Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

[Silhouette]

The document you linked to is primarily concerned with helping fathers who abuse their children from abusing their children.

I am all for fathers and I am all for mothers- most importantly I am all for children having at least one- and hopefully two parents in their lives..

What about Britain's 2010 Youth Survey link? You didn't mention that...

Is it because the largest survey of youth of its kind found that the lack of a mother for girls or a lack of a father for boys is detrimental to them? Imagine having a contract saying "you will never have the hope even of a mother or father for life!" That's what Dumont is asking adoption agencies to be OK with. I'm saying at the very least, orphans of Michigan need competent counsel briefing the court on the counter argument.

And since you're lying about Obergefell's third-tier declaration on page 15 -that children share benefits with adults from the marriage contract- the Infancy Doctrine requires that children have representation at any hearing seeking to fundamentally revise those ancient benefits. They will not be bound and gagged out of court as you would LOVE them to be.

Who hates children? Any person who would stump for them not to be allowed say on whether or not a contract can ban them for life from either a father or mother...which is detrimental to their ancient benefits from marriage contracts.

Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

 

[Syriusly]

The document you linked to is primarily concerned with helping fathers who abuse their children from abusing their children.

I am all for fathers and I am all for mothers- most importantly I am all for children having at least one- and hopefully two parents in their lives..

What about Britain's 2010 Youth Survey link? You didn't mention that...f

You mean the survey that doesn't once mention gay parents?

The document that says that father figures don't have to be biological or legal fathers but can be coaches and other paternal figures?

You mean the document that undermines everything you claim?

 

[Syriusly]

The document you linked to is primarily concerned with helping fathers who abuse their children from abusing their children.

I am all for fathers and I am all for mothers- most importantly I am all for children having at least one- and hopefully two parents in their lives..

What about Britain's 2010 Youth Survey link? You didn't mention that...

Is it because the largest survey of youth of its kind found that the lack of a mother for girls or a lack of a father for boys is detrimental to them? Imagine having a contract saying "you will never have the hope even of a mother or father for life!" That's what Dumont is asking adoption agencies to be OK with. I'm saying at the very least, orphans of Michigan need competent counsel briefing the court on the counter argument.

And since you're lying about Obergefell's third-tier declaration on page 15 -that children share benefits with adults from the marriage contract- the Infancy Doctrine requires that children have representation at any hearing seeking to fundamentally revise those ancient benefits. They will not be bound and gagged out of court as you would LOVE them to be.f

Wow- you are just doubling down in the lies:

As I have shown before:
a) Obergefell never once says that children are part of a marriage contract- but Obergefell does say that denying gays marriage harms their children.

Why do you want to harm children?

b) The Infancy Doctrine of course says no such thing- again you just are lying- the infancy doctrine protects children from bad contracts

But a child is liable on a contract for 'necessaries'- so if the contract requires a lawyer- then the child is responsible for paying the lawyer.

There is absolutely nothing in the Infancy Doctrine that applies to marriage or adoption.

Which is why there is not a single case of it every being cited in a marriage case or an adoption case.

Remember in all of this- you are lying- and lying in order to harm children.

How do we know that you want to harm children? Because Obergefell says that denying marriage to gays who are parents harms their children.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

:
a) Obergefell never once says that children are part of a marriage contract-

Except here, as you saw on the previous page, liar:

Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows 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.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Hmm.. let's see. Marriage contract affords "protections" for children. Check. And it is "important to children's best interests". And, historically that has always been because it provides fathers for boys and mothers for girls.

If you want to revamp that contractual benefit children enjoyed with/from adults in the marriage contract, you invite children to have a say in those types of hearings seeking to take that contractual benefit away from them. Otherwise, it's a mistrial.

Why do you want to harm children by gagging them in court? Not only are you advocating binding them away from a father for life using a (n illegal) contract, you advocating barricading them away from briefing the courts on that alarming new and huge precedent, never before realized in any law that I know of.

 

[mdk]

:
a) Obergefell never once says that children are part of a marriage contract-

Except here, as you saw on the previous page, liar:

Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows 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.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Hmm.. let's see. Marriage contract affords "protections" for children. Check. And it is "important to children's best interests". And, historically that has always been because it provides fathers for boys and mothers for girls.

