Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

[Syriusly]

I
Your only hope is to argue that children did not ever, nor do they have now, rights implied in any marriage contract. And as I keep telling Skylar...."good luck"..

Parents have obligations to their children.
Children have all of the basic rights we all have.
That is very simple.

What is also very simple is that Obergefell means that Americans can now legally marry in all 50 states, regardless of the gender of their spouse.

That is not 'good luck'- it is just 'good law'- and you pretending that I or anyone else has to prove that Obergefell is correct just shows how deranged you are- Obergefell is now in effect. Your rantings are not. You claiming the court was wrong is meaningless-as meaningless as those who claim that the 14th Amendment was never actually ratified.

 

[mdk]

You do have the burden because children were cut out of their rights to the marriage contract (the reason for its inception for thousands of years) in Obergefell and other gay marriage decisions that didn't take the lack of a father or mother to boys and girls into account. Contract laws are contract laws. You can't change them with regards to an important necessity for children just because your current fancy is to do so. Any attempt to do that is legally void. Read the quote in my signature...

I just finished reading your signature again and gay marriage is still legal. Whew! That was close.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell means that Americans can now legally marry in all 50 states, regardless of the gender of their spouse.

.

Except where marrying deprives children of their ancient implicit rights to the marriage contract.

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell means that Americans can now legally marry in all 50 states, regardless of the gender of their spouse.

.

Except where marrying deprives children of their ancient implicit rights to the marriage contract.

Says you, pretending your imagination is the law.

Children aren't married to their parents. Strike one for your pseudo-legal gibberish.

There is no 'right to have opposite sex parents'. You made it up. Strike two for your pseudo-legal gibberish.

Obergefell wasn't about contract law. It was about 14th amendment. Strike three for your pseudo-legal gibberish.

So much for your 'logic chain'. There's a reason why your record on predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.

 

[rightwinger]

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Children have never been parties to a marriage contract

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell means that Americans can now legally marry in all 50 states, regardless of the gender of their spouse.

.

Except where marrying deprives children of their ancient implicit rights to the marriage contract.

I was posting about facts- not what the voices in your head are telling you.

 

[Skylar]

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Children have never been parties to a marriage contract

Nor does 'all children' not having 'representation' at a USSC hearing result in a 'mistrial'. A hearing isn't a trial. Making Sil's gibberish a physical impossibility. There's no such requirement that 'children' have a 'representative' As specific individuals are represented in a hearing. Not an age group.

Sil has utterly idea what she's talking about, making up her pseudo-legal jibber jabber as she goes along.

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell means that Americans can now legally marry in all 50 states, regardless of the gender of their spouse.

.

Except where marrying deprives children of their ancient implicit rights to the marriage contract.

Says you, pretending your imagination is the law.

Children aren't married to their parents. Strike one for your pseudo-legal gibberish.

There is no 'right to have opposite sex parents'. You made it up. Strike two for your pseudo-legal gibberish.

Obergefell wasn't about contract law. It was about 14th amendment. Strike three for your pseudo-legal gibberish.

So much for your 'logic chain'. There's a reason why your record on predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.

Lets imagine for a moment that Children were part of Silhouette's imaginary marriage contract.......

Then why don't children get represented by attorney's during divorce hearings?

Why can't children prevent divorces if they are part of the marriage 'contract'?

If children really were part of the 'marriage contract'- there would be a hell of lot fewer divorces in the United States.

Hey- if children are part of the 'marriage contract'- does that mean that they could instigate divorce proceedings because they want their parents to divorce?

 

[Silhouette]

Children can't prevent divorces that the court finds are to their benefit. ie: if two parents are fighting daily and damaging the emotional health of the children. In fact, some divorces of convenience aren't granted in some states partly because of the disruption it would cause the children.

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Children have never been parties to a marriage contract

The marriage contract was created for them over a thousand years ago. You might want to look up "implied contracts". They are as binding as written ones. Especially when children's enjoyments to an implicit contract are concerned.

You've got your work cut out for you...

 

[Syriusly]

Children can't prevent divorces that the court finds are to their benefit. ie: if two parents are fighting daily and damaging the emotional health of the children. In fact, some divorces of convenience aren't granted in some states partly because of the disruption it would cause the children. ..

Children can't prevent divorces at all. Children have no say in divorce- no attorney's represent their interest.

The Courts require their parents to settle custody as part of the divorce- unless they aren't married- in which case the Courts still require the parents to settle custody.

 

[Syriusly]

.

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Children have never been parties to a marriage contract

The marriage contract was created for them over a thousand years ago. You might want to look up "implied contracts". They are as binding as written ones. Especially when children's enjoyments to an implicit contract are concerned.
...

And when did the infants in the future indicate a mutual intention to contract? And why is that 'mutual intention to contract' limited to married couples- and not unmarried couples?


Implied Contracts Although contracts that are implied in fact and contracts implied in law are both called implied contracts, a true implied contract consists of obligations arising from a mutual agreement and intent to promise, which have not been expressed in words. It is misleading to label as an implied contract one that is implied in law because a contract implied in law lacks the requisites of a true contract. The term quasi-contract is a more accurate designation of contracts implied in law. Implied contracts are as binding as express contracts. An implied contract depends on substance for its existence; therefore, for an implied contract to arise, there must be some act or conduct of a party, in order for them to be bound.

