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

[Silhouette]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

A lesbian marriage contract in fact ,does banish the presence in the home to any children of a father for life. So, unless you're changing the word "father" to mean "anyone with or without testicles and a penis who simply fills the old role of patriarch in the home", there is no father for children in the home of a lesbian marriage. And since their vows are "till death do they part", this is true for the entire life of the contract that children share with them.

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

There is a guarantee of an absence of a father IN THE HOME for children sharing a lesbian marriage contract. This is the first time ever that a marriage contract has guaranteed co-beneficiaries of keeping a father out of their home for life. "Till death do you part".

These are facts you cannot refute. And they are important in Dumont.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

A lesbian marriage contract in fact ,does banish the presence in the home to any children of a father for life. So, unless you're changing the word "father" to mean "anyone with or without testicles and a penis who simply fills the old role of patriarch in the home", there is no father for children in the home of a lesbian marriage. And since their vows are "till death do they part", this is true for the entire life of the contract that children share with them.

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

There is a guarantee of an absence of a father IN THE HOME for children sharing a lesbian marriage contract. This is the first time ever that a marriage contract has guaranteed co-beneficiaries of keeping a father out of their home for life. "Till death do you part".

These are facts you cannot refute. And they are important in Dumont.

I have answered that lie repeatedly.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent. You just want a contract which guarantees that the kids don't have gay parents.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

You for some bizarre reason prefer that children be left to rot in foster homes with no mother or father at all- than to have two mothers who have volunteered to be forever parents to these children.

Or for the children of a lesbian couple- you want to deny their mother's marriage- which as Obergefell notes- causes harm to their children.

Why do you want to allow harm to children?

 

[Silhouette]

I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

So that would be your argument in Dumont? Because clearly we both agree that a father in the home is best. But you're suggesting a type of quasi-polygamy. Are you going to test those waters in Dumont?

 

[Silhouette]

Yesterday the Court in Michigan GRANTED the defendant-intervenor's motion to join the case and gave a timeline for the plaintiffs to submit an answer to the defendant-intervenor's motion to dismiss the case.

So now some voices of the orphans, siding with the Catholic charities will be briefing the court. I think this is the first time ever in a gay-marriage or related case where the voices of children will be able to brief. Making all the previous of course, mistrials; since Obergefell reiterated what case law already substantiated previously: that children are and always have been parties to the (any) marriage contract, shared with adults they find themselves with.

 

[Silhouette]

It's either the orphans or their guardians or both. I think their complaint is that they won't be able to have siblings if the orphanages have to shut down. The push there being "will the State of Michigan put out hundreds or thousands of orphans to accommodate lesbians who have a contract banishing any father from being under the roof for life"? Because the Catholic charities are digging in on man/woman marriage. And they're not going to budge, even if they have to go out of the orphan business. It's wobbly, because the judges very well might say "well we'll have to privatize then". I hope they're smart enough to bring up contracts, the Infancy Doctrine and fatherless marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

So that would be your argument in Dumont? Because clearly we both agree that a father in the home is best. But you're suggesting a type of quasi-polygamy. Are you going to test those waters in Dumont?

No- my argument in Dumont is that since it is perfectly legal for either a single women or a married female couple to adopt - and since there are children abandoned by their own mother and father who need adopting- that institutions shouldn't refuse capable and willing parents.

 

[Syriusly]

It's either the orphans or their guardians or both. I think their complaint is that they won't be able to have siblings if the orphanages have to shut down. The push there being "will the State of Michigan put out hundreds or thousands of orphans to accommodate lesbians who have a contract banishing any father from being under the roof for life"? .

What orphanages? The Catholic Church doesn't run any orphanages in Michigan.

And just as no one in Dumont has your fiction 'about contracts banishing any father' - no one will.

 

[Silhouette]

It's either the orphans or their guardians or both. I think their complaint is that they won't be able to have siblings if the orphanages have to shut down. The push there being "will the State of Michigan put out hundreds or thousands of orphans to accommodate lesbians who have a contract banishing any father from being under the roof for life"? .

What orphanages? The Catholic Church doesn't run any orphanages in Michigan. And just as no one in Dumont has your fiction 'about contracts banishing any father' - no one will

.

St Vincent Catholic Charities.

You hope.

 

[Syriusly]

It's either the orphans or their guardians or both. I think their complaint is that they won't be able to have siblings if the orphanages have to shut down. The push there being "will the State of Michigan put out hundreds or thousands of orphans to accommodate lesbians who have a contract banishing any father from being under the roof for life"? .

What orphanages? The Catholic Church doesn't run any orphanages in Michigan. And just as no one in Dumont has your fiction 'about contracts banishing any father' - no one will

.

St Vincent Catholic Charities.

You hope.

And St. Vincent Catholic Charities doesn't operate any orphanages.

And no sane person is going to use your argument- but I understand if you are hoping that there are insane people among the lawyers for the Catholics.

 

[Silhouette]

Catholic charities don't operate orphanages? Strange. Really?

 

[Silhouette]

And St. Vincent Catholic Charities doesn't operate any orphanages.

And no sane person is going to use your argument- but I understand if you are hoping that there are insane people among the lawyers for the Catholics.

As you know, my hope is that the folks on the defense do not employ much of the religious defense. Because I'm aware of the separation of church and state and how that will play against them.

