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

[Montrovant]

Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. ..... THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

Stop listening to the voices in your head. They are lying to you.

If Mothers and Fathers in marriage are a necessity- why is divorce permitted? Don't give me your crap about it being for the necessity of the children- you have just said that mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to boys and girls- if that is true- divorce would not be permitted- but parents can get divorced- irregardless of the needs or wishes of children.

And why are unmarried mothers and fathers not required to get married?

You making up this crap does not make it real- no matter what the voices in your head say.

Ack! The dreaded 'irregardless'.

 

[Montrovant]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. It was the reason the marriage contract was conceived of initially and maintained that way for thousands of years. I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Children IN FACT share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly. Their rights cannot be brushed away by contemporary conveniences to adult whims. Children's rights in contract law trump adults. THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

Let me check here...nope, gay marriage is still legal in all 50 states.

Let me check here....nope, any revision of contract that deprives of a child of a necessity they once enjoyed is a contract that is VOID upon its face. A contract that strips a child of either a mother or father in the thousand-years-old description, is an illegal contract. So gay marriage is in fact illegal in all 50 states.

Which will win in this contest? ANCIENT infants and contract law, ingrained, pernicious, longstanding, or a recent whim of the LGBT cult? I know where my money's at..

Of course, same sex marriage does not deprive children of a necessity. Having a mother and a father are not a necessity, or widows and widowers would be required to find new partners because their children must have one. Divorce would be illegal for couples with children because those children need those married parents. Single parents would be required to remarry because their children need that second parent. As none of those things are true, clearly having two opposite gender parents is not a necessity.

And why, pray tell, are mothers and fathers only a necessity to children in marriage? What magical transformation occurs in children that mothers and fathers are not necessary if their parents are unmarried?

If you actually put money on your silly legal predictions you would soon have none.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course, same sex marriage does not deprive children of a necessity. Having a mother and a father are not a necessity

I'm sure that hundreds, if not thousands of psychologists and sociologists and child developmental specialists worldwide would disagree with you. A boy needs a father. A girl needs a mother. Marriage was the only guarantee that they got both. June 2015 just stripped that contractual enjoyment away from them.

Even Justice Kennedy might be inclined to disagree, upon a second challenge and amicus briefs from children raised in gay homes...and reading the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey..

 

[Skylar]

Of course, same sex marriage does not deprive children of a necessity. Having a mother and a father are not a necessity

I'm sure that hundreds, if not thousands of psychologists and sociologists and child developmental specialists worldwide would disagree with you.

And I'm sure that you 'assuring' us isn't evidence of jack shit. Remember, your imagination isn't actually evidence of anything.

A boy needs a father. A girl needs a mother. Marriage was the only guarantee that they got both.

As divorce demonstrates elegantly, you have no idea what you're talking about. And your own Prince's Trust study cites a positive same sex rolemodel. With the Prince's Trust having an extensive mentoring program to provide just such mentors.

Demonstrating elegantly that a positive same sex role model need not be a parent.

June 2015 just stripped that contractual enjoyment away from them.

Save of course, no child is 'married' to their parents. Ending your pseudo-legal gibberish yet again.

And remember, the USSC contradicted you explicitly. Twice. Finding that denying marriage hurts children, depriving them of resources, a sense of family and necessary stability.

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 re-
duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Thus, by your own logic, denying marriage deprives the children of same sex couples necessities. Thus, any law that deprives these children of these necessities is void.

Making all laws that prohibit same sex marriage void by the application of your own logic.

Your argument requires that we ignore your own logic, the USSC and the laws of every state. All while demanding that we accept your imagination as law.

Nope. We're not doing any of that.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course, same sex marriage does not deprive children of a necessity. Having a mother and a father are not a necessity

Even Justice Kennedy might be inclined to disagree, upon a second challenge and amicus briefs from children raised in gay homes...and reading the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey..

What 'second challenge'? There is no 'second challenge'- he saw the amicus briefs and would ignore the Princes Trust Survey since it has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course, same sex marriage does not deprive children of a necessity. Having a mother and a father are not a necessity

u. A boy needs a father. A girl needs a mother. Marriage was the only guarantee that they got both. ..

