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

[Silhouette]

Sil, you are playing a rerun of Orly Taitz, and yet you seem surprised of the reaction you receive.

Yes, I was quite surprised with Justice Roy Moore passed his recent Administrative Ruling in Alabama, thus forcing the SCOTUS' five's cards on the table about which party is legally dominant...a member of a deviant sex cult (just some, among a sea of other behaviors...just the Court's favorites re: the 14th Amendment), or a Christian's mandate to not promote another cult over their sublime religion.

I also might be quite surprised if lawyers start looking into necessities, infants and contract law re: the marriage contract's ancient promise to kids of both a mother and father...the reason it was created in the first place...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette Taitz is frothing again.

 

[mdk]

Sil, you are playing a rerun of Orly Taitz, and yet you seem surprised of the reaction you receive.

Yes, I was quite surprised with Justice Roy Moore passed his recent Administrative Ruling in Alabama, thus forcing the SCOTUS' five's cards on the table about which party is legally dominant...a member of a deviant sex cult (just some, among a sea of other behaviors...just the Court's favorites re: the 14th Amendment), or a Christian's mandate to not promote another cult over their sublime religion.

I also might be quite surprised if lawyers start looking into necessities, infants and contract law re: the marriage contract's ancient promise to kids of both a mother and father...the reason it was created in the first place...

Gay marriage is still occurring and legal in Alabama; moreover, nobody is bound by your inane legal prattle. True story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She will be like Alan Keys, yammering futilely to the bitter end.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, you are playing a rerun of Orly Taitz, and yet you seem surprised of the reaction you receive.

Yes, I was quite surprised with Justice Roy Moore passed his recent Administrative Ruling in Alabama, thus forcing the SCOTUS' five's cards on the table about which party is legally dominant

Nope and nope. Moore's 'administrative ruling' doesn't force the Supreme Court to do a thing. As the Obergefell ruling is still authoritative. And Moore still has no legal leg to stand on.

Even the Probate judges overwhelmingly told Moore to go fuck himself. With 54 of 67 simply ignoring Moore's pseudo-legal gibber-jabber. And the other 13 not issuing any marriage licenses at all.

I also might be quite surprised if lawyers start looking into necessities, infants and contract law re: the marriage contract's ancient promise to kids of both a mother and father...the reason it was created in the first place...

And as your perfect record of failure in predicting any legal outcome demonstrates elegantly....what would 'surprise' you is meaningless. As you keep citing your imagination as law. While ignoring the actual law.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, you are playing a rerun of Orly Taitz, and yet you seem surprised of the reaction you receive.

a member of a deviant sex cult..

Stop listening to the voices in your head.

 

[Syriusly]

I also might be quite surprised if lawyers start looking into necessities, infants and contract law re: the marriage contract's ancient promise to kids of both a mother and father...the reason it was created in the first place...

Just curious Silhouette- who is going to be hiring those lawyers? Who would be their clients?

 

[Silhouette]

I also might be quite surprised if lawyers start looking into necessities, infants and contract law re: the marriage contract's ancient promise to kids of both a mother and father...the reason it was created in the first place...

Just curious Silhouette- who is going to be hiring those lawyers? Who would be their clients?

Adoption agencies. Catholic ones. Stay tuned..

 

[Syriusly]

I also might be quite surprised if lawyers start looking into necessities, infants and contract law re: the marriage contract's ancient promise to kids of both a mother and father...the reason it was created in the first place...

Just curious Silhouette- who is going to be hiring those lawyers? Who would be their clients?

Adoption agencies. Catholic ones. Stay tuned..

So the adoption agency would hire a lawyer to force the mother and father of the kids that they abandoned- to take them back?

Or would the adoption agency hire a lawyer to sue the government to force married couples without children to adopt children whose own mother and father have abandoned them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

RC is not going to war in the courts with the US on any of this.

Sil, the voices in your head are not self evident proof.

 

[Skylar]

I also might be quite surprised if lawyers start looking into necessities, infants and contract law re: the marriage contract's ancient promise to kids of both a mother and father...the reason it was created in the first place...

Just curious Silhouette- who is going to be hiring those lawyers? Who would be their clients?

Adoption agencies. Catholic ones. Stay tuned..

So the adoption agency would hire a lawyer to force the mother and father of the kids that they abandoned- to take them back?

Or would the adoption agency hire a lawyer to sue the government to force married couples without children to adopt children whose own mother and father have abandoned them?

Apparently the 'Catholic Adoption agencies' are going to sue to make sure that the children of same sex couples can never have married parents.

Which helps no child. And hurts tens of thousands.

