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

[Silhouette]

I have already said that having two opposite gender parents is clearly not a necessity. Plenty of children have been raised by single parents, whether through dissolution of the parents' relationship or death of a parent, and those children have turned out fine in general.

But you see, the marriage contract was conceived of...as...a....REMEDY...for those unfortunate exceptions you mentioned. Children suffer all the time. That doesn't mean you create statutes that institutionalize their sufferings!

Marriage means and meant, for thousands of years "a relief to that suffering we know kids experience when either a mother or father lacks in their daily lives". That specific contract was created FOR children SO THAT they could have BOTH parents in their lives. The exceptions you cite are like saying "Well this child needs more calcium in their diet, so instead of providing them with milk or dark leafy greens, we'll just let them eat chalk or limestone dust. It's all the same to them."

The nuances of having a mother and father in their lives means the necessity. And those nuances can be inferred from reading this massive study of the well being of young adults reporting on the childhood they had still fresh in their minds: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY on girls lacking a mother or boys lacking a father.. (female or male role models respectively)

And, the misery reported by children as young adults now about being raised in gay homes specifically.. (link in my signature..)

So we have Montrovant's singular opinion that a mother and father aren't a necessity to kids, vs the BILLIONS of people worldwide who avidly and rabidly assert the opposite...

I offer that most of the people who supported so-called "gay marriage" had not thought through the "deprived of a mother or father for life" angle with respect to the children involved in those brand new types of "marriage".. Not the least of which were Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor...all of which enjoyed having a mother and father BOTH in THEIR lives...

 

[Montrovant]

"I have already said that having two opposite gender parents is clearly not a necessity. You said that. But unfortunately there are billions of people who solidly and flatly disagree with you.

Now you're speaking for billions of people, eh?

Necessity : something you need. Can a child survive and even thrive without two opposite gender parents raising them? Yes. That is objectively provable. If a child can survive and thrive without two opposite gender parents to raise them, then two opposite gender parents are not necessary to raise a child.

Is having two opposite gender parents the optimum situation for raising a child? Perhaps so. That does not make it a necessity. It may be optimal for a child to be raised by two opposite gender parents, one of whom works while the other stays at home to raise the child. Are marriage contracts void if both parents in a marriage work? Of course not.

You are calling something a need in an attempt to fit it into an aspect of contract law you came upon, rather than it actually being a need.

 

[Montrovant]

I have already said that having two opposite gender parents is clearly not a necessity. Plenty of children have been raised by single parents, whether through dissolution of the parents' relationship or death of a parent, and those children have turned out fine in general.

But you see, the marriage contract was conceived of...as...a....REMEDY...for those unfortunate exceptions you mentioned. Children suffer all the time. That doesn't mean you create statutes that institutionalize their sufferings!

Marriage means and meant, for thousands of years "a relief to that suffering we know kids experience when either a mother or father lacks in their daily lives". That specific contract was created FOR children SO THAT they could have BOTH parents in their lives. The exceptions you cite are like saying "Well this child needs more calcium in their diet, so instead of providing them with milk or dark leafy greens, we'll just let them eat chalk or limestone dust. It's all the same to them."

The nuances of having a mother and father in their lives means the necessity. And those nuances can be inferred from reading this massive study of the well being of young adults reporting on the childhood they had still fresh in their minds: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY on girls lacking a mother or boys lacking a father.. (female or male role models respectively)

And, the misery reported by children as young adults now about being raised in gay homes specifically.. (link in my signature..)

So we have Montrovant's singular opinion that a mother and father aren't a necessity to kids, vs the BILLIONS of people worldwide who avidly and rabidly assert the opposite...

I offer that most of the people who supported so-called "gay marriage" had not thought through the "deprived of a mother or father for life" angle with respect to the children involved in those brand new types of "marriage".. Not the least of which were Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor...all of which enjoyed having a mother and father BOTH in THEIR lives...

To quote Syriusly, "Says you, citing yourself".

You make claims about what marriage was created for but provide no evidence to back your claims. You make claims about what marriage has been for thousands of years, but provide no evidence to back your claims. You ignore the fact that marriage has been different in different times and different societies. You ignore that children have been treated differently and allowed different rights in various times and societies. What you do, what you always do, is make shit up to fit your anti-gay agenda. Oh, you mix some facts in, but you add your own fabricated additions and conclusions and treat them as though they are legal mandates.

And, as per usual, you trot out the Prince's Trust and make false claims about what it says and what it concludes. You do, in fact, explicitly contradict the authors of the survey itself; they not only do not specify that parents are the only same gender role models, they claim to provide non parental role models themselves. Yet here you are, once again lying about the Youth Index because those lies fit your narrative while the truth does not.

I have obviously read the 2010 Youth Index before. More importantly, unlike you, I have not added my own interpretation to it to push my agenda. That particular survey absolutely does show that the participants who had a good opposite gender role model in their lives tended to be happier than those who did not. It does not, at any time, say that only parents can be opposite gender role models, nor does it say that having opposite gender parents automatically grants a child good opposite gender role models. Basically, everything you claim about the survey to bolster your argument is a falsehood.