If you want to revamp that contractual benefit children enjoyed with/from adults in the marriage contract, you invite children to have a say in those types of hearings seeking to take that contractual benefit away from them. Otherwise, it's a mistrial.

Why do you want to harm children by gagging them in court?

You have claimed on numerous occasions that Obergefell v. Hodges is null and yet you are citing it as evidence for your delusional case. You have zero consistently and even less credibility.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ it will be cited to overturn itself via its own third tier of rationale stating marriage is a contract children share benefits from with adults. And that taking the prime benefit since ancient times from kids...using the same contract...without kids having representation briefing their case, is a mistrial.

But Obergefell was a mistrial for a number of arrogant reasons. Like a shotgun overturning. Just point in its general direction & shoot.

 

[Syriusly]

:
a) Obergefell never once says that children are part of a marriage contract-

Except here, as you saw on the previous page, liar:

Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows 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.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Hmm.. let's see. Marriage contract affords "protections" for children. Check. And it is "important to children's best interests"..

Yes- and you want to take those protections away from the children of gay parents.

You know that marriage is important to their children's best interest but you actively promote policies which would harm them.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

^^ it will be cited to overturn itself via its own third tier of rationale stating marriage is a contract t.

Silhouette's own post reply button is apparently avoiding her craziness.

Marriage is a contract between two people- and when children are involved it provides important protections to children- and as noted in Obergefell- denying marriage to those parents harms their children.

Why do you keep advocating for harm for children?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes- and you want to take those protections away from the children of gay parents.

In general, legally speaking, who has dominant legal status for protection? Gay adults or children? And, why have children been shut out of these family law hearings that affect their collective future as a demographic, so deeply? It's no small legal feat to use a contract to permanently remove the hope of a child ever knowing a mother or father.

Yes Obergefell was a family law hearing, as is Dumont. Check the language in Obergefell's third tier. It's riddled with "families, family, kids, marriage, family, family, family". Also, Dumont. Same thing in the pleadings.

 

[mdk]

^^ it will be cited to overturn itself via its own third tier of rationale stating marriage is a contract children share benefits from with adults. And that taking the prime benefit since ancient times from kids...using the same contract...without kids having representation briefing their case, is a mistrial.

But Obergefell was a mistrial for a number of arrogant reasons. Like a shotgun overturning. Just point in its general direction & shoot.

Keep pissing in the wind, Sil.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes- and you want to take those protections away from the children of gay parents.

In general, legally speaking, who has dominant legal status for protection?

Yes- and you want to take those protections away from the children of gay parents.

Why do you advocate for harming children?

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you want to harm children keeping their counsel away from briefing in Dumont? Because you believe adults doing gay stuff have superior demographic "rights" that dominate anything a child would want and need from placement in a marriage contract. You know, like a father. Or not being banished from even the hope of a father for life. Especially boys.

Why do you advocate gagging and harming children?

 

[Silhouette]

Motion to intervene filed by Catholic charities & heard March 7, 2018. Yesterday.

Wonder why they want to join the lawsuit? Perhaps as guardians of the orphans of the State of Michigan?

The dykes tried to oppose it. Didn't want guardians of orphans having a say in court probably.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Motion to intervene filed by Catholic charities & heard March 7, 2018. Yesterday.

Wonder why they want to join the lawsuit? Perhaps as guardians of the orphans of the State of Michigan?

The dykes tried to oppose it. Didn't want guardians of orphans having a say in court probably.

The plaintiff's didn't oppose intervention by St. Vincent Catholic Charities, the opposed intervention by volunteers who might not be able to volunteer if St. Vincent doesn't receive taxpayer funding. See link below, opening paragraphs.

Dumont v. Lyon - Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene


Even Catholic Charities is ignoring your rants about acting as "guardians" of the children under the Infancy Doctrine and "contracts". The basis for their motion to intervene is for dismissal based on plaintiffs (a) lack of standing, (b) failed establishment clause claim, (c) failed equal protection claim, and (d) granting relief would violate the defendants 1st Amendment right under religious freedom,

Not a peep about infancy doctrine and contracts with children. See link below.

Dumont v. Lyon - Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene



>>>>

 

[AvgGuyIA]

no,,,

Just that people of the same sex will be able to adopt kids. That is ok in my opinion.

