage since the minor is not a spouse. To disaffirm the contract, the minor must return any goods or property received as a contractual benefit. Marriage is neither goods or property. If the minor has paid any amount of money toward to purchase of such goods or property the minor gets his or her money back.

When the minor contracts for "necessaries of life" the contract may not be disaffirmed but the responsibility of payment rests with the parent or legal guardian.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1h...ovided-the-right-to-disaffirm-or-cancel-most/

Your error is in assuming that minors are implied parties to a marriage contract when in fact they are not. Neither does the infancy doctrine apply to anything other than goods or property, tangible property. It does not apply to contracts in which minors have a weighty stake it applies ONLY to contracts which the minor has signed as a contracting party.

You might consider Obergefell a mistrial, but you have no legal standing at all. Yes, a court may deprive a child of a parent for life or even BOTH parents for life. A child may be orphaned by judicial act and given to adoptive parents or no parents at all, just float around the foster care system and that too is perfectly legal.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

You don't want same-sex marriage but you don't have a problem fellating your neighbor in the garage.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

You don't want same-sex marriage but you don't have a problem fellating your neighbor in the garage.

He may ass ram his neighbors dog but that has nothing to do with marriage. Your strawman is noted.

Marriage provides a mother & father to children the USSC said are intrinsic to the marriage contract. Removing either one of those vital benefits to kids without their having separate counsel briefing the courts was and is in violation of due process. All those hearings lacking proper representation were mistrials.