Understanding of course that 'Catholic Adoption Agency' is just the name Sil has given one of her voices. Though conveniently if there are two such voices, Sil can just refer to them by their acronym ....and get a true sense of the value of their claims.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently the 'Catholic Adoption agencies' are going to sue to make sure that the children of same sex couples can never have married parents.

Which helps no child. And hurts tens of thousands.

Understanding of course that 'Catholic Adoption Agency' is just the name Sil has given one of her voices. Though conveniently if there are two such voices, Sil can just refer to them by their acronym ....and get a true sense of the value of their claims.

You know, your position seems to be "screw kids, they just have to deal with what they get in marriage these days". But that contract promised them a mother and father for over a thousand years. So, you have a problem on your hands with infants and contract law. I dare you to argue that in marriage a mother and father were/are not a necessity for girls and boys...

 

[mdk]

Apparently the 'Catholic Adoption agencies' are going to sue to make sure that the children of same sex couples can never have married parents.

Which helps no child. And hurts tens of thousands.

Understanding of course that 'Catholic Adoption Agency' is just the name Sil has given one of her voices. Though conveniently if there are two such voices, Sil can just refer to them by their acronym ....and get a true sense of the value of their claims.

You know, your position seems to be "screw kids, they just have to deal with what they get in marriage these days". But that contract promised them a mother and father for over a thousand years. So, you have a problem on your hands with infants and contract law. I dare you to argue that in marriage a mother and father were/are not a necessity for girls and boys...

And by 'contract law' you mean some poppycock you made up in a lame attempt to stop gay marriage? Surely you can't be shocked as to why your legal bullshit never comes to pass?

 

[Montrovant]

Apparently the 'Catholic Adoption agencies' are going to sue to make sure that the children of same sex couples can never have married parents.

Which helps no child. And hurts tens of thousands.

Understanding of course that 'Catholic Adoption Agency' is just the name Sil has given one of her voices. Though conveniently if there are two such voices, Sil can just refer to them by their acronym ....and get a true sense of the value of their claims.

You know, your position seems to be "screw kids, they just have to deal with what they get in marriage these days". But that contract promised them a mother and father for over a thousand years. So, you have a problem on your hands with infants and contract law. I dare you to argue that in marriage a mother and father were/are not a necessity for girls and boys...

It is not a necessity, whether a couple is married or not. Children can be and have been raised by same sex parents. Many studies of children raised by same sex parents have shown them to be just about the same as children raised by opposite sex parents in terms of self-esteem, gender identity, and general emotional well-being. You have simply taken the term necessity (from a quote you are misrepresenting, no less) and decided it is the new bludgeon to use in your anti-homosexual rhetoric.

Considering your history of misrepresenting the Prince's Trust Youth Index, it is not a surprise you'd do the same with something else.

 

[Silhouette]

It is not a necessity, whether a couple is married or not. Children can be and have been raised by same sex parents. Many studies of children raised by same sex parents have shown them to be just about the same as children raised by opposite sex parents in terms of self-esteem, gender identity, and general emotional well-being.

You are talking about events outside marriage. Wolves have successfully raised children. Should we have wolf-marriage now too because of that false premise? Obviously not.

Pay attention here: THE REASON THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT WAS INVENTED OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO WAS TO PROVIDE BOTH A MOTHER AND FATHER TO CHILDREN IN THE SAME HOME AS THE ADULTS. Since both boys and girls arrive as children in a married home, it is vital that both role models be present. If they're not, the Prince's Trust survey 2010 PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY and the amicus briefs linked in my signature say that the lack of the gender-specific parental role model (the epitome of role models) HURTS CHILDREN.

That contractual provision of both mother and father innate to the marriage contract since its inception,for children, was just removed, without their consent, and to their detriment. And that, of course, is forbidden under necessities, infants and contract law. Children not only did not disaffirm the marriage contract of mother/father, they were barred from having a voice at Obergefell. All proposed contractual revisions demand as a matter of deep established law that all parties to that contract, written or implied, MUST have representation at the proposed revision Hearing. That simply didn't happen. As I've said, Obergefell therefore was a mistrial. You can't have a hearing on a matter without all parties to that matter having representation or being present at the Hearing. Good luck challenging THAT one with case law

I see you are backing down, unlike your cohorts here, on claiming that children somehow aren't implicit sharers of the marriage contract. Good. Baby steps...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette seems to be mentally failing. Wolf marriage? Be kind to her.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently the 'Catholic Adoption agencies' are going to sue to make sure that the children of same sex couples can never have married parents.

Which helps no child. And hurts tens of thousands.

Understanding of course that 'Catholic Adoption Agency' is just the name Sil has given one of her voices. Though conveniently if there are two such voices, Sil can just refer to them by their acronym ....and get a true sense of the value of their claims.

You know, your position seems to be "screw kids, they just have to deal with what they get in marriage these days".