A contract implied in fact is not expressed by the parties but, rather, suggested from facts and circumstances that indicate a mutual intention to contract. Circumstances exist that, according to the ordinary course of dealing and common understanding, demonstrate such an intent that is sufficient to support a finding of an implied contract. Contracts implied in fact do not arise contrary to either the law or the express declaration of the parties. Contracts implied in law (quasi-contracts) are distinguishable in that they are not predicated on the assent of the parties, but, rather, exist regardless of assent.

The implication of a mutual agreement must be a reasonable deduction from all of the circumstances and relations that contemplate parties when they enter into the contract or which are necessary to effectuate their intention. No implied promise will exist where the relations between the parties prevent the inference of a contract.

 

[EverCurious]

In a divorce between remarried couples, the step-parent has zero legal visitation rights, period.

Further, in the case of a custody dispute, the step-parent will be told that they have /zero/ rights and are not to be involved in any resolution involving the child if it's mentioned in court. I know this first hand as I was told by the judge that I wasn't allowed to take my step-son to the doctor anymore, and by the same token her new husband was informed that he was not allowed to take his step-son to counseling. In fact, Judge Tan was pretty candid with both of us step parents that we were pretty only allowed to be "babysitters."

IF children were part of the marriage contract, then surely step parents would have some kind of legal parental right, but we don't.

 

[Silhouette]

Your anecdote about stepparents is amusing. Do you have a link for case law that says step parents who have formed a bond with a child have no implied relationship with that child?

Implied contracts are as binding as express contracts. An implied contract depends on substance for its existence; therefore, for an implied contract to arise, there must be some act or conduct of a party, in order for them to be bound. implied contracts

The implied contract children enjoyed until June 2015 was the provision of both a mother and father to them in a married home. Now, those conditions to the contract have been changed to their detriment and without their permission. According to the other link and fact in law in my signature, those changes are null and void according to the laws of infants and contracts.

 

[Skylar]

Children can't prevent divorces that the court finds are to their benefit. ie: if two parents are fighting daily and damaging the emotional health of the children. In fact, some divorces of convenience aren't granted in some states partly because of the disruption it would cause the children.

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Children have never been parties to a marriage contract

The marriage contract was created for them over a thousand years ago. You might want to look up "implied contracts". They are as binding as written ones. Especially when children's enjoyments to an implicit contract are concerned.

Then show us in the law where children are married to the parents under contract law.

It doesn't exist. You've imagined it. And your imagination is not law. You can't get around that.

You've got your work cut out for you...

Nope. We don't have to do a thing. As same sex marriage is legal in 50 of 50 States. Its you that has your work cut out for you. And you're still stuck at square one, unable to do anything but quote your imagination as the law.

Which, as we've noted, has no relevance to the law.

 

[Skylar]

Your anecdote about stepparents is amusing. Do you have a link for case law that says step parents who have formed a bond with a child have no implied relationship with that child?

Says the poor soul that can't show us the law saying anything he is.

You're not quoting the law. You're quoting your imagination. And children are married to their parents under contract law only in your mind.

Implied contracts are as binding as express contracts. An implied contract depends on substance for its existence; therefore, for an implied contract to arise, there must be some act or conduct of a party, in order for them to be bound. implied contracts

The implied contract children enjoyed until June 2015 was the provision of both a mother and father to them in a married home.

Says you, citing you. Again, show us the law saying this.

There's a reason that your source on these 'implied contracts' is yourself. Because you're just making this shit up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

Your anecdote about stepparents is amusing. Do you have a link for case law that says step parents who have formed a bond with a child have no implied relationship with that child?
.

LOL- Silhouette asking for someone to provide 'case law'.....how wonderfully ironic.

 

[Silhouette]

You know, if just one of the people who voted "yes" on the 1, 2, 3 part of the poll is a sharp attorney who's practice is contract laws and infants, you're essentially in deep snow..

 

[Syriusly]

Hey Silhouette!

You haven't told us for a while now that Polygamy is now legal in the United States because of Obergefell.

Shouldn't you start a new thread on that?

We need another of your legal 'theories' to mock.

 

[Skylar]

You know, if just one of the people who voted "yes" on the 1, 2, 3 part of the poll is a sharp attorney who's practice is contract laws and infants, you're essentially in deep snow..

Nope. As none of your pseudo-legal gibberish regarding 'contract law and infants' has any legal relevance, has a thing to do with marriage law, nor has the slightest impact on any case.

Again, there's a reason why your every legal prediction has been perfectly wrong: you keep citing your imagination as law while ignoring the actual law.

Alas, the courts don't care what you make up. They follow the actual law.

 

[EverCurious]

Heh I'll see if I can dig up the case files from my husband's custody case. Not only did Judge Tan tell us step parents to stay out of legal stuff, but he also backed Mom's request to deny her kid visiting her own parents. (Long story short, her family asked my husband to take custody cause Mom's a bit... unbalanced. She retaliated by not letting them see the kido anymore; at least not until my husband got legal custody - then he was able to let the poor kido see his grandparents, uncle, and aunt again...)