Marriage has never guaranteed that a boy would get a father or a daughter a mother.

Two divorced parents remarry- and the boy gets a Mom and a Step-father- not a father.

Meanwhile- Nothing guarantees any child will have any parent- ever.

Sadly many biological parents abandon their own children- even after they were married.

Gay couples who adopt- are actually volunteering to raise children abandoned by their own biological parents- because- once again- marriage did not guarantee that any child has a mother and father raising them.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course, same sex marriage does not deprive children of a necessity. Having a mother and a father are not a necessity

I'm sure that hundreds, if not thousands of psychologists and sociologists and child developmental specialists worldwide would disagree with you. A boy needs a father. A girl needs a mother. Marriage was the only guarantee that they got both. June 2015 just stripped that contractual enjoyment away from them.

Even Justice Kennedy might be inclined to disagree, upon a second challenge and amicus briefs from children raised in gay homes...and reading the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey..

Children have grown up without a mother or a father throughout human history. It is not a necessity to have one or the other raise you. It may be optimal, but that is not the same as necessary. You conveniently cut off the sentence which continued by saying that if having both a mother and a father are a necessity, widows and widowers would be required to remarry.

Marriage is no guarantee that a child is raised by a mother and a father. Death and divorce both put lie to the idea of such a guarantee.

You were entirely wrong about the Prince's Trust survey being used as evidence in Obergefell, what makes you think it will come up if the court were to hear a second challenge? A second challenge which is almost certainly not going to happen, of course.

 

[Silhouette]

Children have grown up without a mother or a father throughout human history. It is not a necessity to have one or the other raise you. It may be optimal, but that is not the same as necessary.
.

In marriage, it is necessary. Outside marriage it's a tragedy for a child to be raised without both a mother and father. Marriage was created to prevent that tragedy. It's a contract. It had those conditions for thousands of years to the benefit of children. And, that was recently changed. And, that change is void upon its face. Infants and contracts says they cannot be stripped of a necessity and if someone tries that, any contract to that effect is void upon its face.

 

[Montrovant]

Children have grown up without a mother or a father throughout human history. It is not a necessity to have one or the other raise you. It may be optimal, but that is not the same as necessary.
.

In marriage, it is necessary. Outside marriage it's a tragedy for a child to be raised without both a mother and father. Marriage was created to prevent that tragedy. It's a contract. It had those conditions for thousands of years to the benefit of children. And, that was recently changed. And, that change is void upon its face. Infants and contracts says they cannot be stripped of a necessity and if someone tries that, any contract to that effect is void upon its face.

As Skylar would say, 'Says you, citing yourself'. You keep making these statements as though they are facts; marriage was created to prevent the tragedy of children raised without both a mother and father, marriage has been that way for thousands of years to benefit children, etc. You are aware, I hope, that the United States has not been around for thousands of years, nor is it close to the only nation of the world? Marriage has not been the same for thousands of years. Children have not had the same rights (if any) for thousands of years. At any given time, marriage has been treated differently in different cultures and societies. Even same sex marriage is not entirely unheard of in history.

When you treat marriage as some all-encompassing institution which has remained static throughout the world since its inception you are impossible to take seriously.

Oh, and what makes having two opposite gender parents a necessity in marriage, outside of your own opinion, which is not particularly important to the law? Is there any law, any precedent, any US historical context in which children cannot survive in a marriage without two opposite gender parents caring for them? All evidence points to children being able to survive, even thrive, without two opposite gender parents. For some reason you seem to think that state of affairs changes when marriage is involved. Strangely, you provide no actual evidence that your claim is true. Remember, being a good parent is not a requirement of marriage nor of having/raising children.

Ah, why do I bother? You're just going to respond with the same tired rhetoric. At best you'll come up with some new little twist to add to it without substantially changing anything.

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder if in Alabama, the Supreme Court there will find that both a mother and father are necessary enjoyments of a child in their implicit sharing of the marriage contract? Think the Justices of the Supreme Court of Alabama know their way around infants and contract laws with respect to necessities?

