Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #441
And nowhere- nowhere in Obergefell do the Justices say that children are part of the marriage contract.
So that's it? Just lie your way out of the argument?
Here Let me repeat the post and quote and argument for you.
*******
Well then I guess you're calling the 5 Justices that approved Obergefell "idiots"...Saying that kids share the marriage contract is just idiocy.
Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Page 15 (An actual quote, from the actual Obergefell Opinion, actually reproduced here)
"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.” .... Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests."
Let me assemble the underlined above in a single sentence that can logically be extracted: "Marriage confers benefits important to children's best interests"
By naming children as beneficiaries of the marriage contract, the Court declared THEY ARE PARTNERS IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Thereby, sharing a contract with adults, all statutes re: Infancy Doctrine and contracts apply to proposals to revise said contract. Children had no representation at Obergefell, a document which plaintiffs in Dumont will no doubt be citing up one side and down the other. But you cannot cite a mistrial, an illegal proceeding, as justification for a another proceeding.
The judge in Dumont MUST examine that children share the marriage contract with adults and that one of the most profound benefits they used to enjoy before Obergefell illegally revised it, without their having any counsel briefing, was getting a father out of the deal under their roof. Obergefell fundamentally revised the most paramount benefit a child could extract from the marriage contract, vital to them, important, WITHOUT ANY SEPARATE BRIEFING TO THE COURT ON THE PROFUNDITY OF REMOVING A FATHER FROM THEIR LIFE UNDER THEIR ROOF WITH THE SAME REVISED CONTRACT.
Obergefell and any citations from it therefore in justification of Dumont, is a complete legal miscarriage. For many reasons but also because within its own words, it no longer is a speculation if children share the marriage contract with adults. Obergefell's Opinion made it a matter of written case law.
As far as children go, Obergefell said these things:
1. We acknowledge children are important beneficiaries and share the marriage contract with adults.
2. We agreed to a radical revision of said contract, depriving them of one of the most vital benefits they ever got from the contract.
3. We did so without any counsel briefing on how that might affect the lives of children.
4. Children and the Infancy Doctrine (and the mass of case law backing it up) can just go suck it. We just overruled any potency of the Infancy Doctrine whatsoever. Children are now, via precedent, fair game to exploit in contracts without any representation if said contracts are up for revision with proposed terms to children's harm. Even if said harm is fundamental and profound.
Last edited: