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

[Silhouette]

Worse, denying same sex parents marriage doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It only guarentees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts children by the tens of thousands.

That's not what these amicus briefs said: ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Not one of these children said that they benefited because there parents weren't married. Nor that they were hurt because there parents were married. Nor that marriage would have made their same sex parents into opposite sex parents.

So if we have group of children "A" who say "gay marraige is a great idea" and group of children "B" who say they were raised in gay homes and precisely because they were gay homes, they suffered the lack of the missing gender as a role model, then what we have is an area of doubt about whether or not gay "marriages" deprive children of a necessity.

Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."... that an infant's contract for necessaries is binding ... that doctrine also applied not merely to bread and cheese and clothes, but to education and instruction...."(E)ducation must not be taken in its narrow technical sense as merely meaning education to enable a man by the work of his hands to hereafter maintain himself as an artisan, but has a much wider meaning than that. It applies to education and instruction in the social state in which the infant is, and in which he may expect to find himself when he becomes an adult.... Contracts With Children

Contractual responsibility and disability of infants is one of the oldest and most firmly entrenched areas of the law.' ....Society has a moral obligation to protect the interests of infants from overreaching adults... The general principle which determines whether an infant's contract is binding or not ..for his benefit..If the court can clearly see that it is for the infant's benefit he will be held bound by his contract, but if this does not appear to be the case, it will be either void or voidable according to circumstance. The most important of binding contracts of infants, are contracts for necessaries....The term "necessaries" is relative and governed by the real and not ostensible rank, situation...of the infant in life. It is not confined to bare support and subsitance, but has...a liberal construction according to the infants fortune, estate and occupation. "The articles must be for real use and not for ornament or luxury". They ...should be suitable to the infant's condition and circumstances. The instrument, however solemn, is held to be void, if upon Its face it is apparent that it is to the prejudice of the infant. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3623&context=ilj

And the burden is upon adults wishing to disaffirm, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that stripping a child of either a mother or father for life was not a violation of that child's enjoyment of a necessity.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's see if Skylar can get through one page without resorting to ad hominems and insults as a substitute for lucid rebuttal.

Lets see if you can make it through one page without posting a falsehood....

 

[Syriusly]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."...

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

 

[Syriusly]

[
And the burden is upon adults wishing to disaffirm, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that stripping a child of either a mother or father for life was not a violation of that child's enjoyment of a necessity.

No- no one has a burden to prove or disprove any of your nutty ideas.

No matter what the voices in your head say.

 

[Skylar]

So if we have group of children "A" who say "gay marraige is a great idea" and group of children "B" who say they were raised in gay homes and precisely because they were gay homes, they suffered the lack of the missing gender as a role model, then what we have is an area of doubt about whether or not gay "marriages" deprive children of a necessity.

'If', huh? You seem to be go to elaborate lengths to avoid the situation as actually was. With overwhelming majority of children of same sex couples being cited enthusiastically supporting the right to marry for their parents.

Video after video, page after page, dozens upon dozens of such children. All supporting their parents. With the scholars of constitutional rights of children backing marriage for the parents of these kids. And the USSC explicitly contradicting you:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the 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.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. "

And again 2 years later:

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. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

Explicitly contradicting you. This is the actual case law. You keep citing your imagination on what the law is, while ignoring the law that actually exists. And the court use the actual law.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."... that an infant's contract for necessaries is binding ... that doctrine also applied not merely to bread and cheese and clothes, but to education and instruction...."(E)ducation must not be taken in its narrow technical sense as merely meaning education to enable a man by the work of his hands to hereafter maintain himself as an artisan, but has a much wider meaning than that. It applies to education and instruction in the social state in which the infant is, and in which he may expect to find himself when he becomes an adult.... Contracts With Children
Contractual responsibility and disability of infants is one of the oldest and most firmly entrenched areas of the law.' ....Society has a moral obligation to protect the interests of infants from overreaching adults... The general principle which determines whether an infant's contract is binding or not ..for his benefit..If the court can clearly see that it is for the infant's benefit he will be held bound by his contract, but if this does not appear to be the case, it will be either void or voidable according to circumstance. The most important of binding contracts of infants, are contracts for necessaries....The term "necessaries" is relative and governed by the real and not ostensible rank, situation...of the infant in life. It is not confined to bare support and subsitance, but has...a liberal construction according to the infants fortune, estate and occupation. "The articles must be for real use and not for ornament or luxury". They ...should be suitable to the infant's condition and circumstances. The instrument, however solemn, is held to be void, if upon Its face it is apparent that it is to the prejudice of the infant. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3623&context=ilj
Click to expand...
And the burden is upon adults wishing to disaffirm, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that stripping a child of either a mother or father for life was not a violation of that child's enjoyment of a necessity.

You're citing entertainment law for child actors as marriage law. Which, of course, it isn't. You'll notice that no where in either citations does it even *mention* your imaginary 'implied contract' marrying children to their parents. As despite your claims, children aren't married to their parents.

Nor does any law or court recognize that children are married to their parents. And the reason is obvious: You made that up, offering up your imagination as the law. Just like you made up your imaginary 'right to opposite sex parents'. Which you imagined.

And as pointed out earlier, the courts use the actual law. Not your imagination.

Nor does your imagination place any burden on anyone to do anything. Remember, you were wrong on the Obergefell ruling. While I was right. And 50 of 50 States now recognize same sex marriage.

 

[jillian]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

*snip*

the supreme court can reverse every decision it writes.

even heller.

but it won't

I hope that helps. but i'm not quite sure how the "foundation of American law" is at stake

 

[Skylar]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

*snip*

the supreme court can reverse every decision it writes.

even heller.

but it won't

I hope that helps. but i'm not quite sure how the "foundation of American law" is at stake

Sil likes to ramp up the melodrama when her predictions of legal outcomes are predictably wrong. She once raved about a 'coup of democracy' over the Prop 8 ruling, insisting that the 'sky was falling' and lamenting about 'fascist dictators'.

My personal favorites were her claims that Justice Kennedy was gay and being blackmailed by the LBGT 'cult' as he tried to stay in the closet. Oh, and Sil's insistence that gays had 'infiltrated' Gallup polling so they would give skewed polling results on gay marriage support. That was a hoot.

If there's not running mascara and a feinting couch involved, its not a Silhouette thread.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

*snip*

the supreme court can reverse every decision it writes.

even heller.

but it won't

I hope that helps. but i'm not quite sure how the "foundation of American law" is at stake

Sil likes to ramp up the melodrama when her predictions of legal outcomes are predictably wrong. She once raved about a 'coup of democracy' over the Prop 8 ruling, insisting that the 'sky was falling' and lamenting about 'fascist dictators'.

My personal favorites were her claims that Justice Kennedy was gay and being blackmailed by the LBGT 'cult' as he tried to stay in the closet. Oh, and Sil's insistence that gays had 'infiltrated' Gallup polling so they would give skewed polling results on gay marriage support. That was a hoot.

If there's not running mascara and a feinting couch involved, its not a Silhouette thread.

Oh my favorite is how the "Gays" blackmailed the last Pope into retiring....but there are so many

 

[Skylar]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

*snip*

the supreme court can reverse every decision it writes.

even heller.

but it won't

I hope that helps. but i'm not quite sure how the "foundation of American law" is at stake

Sil likes to ramp up the melodrama when her predictions of legal outcomes are predictably wrong. She once raved about a 'coup of democracy' over the Prop 8 ruling, insisting that the 'sky was falling' and lamenting about 'fascist dictators'.

My personal favorites were her claims that Justice Kennedy was gay and being blackmailed by the LBGT 'cult' as he tried to stay in the closet. Oh, and Sil's insistence that gays had 'infiltrated' Gallup polling so they would give skewed polling results on gay marriage support. That was a hoot.

If there's not running mascara and a feinting couch involved, its not a Silhouette thread.

Oh my favorite is how the "Gays" blackmailed the last Pope into retiring....but there are so many

Oh, that was a gem. Just pure, crystalized batshit. How could I have forgotten it?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

*snip*

the supreme court can reverse every decision it writes.

even heller.

but it won't

I hope that helps. but i'm not quite sure how the "foundation of American law" is at stake

Sil likes to ramp up the melodrama when her predictions of legal outcomes are predictably wrong. She once raved about a 'coup of democracy' over the Prop 8 ruling, insisting that the 'sky was falling' and lamenting about 'fascist dictators'.

My personal favorites were her claims that Justice Kennedy was gay and being blackmailed by the LBGT 'cult' as he tried to stay in the closet. Oh, and Sil's insistence that gays had 'infiltrated' Gallup polling so they would give skewed polling results on gay marriage support. That was a hoot.

If there's not running mascara and a feinting couch involved, its not a Silhouette thread.

Oh my favorite is how the "Gays" blackmailed the last Pope into retiring....but there are so many

Oh, that was a gem. Just pure, crystalized batshit. How could I have forgotten it?

It is like trying to remember the most outragious thing National Enquirer has printed- the most recent idiocy tends to drown out the earlier idiocies.

2 months ago Silhouette was all about blaming Gays for the Charleston Church shooting- based upon her amazing 'gaydar' abilities......

 

[Montrovant]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."...

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."...

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

Are marriages covered under marriage law- or contract law?

 

[Skylar]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."...

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

If you consult US law, no where is it recognized as marrying children to their parents.