Instead, I'd like the defense to focus on children's interest in this thing. The orphans specifically and how the boys among them may not want to enter a contract with adults where a father is manifestly banished from their home for life using that contract's terms.

Glad to see March 22, 2018 that the orphans and their custodians were allowed to intervene as co-defense in the suit. Proper and just decision by Judge Borman. I guess he doesn't want a mistrial in his court on a family law case involving a contract that adults share with kids.. Probably thought it best to have all parties to the contract present when a revision to that contract is being considered....one that will set precedent for all orphans to follow from here into time unforeseeable. Prudent call Judge Borman.



An even better call would be for the Judge to appoint a guardian ad litem for all orphans for the State of Michigan so that real exhausting scrutiny can be briefed to the court on removing either a father or mother from the home for life as a qualifier/disqualifier? for adopting kids into such a restrictive home.

Gays would argue "these kids need homes!" But I'd counter with "yes, but if that's the case, are you arguing for removing the application process? Because if you are, we sure could get a lot more orphans placed into folks proclaiming to have "loving homes" waiting for them. But I'll ask you this, how "loving" is a home that promises the absence of a father for life under its roof, via contract that's shared between those adults and the incoming orphans?

 

[Syriusly]

And St. Vincent Catholic Charities doesn't operate any orphanages.

And no sane person is going to use your argument- but I understand if you are hoping that there are insane people among the lawyers for the Catholics.

Instead, I'd like the defense to focus on children's interest in this thing. The orphans specifically and how the boys among them may not want to enter a contract with adults where a father is manifestly banished from their home for life using that contract's terms.

So instead of a legal rational defense, you are hoping that the Catholic Charities will lie and use an irrational idiotic defense that no one but yourself espouses?

Remember:

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent. You just want a contract which guarantees that the kids don't have gay parents.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

You for some bizarre reason prefer that children be left to rot in foster homes with no mother or father at all- than to have two mothers who have volunteered to be forever parents to these children.

Or for the children of a lesbian couple- you want to deny their mother's marriage- which as Obergefell notes- causes harm to their children.

Why do you want to allow harm to children?

 

[Syriusly]

Catholic charities don't operate orphanages? Strange. Really?

Why is that strange? Orphanages in the United States are exceedingly rare now.

If you had taken a few minutes to research the issue rather than just listen to the voices in your head, you would have found out that the Catholic Charities in Michigan don't operate any orphanages.

 

[Silhouette]

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

So is that what the lesbians are arguing in their briefs in Dumont? "Your honor, may it please the court, all lesbian marriages should be eligible to adopt if they rent a room in the home to a man who promises to officiate as the children's father." (In other words, quasi-polygamy).

Good luck!

 

[Syriusly]

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school. If they had wanted to they could have had him live in their home- they could have rented a room to him.

So is that what the lesbians are arguing in their briefs in Dumont? "Your honor, may it please the court, all lesbian marriages should be eligible to adopt if they rent a room in the home to a man who promises to officiate as the children's father." (In other words, quasi-polygamy).

Why would anyone argue that?

When there is no requirement in any adoption that there be a father in the house.

The only requirement is that there be one or two persons who want to offer those kids the family that their own father denied them.

 

[Silhouette]

One person has the hope that another will join them of the opposite gender. Two people of the opposite gender provide both mother & father straight away. Two married lesbians have a contract that says "in your two parent home, neither one will ever be a father."

Which is why your bandaid for that crucial problem is essentially polygamy.

 

[Silhouette]

If you had taken a few minutes to research the issue rather than just listen to the voices in your head

I understand that you find it somewhat of an addictive habit to resort to ad hominem in your posts. Often, posters who are on very shaky ground, particularly pay-per-post debators who substitute quantity for quality in posts, will resort to name calling and heaping derision. Often as a diversion. But with you I think it's both diversion and personal. You'd make a shitty debator in school. You'd get a D- or worse grade I fear.

 

[Syriusly]

One person has the hope that another will join them of the opposite gender. .

Because of course 'step-fathers' and boyfriends are so safe to have in the home when it comes to kids.

What I find amazing is how you ignore the poster who posted of her own sister's history of being molested by her step father in exactly a situation like you talk about.

When it comes to adoption- whether the single parent might in the future have a partner is not relevant- except to the extent that a new partner could endanger the adopted children.

 

[Syriusly]

If you had taken a few minutes to research the issue rather than just listen to the voices in your head

I understand that you find it somewhat of an addictive habit to resort to ad hominem in your posts. Often, posters who are on very shaky ground, particularly pay-per-post debators who substitute quantity for quality in posts, will resort to name calling and heaping derision. Often as a diversion. But with you I think it's both diversion and personal. You'd make a shitty debator in school. You'd get a D- or worse grade I fear.

Is that what the voices in your head are telling you today?

I was never a debater in school- but my kid was- and seriously- every single one of your specious arguments would be torn apart in any debate- because not one of them is supported by any of your 'citations'.

Nor would your bizarre arguments about how the Pope was blackmailed by gays, or how Roof was secretly gay and that was why he killed the black parishoners, etc, etc, etc.

Voices in your head frankly is the only rational explanation for your irrational posts.

 

[Silhouette]

You just can't drop the ad hominem addiction, can you?