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2675333/160106-Alabama-Admin-Order.pdf

 

[Silhouette]

What 'second challenge'? There is no 'second challenge'- he saw the amicus briefs and would ignore the Princes Trust Survey since it has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'.

The Prince's Trust 2010 Survey of youth merely illustrates how children suffer by the revised edition of the neo-marriage contract (gay marriage). PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY Gay marriage by its physical structure, deprives infants of either a father or mother for life....with no hope of ever remedying that ...as with single hetero parents. As it stands now, it is psychologically better to be a child of a single hetero parent, or an orphan, than a child in a "gay marriage". Because AT LEAST the child of a single hetero parent or the orphan has HOPE that someday they'll have both a mother and father in marriage. With gay marriage, even hope was removed from children. Read my signature link for more on that loss of hope in adult children raised in gay homes..

Gay marriage contract removes a necessity from children. Therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Necessities, infants and contract law. Look it up.

 

[mdk]

States that allow gays to legally marry:

States that do not allow gays to marry in Sil's imagination:

I wonder which has more legal bearing? Tough choice.

 

[Silhouette]

Not if those marriage contracts deprive children of either a mother or father for life. Then they are void upon their face. You're going to hear more about this in the coming days...

 

[Spinster]

States that allow gays to legally marry:

States that do not allow gays to marry in Sil's imagination:

I wonder which has more legal bearing? Tough choice.

What was the point of that exercise??? Neither graphic represents reality!!! Did you have a stroke, or merely felt cornered?

 

[mdk]

States that allow gays to legally marry:

States that do not allow gays to marry in Sil's imagination:

I wonder which has more legal bearing? Tough choice.

What was the point of that exercise??? Neither graphic represents reality!!! Did you have a stroke, or merely felt cornered?

Every states allows gays to marry except in the imagination of Silhouette. What is to feel cornered about? Gays can marry in every state and there isn't anything that the anti-gay marriage folks can do, save whining about it on the Internet.

 

[Syriusly]

What 'second challenge'? There is no 'second challenge'- he saw the amicus briefs and would ignore the Princes Trust Survey since it has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'.

The Prince's Trust 2010 Survey of youth merely illustrates how children suffer by the revised edition of the neo-marriage contract (gay marriage)..

The Prince's Trust 2010 Survey of youth doesn't mention marriage- gay or straight. Or contracts.

As usual- you are lying.

 

[Syriusly]

Not if those marriage contracts deprive children of either a mother or father for life. Then they are void upon their face. You're going to hear more about this in the coming days...

Only from you.

Where are all of those polygamous marriages that you told us were now legal after the Obergefell decision?

 

[Syriusly]

Children have grown up without a mother or a father throughout human history. It is not a necessity to have one or the other raise you. It may be optimal, but that is not the same as necessary.
.

. Infants and contracts says they cannot be stripped of a necessity and if someone tries that, any contract to that effect is void upon its face.

Marriage has never guaranteed that a boy would get a father or a daughter a mother.

Two divorced parents remarry- and the boy gets a Mom and a Step-father- not a father.

Meanwhile- Nothing guarantees any child will have any parent- ever.

Sadly many biological parents abandon their own children- even after they were married.

Gay couples who adopt- are actually volunteering to raise children abandoned by their own biological parents- because- once again- marriage did not guarantee that any child has a mother and father raising them.

 

[Silhouette]

Where are all of those polygamous marriages that you told us were now legal after the Obergefell decision?

Anywhere they would like to be. Because either all of the sex behaviors people object to "as married" get access to the 14th at the same time, or none of them do. You can't create a paradox with the 14th Amendment.. You are aware it's about equality, right?

 

[Syriusly]

Where are all of those polygamous marriages that you told us were now legal after the Obergefell decision?

Anywhere they would like to be. Because either all of the sex behaviors people object to "as married" get access to the 14th at the same time, or none of them do. You can't create a paradox with the 14th Amendment.. You are aware it's about equality, right?

Okay I want to point out Silhouette logic- to Silhouette-

• Obergefell decision is legally binding- for polygamous marriages but
• Obergefell decision is not legally binding for gay couples marrying
• Even though Obergefell was only about the equal rights of gay couples- not polygamous families.