Pedophiles too, I bet.

 

[Silhouette]

The basis for their motion to intervene is for dismissal based on plaintiffs (a) lack of standing, (b) failed establishment clause claim, (c) failed equal protection claim, and (d) granting relief would violate the defendants 1st Amendment right under religious freedom,

Not a peep about infancy doctrine and contracts with children.

Well for one, in order for there to be a peep about the Inf Doct., the court would be entertaining new counsel joining. Because those "peeps" are one and the same.

(c) failed equal protection claim is interesting. That's a direct challenge to Obergefell's conclusions. Hmmm. This game isn't over yet. This seems to be a case that has the potential to directly challenge Obergefell.

From your second link:

"
LEGAL STANDARDS
The Individual Movants seek to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), which provides that, “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)

***
So would that include the orphans of the State of Michigan having a stake in being placed in a home with a contract that banishes them for life from a father?

You say the Catholic charities are only about their right to religious freedom to object. Obviously the dykes are only about the access to kids they want, nevermind the lack of a father for life via contract. But the orphans themselves, especially boys, are not being represented to brief the court on behalf of their desire to have a father; or at least not to be legally bound away from one for life. Where is their intervention in the court?

Based on the strictest legal interpretation of motion to intervene, should not the orphans themselves, with their separate and compelling interests also have a foothold in that courtroom? Who is there advocating for orphaned boys not to be bound away from a father for life? Or at least DISCUSSING IT openly before a decision is made?

 

[Silhouette]

The plaintiff's didn't oppose intervention by St. Vincent Catholic Charities, the(y) opposed intervention by volunteers who might not be able to volunteer if St. Vincent doesn't receive taxpayer funding.

Glad to see the defense wasting time on non-entities having a stake in the game. Maybe if they realized that boys in their care shouldn't be contractually banned for life from a father, their case would take on more teeth. Hopefully the stupid will be cured soon in their legal defense team. Putting all their eggs in the religion basket while a whole other party with a much more compelling (supportive to defense) argument remains muted, is a bit daft IMHO.

Who are the attorneys for the defense?

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you want to harm children keeping their counsel away from briefing in Dumont?

Who are you talking to Silhouette? Yourself?

Remember you are the only one advocating policies that the courts have specifically stated harm children.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

The basis for their motion to intervene is for dismissal based on plaintiffs (a) lack of standing, (b) failed establishment clause claim, (c) failed equal protection claim, and (d) granting relief would violate the defendants 1st Amendment right under religious freedom,

Not a peep about infancy doctrine and contracts with children.

Well for one, in order for there to be a peep about the Inf Doct., the court would be entertaining new counsel joining.

The Infancy Doctrine has nothing to do with adoption. Nor does the Infancy Doctrine require any counsel.

 

[badger2]

Ín accord with a suggestion of Freud's American society -- the industrial society with anonymous management and vanishing personal power, etc. -- is presented to us as a resurgence of the "society without the father." Not surprisingly, the industrial society is burdened with the search for original modes for the restoration of the equivalent -- for example, the astonishing discovery by Mitscherlich that the British Royal family, after all, is not such a bad thing.....Freud never managed to escape the world of the father, or of guilt. While offering the possibility of constructing a logic of the relation to the father, he was the first to open the way for a release from the father's hold on man. The possibility of living (beyond [italics]) the father's law, beyond all law, is perhaps the most essential possibility brought forth by Freudian psychoanalysis. But paradoxically, and perhaps because of Freud, everything leads us to conclude that this release made possible by psychoanalysis, will be achieved, is already being achieved, outside it.

We cannot, however, share either this pessimism or this optimism. For there is much optimiwsm in thinking psychoanalysis makes possible a veritable solution to Oedipus: Oedipus is like God; the father is like God; the problem is not resolved until we do away with (both the problem and the solution [it.]) It is not the purpose of schizoanalysis to resolve Oedipus, it does not intend to resolve it better than Oedipal psychoanalysis does. Its aim is to de-oedipalize the unconscious in order to reach the real problems. Schizoanalysis proposes to reach those regions of the orphan unconscious -- indeed "beyond all law" -- where the problem of Oedipus can no longer even be raised.'
(Deleuze G, Guattari F, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, pp. 81-2)