How does it feel to spend so much of your time pushing an argument based so deeply on lies?

 

[mdk]

Just checked again...gay marriage is still legal. Better luck tomorrow, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Just checked again...gay marriage is still legal. Better luck tomorrow, Sil.

Just checked again...not in Alabama...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just checked again...gay marriage is still legal. Better luck tomorrow, Sil.

Just checked again...not in Alabama...

Just checked Alabama, it sure is based on Obergefell and same-sex couples are currently getting Civilly Married in 53 of 67 probate jurisdictions.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Just checked again...gay marriage is still legal. Better luck tomorrow, Sil.

Just checked again...not in Alabama...

Just checked Alabama, it sure is based on Obergefell and same-sex couples are currently getting Civilly Married in 53 of 67 probate jurisdictions.


>>>>

No, the Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court said gay marriage is illegal there. Will SCOTUS or Obama order the national guard into Alabama now to jail all those people there who won't disobey the order of Justice Moore?

This will be a fun game of chicken to watch..

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, the Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court said gay marriage is illegal there.

The Supreme Court of the United States says it's legal in all 50 states, the SCOTUS outranks an Alabama State Judge.

Which is why, even since Moore's memo, that the vast majority of jurisdictions in Alabama have continued to issue licenses.

Will SCOTUS or Obama order the national guard into Alabama now to jail all those people there who won't disobey the order of Justice Moore?

This will be a fun game of chicken to watch..

Neither.

The Probate Judges ignoring the SCOTUS rulings will likely be filed against in Federal Court and brought before a Federal Judge who will apply the Obergefell ruling and give the Judge a change to rethink their position by issuing a writ of mandamus . Either do your job or face Federal Contempt of Court charges. If they then comply with the law there will be no issue, if they continue to refuse to do their job then they can be jailed and fined.

>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

Just checked again...gay marriage is still legal. Better luck tomorrow, Sil.

Just checked again...not in Alabama...

Just checked Alabama, it sure is based on Obergefell and same-sex couples are currently getting Civilly Married in 53 of 67 probate jurisdictions.


>>>>

No, the Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court said gay marriage is illegal there. Will SCOTUS or Obama order the national guard into Alabama now to jail all those people there who won't disobey the order of Justice Moore?

This will be a fun game of chicken to watch..

Actually, I don't think he said that at all. I believe he said that between an Alabama court ruling and Obergefell there was some confusion and that judges should refrain from issuing same sex marriage licenses until such confusion can be resolved. Not 'gay marriage is illegal'.

 

[mdk]

Just checked again...gay marriage is still legal. Better luck tomorrow, Sil.

Just checked again...not in Alabama...

Just checked again...still legal. Cry me a river.

 

[Syriusly]

'for thousands of years'

Children have been treated differently for thousands of years.

It was legal for parents to kill their children at times. Parents could essentially sell their children. Infanticide was an accepted practice in Rome.

This fantasy marriage contract exists only in Silhouette's head- enforced by the voices there that keep repeating to her "Gays are bad- hate the gays":

 

[Silhouette]

No, the Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court said gay marriage is illegal there.

The Supreme Court of the United States says it's legal in all 50 states, the SCOTUS outranks an Alabama State Judge.

I think Moore is daring the Obama Administration (the dems during an election year) "c'mon down and try to enforce Obergefell in my state...I dare you.."

It's an enforcement problem.. Moore is banking that the overwhelming majority of public sentiment is behind states deciding for themselves. And you know what? He's right..they are.

But if Moore were to study infants and contract law, he could put his hands behind his head and his feet up on his desk with the legal assurance that gay marriages, all of them are void upon their face. Kids matter. Kids having a mother and father in marriage matters.

I like the cut of his jib.

 

[jillian]

Not that it matters, as behaviors can certainly define a legally protected class, but it is an example of the weakness of your arguments.

Correct, "not that it matters". It doesn't here. Because as you know, my argument is that gay marriage violates a necessity to the implicit parties in marriage for over a thousand years, to children's detriment. Depriving a child of a necessity is a contract that is void upon its face. What say you to that and not some other strawman and diversion?

this is settled. the court will not take it up again.

children are not a party to this, nor should they be.

 

[jillian]

"I have already said that having two opposite gender parents is clearly not a necessity. You said that. But unfortunately there are billions of people who solidly and flatly disagree with you.

i think you mean thousands. millions at most.

and that "opinion" is irrelevant to what is protected by our laws.

 

[Montrovant]

No, the Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court said gay marriage is illegal there.

The Supreme Court of the United States says it's legal in all 50 states, the SCOTUS outranks an Alabama State Judge.

I think Moore is daring the Obama Administration (the dems during an election year) "c'mon down and try to enforce Obergefell in my state...I dare you.."

It's an enforcement problem.. Moore is banking that the overwhelming majority of public sentiment is behind states deciding for themselves. And you know what? He's right..they are.

But if Moore were to study infants and contract law, he could put his hands behind his head and his feet up on his desk with the legal assurance that gay marriages, all of them are void upon their face. Kids matter. Kids having a mother and father in marriage matters.