Which is the beating heart of Sil's claims.

 

[Montrovant]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."...

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

Are marriages covered under marriage law- or contract law?

Is marriage law a form of contract law?

As I said, it depends on who you ask, but I've seen law schools define marriage as a form of contract. For example : Marriage

It does not function in the same way as other contracts, and perhaps the aspects which differ from other contracts make it something else. Here is an article which describes marriage as moving on a spectrum between contract and standing, never going fully to contract : http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

I don't know if there is a specific legal definition used in all courts.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."...

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

Are marriages covered under marriage law- or contract law?

Is marriage law a form of contract law?

As I said, it depends on who you ask, but I've seen law schools define marriage as a form of contract. For example : Marriage

It does not function in the same way as other contracts, and perhaps the aspects which differ from other contracts make it something else. Here is an article which describes marriage as moving on a spectrum between contract and standing, never going fully to contract : http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

I don't know if there is a specific legal definition used in all courts.

Interesting article- thanks

 

[Skylar]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed...."...

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

Are marriages covered under marriage law- or contract law?

Is marriage law a form of contract law?

As I said, it depends on who you ask, but I've seen law schools define marriage as a form of contract. For example : Marriage

It does not function in the same way as other contracts, and perhaps the aspects which differ from other contracts make it something else. Here is an article which describes marriage as moving on a spectrum between contract and standing, never going fully to contract : http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

I don't know if there is a specific legal definition used in all courts.

I'm not talking about a specific definition used by *all* courts. I'm saying that there is no law recognizing that children are 'married' to their parents. Not state, not federal, no where. Nor is there any court that recognizes this imaginary 'marriage' of child to parent.

So far from 'all', I'll looking for 'any'.

 

[Montrovant]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

Are marriages covered under marriage law- or contract law?

Is marriage law a form of contract law?

As I said, it depends on who you ask, but I've seen law schools define marriage as a form of contract. For example : Marriage

It does not function in the same way as other contracts, and perhaps the aspects which differ from other contracts make it something else. Here is an article which describes marriage as moving on a spectrum between contract and standing, never going fully to contract : http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

I don't know if there is a specific legal definition used in all courts.

Interesting article- thanks

I don't mean to be contrary about this, I honestly don't know whether marriage should be considered a contract or not. I find it interesting that it can seem to be a contract in some aspects and not in others.

Of course none of this side discussion changes anything about Sil having no idea about marriage law.

 

[Montrovant]

[
Let's look at the law what it says about infants and contracts and that precise situation:

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

Are marriages covered under marriage law- or contract law?

Is marriage law a form of contract law?

As I said, it depends on who you ask, but I've seen law schools define marriage as a form of contract. For example : Marriage

It does not function in the same way as other contracts, and perhaps the aspects which differ from other contracts make it something else. Here is an article which describes marriage as moving on a spectrum between contract and standing, never going fully to contract : http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

I don't know if there is a specific legal definition used in all courts.

I'm not talking about a specific definition used by *all* courts. I'm saying that there is no law recognizing that children are 'married' to their parents. Not state, not federal, no where. Nor is there any court that recognizes this imaginary 'marriage' of child to parent.

So far from 'all', I'll looking for 'any'.

I certainly am not trying to lend any credence to Sil's ridiculous assertions. I just don't know whether marriage should be considered a contract or not, or even if it can be sometimes and not at others.

Of course I agree that children are not married to their parents, nor is there any sort of representation for 'all children' that should have been involved in Obergefell. The idea that marriage law cannot be ruled upon unless children in general have a lawyer representing them at the hearing is just another silly stab in the dark in the long string of Silhouette doing so.

 

[Skylar]

And?

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of State marriage laws.

Marriage is not a contract, nor a contract with a child, nor has any court deemed that marriage is detrimental to a child.

You couldn't make it through one post without a falsehood.

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

Are marriages covered under marriage law- or contract law?

Is marriage law a form of contract law?

As I said, it depends on who you ask, but I've seen law schools define marriage as a form of contract. For example : Marriage

It does not function in the same way as other contracts, and perhaps the aspects which differ from other contracts make it something else. Here is an article which describes marriage as moving on a spectrum between contract and standing, never going fully to contract : http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

I don't know if there is a specific legal definition used in all courts.

Interesting article- thanks

I don't mean to be contrary about this, I honestly don't know whether marriage should be considered a contract or not. I find it interesting that it can seem to be a contract in some aspects and not in others.

The Obergefell court was a little vague on that. They recognized that marriage was a voluntary contract between a man and a woman at the time of the nation's founding. But then go into elaborate detail about how marriage evolved and changed over time, never using the term 'contract' to refer to marriage again in the entire ruling.

So it may have been a contract hundreds of years ago. But never between children and their parents.