Obviously, 'screw the kids' is your position. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which hurts these children by 10s of thousands. And helps no child.

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.

Yet you're willing, even eager to harm and humiliate these children. To deprive them of the security of marriage. To damage their familial relationships. To deny them healthcare. All while helping NO child. All so you can hurt gay people.

No. We're not doing that. Any of it.

But that contract promised them a mother and father for over a thousand years. So, you have a problem on your hands with infants and contract law. I dare you to argue that in marriage a mother and father were/are not a necessity for girls and boys...

Show us anywhere in the law or court rulings where a child is recognized as married to their parents. Or show us any law or court ruling where the marriage of parents is recognized as a 'contract of minors'?

You can't. You made all that up. And your pseudo-legal gibberish and desire to hurt children has no legal relevance.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

Silhouette seems to be mentally failing. Wolf marriage? Be kind to her.

Her arguments are the Baskin Robbins of helpless batshit. And she just cycles through them in sequence.

Go to any conspiracy message board. Look at the obsessive, tin foil insanity of the posters on 'mind control rays', 'alien abduction' or 'earthquake machines'. Browse through the product of schizophrenia, paranoid delusion, and all consuming compulsion.

They read like Sil's rants against gays. With there currently being 38 threads on this board she started on the topic. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of the same rant.

Its exactly what mental illness looks like.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The LDS General Authorities have the same problem abusing children (the LGBT proclamation) while supposedly caring for them in the name of Jesus or good parenting or whatever.

Vile, vile behavior.

 

[Montrovant]

It is not a necessity, whether a couple is married or not. Children can be and have been raised by same sex parents. Many studies of children raised by same sex parents have shown them to be just about the same as children raised by opposite sex parents in terms of self-esteem, gender identity, and general emotional well-being.

You are talking about events outside marriage. Wolves have successfully raised children. Should we have wolf-marriage now too because of that false premise? Obviously not.

Pay attention here: THE REASON THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT WAS INVENTED OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO WAS TO PROVIDE BOTH A MOTHER AND FATHER TO CHILDREN IN THE SAME HOME AS THE ADULTS. Since both boys and girls arrive as children in a married home, it is vital that both role models be present. If they're not, the Prince's Trust survey 2010 PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY and the amicus briefs linked in my signature say that the lack of the gender-specific parental role model (the epitome of role models) HURTS CHILDREN.

That contractual provision of both mother and father innate to the marriage contract since its inception,for children, was just removed, without their consent, and to their detriment. And that, of course, is forbidden under necessities, infants and contract law. Children not only did not disaffirm the marriage contract of mother/father, they were barred from having a voice at Obergefell. All proposed contractual revisions demand as a matter of deep established law that all parties to that contract, written or implied, MUST have representation at the proposed revision Hearing. That simply didn't happen. As I've said, Obergefell therefore was a mistrial. You can't have a hearing on a matter without all parties to that matter having representation or being present at the Hearing. Good luck challenging THAT one with case law

I see you are backing down, unlike your cohorts here, on claiming that children somehow aren't implicit sharers of the marriage contract. Good. Baby steps...

Back to the 'raised by wolves' insanity, I see.

1. I'd like to see any verified case of children being raised by wolves. I'd further like to see them turning out to be happy, productive members of society.

2. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that marriage was invented to provide a mother and father to children.

3. You have been shown that your description of the Prince's Trust is in error at best, but more likely a deliberate misrepresentation. The survey never says that the same gender role models discussed must be a parent, or even related to the children in question. In fact, in a later Index, the Prince's Trust talks about how the organization provides role models for children. Based on their own words, the people who conduct the Prince's Trust do not think that a parent is the only possible positive same gender role model. More, having a parent in no way guarantees a positive role model. I will make an educated guess that the gender of a role model is far less important than whether they are a positive or negative role model.

4. I have already pointed out how you have misrepresented the Contracts of Minors link from your sig line. The necessities quote you use is regarding contracts to which minors are signatories. It means that although minors usually may not be able to enter into contracts, when those contracts furnish necessary goods to a minor, the minors can be held liable for the contracts.

5. Your claims about children being required to have representation in any hearing regarding marriage law are ludicrous and hold no legal weight. Children are not an integral part of the marriage contract. Marriage can and does exist without children, quite often in fact. Some marriages never include children, some marriages continue after children become adults. More, children do not have the same legal rights or voice as adults. You have created yet another fictional legal hurdle. It is completely meaningless outside of this discussion.

I haven't 'backed down' on anything. The primary parties in a marriage contract are the two adults who are getting married. Their children, present or future, are not also married to them. That children are affected by marriage does not make them a party to the contract; pets may be affected by a marriage, property may be affected by a marriage, but those things are not party to the contract.