I like the cut of his jib.

It looks like his order hasn't exactly been effective.

Alabama county resumes issuing same-sex marriage licenses
Marriage Equality Resumes in Alabama, Despite Roy Moore | Advocate.com

 

[Skylar]

No, the Chief Justice of Alabama's Supreme Court said gay marriage is illegal there.

The Supreme Court of the United States says it's legal in all 50 states, the SCOTUS outranks an Alabama State Judge.

I think Moore is daring the Obama Administration (the dems during an election year) "c'mon down and try to enforce Obergefell in my state...I dare you.."

I think Moore is trying to take attention away from his son's arraignment on drug charges. As his 'proclamation' came less than 48 hours after his son's arraignment. And it was overwhelmingly ignored by probate judges. With 54 of 67 just dismissing Moore's babble as inconsequential nonsense.

It's an enforcement problem.. Moore is banking that the overwhelming majority of public sentiment is behind states deciding for themselves. And you know what? He's right..they are.

Its obviously not. Same sex marriages are performed in 50 of 50 States. With a grand total of 13 counties in Alabama holding out by refusing to perform *any* marriages.

But if Moore were to study infants and contract law, he could put his hands behind his head and his feet up on his desk with the legal assurance that gay marriages, all of them are void upon their face. Kids matter. Kids having a mother and father in marriage matters.

Save that none of your babble about 'infants and contract law' has thing to do with either infants or contract law. What you're offering is your *imagination* on contract law. Where you imagine that children are married to thier parents. They're not. You imagine that entertainment law for child actors is marriage law. It isn't. And you imagine that anything you make up overrides the Supreme Court.

It doesn't.

 

[Silhouette]

..
none of your babble about 'infants and contract law' has thing to do with either infants or contract law. What you're offering is your *imagination* on contract law. Where you imagine that children are married to thier parents...

From my signature:

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

If there is a question of whether or not something constitutes a necessity, the benefit of doubt goes to the minors. Minors don't marry their parents. Marriage was invented to provide minors with a mother and father. It was invented to provide remedy for all the conceivable unfortunate circumstances that can deprive a child of a mother and father....to remedy that ill. "Gay marriage" destroys not only the promise that's thousands of years old, to children, it destroys the entire contract for which the idea of "marriage" was originally conceived of and maintained for millennia up until June 2015.

You'd have to argue, convincingly, that marriage wasn't in any way shape or form invented to provide children with a mother and father as a necessity to their well being. And, good luck with that..

 

[Montrovant]

..
none of your babble about 'infants and contract law' has thing to do with either infants or contract law. What you're offering is your *imagination* on contract law. Where you imagine that children are married to thier parents...

From my signature:

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

If there is a question of whether or not something constitutes a necessity, the benefit of doubt goes to the minors. Minors don't marry their parents. Marriage was invented to provide minors with a mother and father. It was invented to provide remedy for all the conceivable unfortunate circumstances that can deprive a child of a mother and father....to remedy that ill. "Gay marriage" destroys not only the promise that's thousands of years old, to children, it destroys the entire contract for which the idea of "marriage" was originally conceived of and maintained for millennia up until June 2015.

You'd have to argue, convincingly, that marriage wasn't in any way shape or form invented to provide children with a mother and father as a necessity to their well being. And, good luck with that..

I'm curious which contracts are being voided that you think should not be, and what necessary goods were involved that make you draw that conclusion?

That quote certainly has nothing to do with your claims that two opposite gender parents raising a child are a necessity.

 

[Silhouette]

The marriage contract. Children are implicit parties to it. It was created for them over a thousand years ago to provide a mother and father to girls and boys. Those necessities can't be revoked by a new contract called "marriage" which still involves them, which strips them of those necessities for which the contract was originally written. Any contract called "marriage" that strips children of either a mother or father is void upon its face.

 

[Montrovant]

The marriage contract. Children are implicit parties to it. It was created for them over a thousand years ago to provide a mother and father to girls and boys. Those necessities can't be revoked by a new contract called "marriage" which still involves them, which strips them of those necessities for which the contract was originally written. Any contract called "marriage" that strips children of either a mother or father is void upon its face.

You do realize that the quote from you sig, which you repeated in your previous post, is about goods? A mother and father are not goods, nor items, which are the terms used in the quote.

More, if you actually read the link from which you get that quote, you will see that the contracts being discussed cannot be voided. The quote says contracts which furnish necessaries cannot be disaffirmed.

In fact, the context of the quote is that minors are obligated to honor contracts which furnish necessities even though they are not adults. In the examples given, a minor who lied about his age on a loan for a mortgage is still liable despite being under age when obtaining the loan; a minor signs up for the armed services and must fulfill their contractual obligation despite being under age at the signing; a minor gets a bank account and is subject to the same banking regulations as adults. In other words, you are using a quote which says nothing at all about what you think it does.

Would you care to explain how you get your points from a discussion about something completely different? How does minors having to fulfill contractual obligations which involve necessary goods equate to voiding same sex marriages?

With your history of misrepresentation and outright lies when it comes to others' quoted works, I am not expecting much in response here.