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

[Skylar]

You aren't right about infants and contract law.

Says the poor, hapless soul that cited *entertainment law* for child actors as marriage law.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You are asserting that children did not and do not implicitly share in the marriage contract. I assure you that you are wrong about that. Go ask any lawyer or judge. Go ahead.

Your 'assurances' are worth as much as your predictions; worthless. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You've been wrong with every legal prediction you've ever made.

Every. Single. One.

Why? Because you keep citing your imagination while ignoring the law. And then seemed shocked and confused when the courts follow the actual law rather than whatever hapless batshit you made up.

Get used to the idea. Its why same sex marriage is legal in 50 of 50 States.

 

[Silhouette]

Children aren't party to any marriage of adults. Adults marry each other. Not their children.


And Guardian ad litem are fact finders for the judges. Not advocates for children. There were plenty of 'friends of the court' briefs outlining the effects on children of denying marriage to same sex parents.

Children are IN FACT IMPLICIT PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Implicit parties enjoy rights to a contract. In this case, the marriage contract was conceived of over a thousand years ago FOR CHILDREN'S IMPLICIT ENJOYMENTS in a home environment they were raised it. A new Hearing will set you straight on the horrible misinformation you are imparting here.

There were plenty of amicus briefs FROM ADULT CHILDREN RAISED IN GAY HOMES BEGGING SCOTUS to not change the contract to disinclude either a mother or father for life. The judges decided in the absence of actual representation of children, to IGNORE THE AMICUS BRIEFS filed described in the link in my signature. The Court IGNORED the damage that ratifying the new terms of the contract that children, in fact, share in, WITHOUT THESE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT HAVING REPRESENTATION PRESENT AT THE REVISION HEARING..

The Court decided, in childrens' absence physically in court, and in spite of their written protests, that stripping them of the right to BOTH a mother and father (kids come in both genders, pal) was "in their best interest". Which is flatly false. And that they were not present or represented, and that the revision was to their detriment, means via contract law and infants, that the revision is in fact today and always until children assent NULL AND VOID.

Let me remind you again...

..."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

An infant cannot void a contract he was not invited to weigh in on the revision thereof, nor represented at that revision. So Obergefell was a mistrial.

Your predictions of who is "always right" or "always wrong" are meaningless Skylar, in the face of an attorney and his child client suing for the right to have a mother AND father restored to the contract s/he enjoyed for thousands of years.

You can play the "Skylar's always right" defense for what it would get you at that Hearing..

Says the poor, hapless soul that cited *entertainment law* for child actors as marriage law....You have no idea what you're talking about.

Your 'assurances' are worth as much as your predictions; worthless. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You've been wrong with every legal prediction you've ever made...Every. Single. One....Why? Because you keep citing your imagination while ignoring the law. And then seemed shocked and confused when the courts follow the actual law rather than whatever hapless batshit you made up.....Get used to the idea. Its why same sex marriage is legal in 50 of 50 States.

Same sex marriage was not assented to by one of the parties to the marriage contract revision in Obergefell, or any other means of revising it that excluded children. It's an idea you're going to have to get used to. A little bird told me it's an issue that some are adamant on pressing...

BTW, I was always told that when someone resorts to berating their opponent, they fear they are losing a debate. Couldn't be more true in your case. I can smell your fear on this particular topic... If I personally bashed you as vigorously and often as you do me, I would've been banned from here long ago. Curious your ilk are allowed to do so with a completely free rein, no consequences whatsoever. You like a stacked deck don't you? Your shaky game couldn't have possibly survived this long without one.

Consider this topic your oppositions Ace up the sleeve...

 

[Skylar]

Children aren't party to any marriage of adults. Adults marry each other. Not their children.


And Guardian ad litem are fact finders for the judges. Not advocates for children. There were plenty of 'friends of the court' briefs outlining the effects on children of denying marriage to same sex parents.

Children are IN FACT IMPLICIT PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Implicit parties enjoy rights to a contract. In this case, the marriage contract was conceived of over a thousand years ago FOR CHILDREN'S IMPLICIT ENJOYMENTS in a home environment they were raised it. A new Hearing will set you straight on the horrible misinformation you are imparting here.

There were plenty of amicus briefs FROM ADULT CHILDREN RAISED IN GAY HOMES BEGGING SCOTUS to not change the contract to disinclude either a mother or father for life. The judges decided in the absence of actual representation of children, to IGNORE THE AMICUS BRIEFS filed described in the link in my signature. The Court IGNORED the damage that ratifying the new terms of the contract that children, in fact, share in, WITHOUT THESE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT HAVING REPRESENTATION PRESENT AT THE REVISION HEARING..

The Court decided, in childrens' absence physically in court, and in spite of their written protests, that stripping them of the right to BOTH a mother and father (kids come in both genders, pal) was "in their best interest". Which is flatly false. And that they were not present or represented, and that the revision was to their detriment, means via contract law and infants, that the revision is in fact today and always until children assent NULL AND VOID.

Let me remind you again...

..."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

An infant cannot void a contract he was not invited to weigh in on the revision thereof, nor represented at that revision. So Obergefell was a mistrial.

Your predictions of who is "always right" or "always wrong" are meaningless Skylar, in the face of an attorney and his child client suing for the right to have a mother AND father restored to the contract s/he enjoyed for thousands of years.

You can play the "Skylar's always right" defense for what it would get you at that Hearing..

Says the poor, hapless soul that cited *entertainment law* for child actors as marriage law....You have no idea what you're talking about.

Your 'assurances' are worth as much as your predictions; worthless. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You've been wrong with every legal prediction you've ever made...Every. Single. One....Why? Because you keep citing your imagination while ignoring the law. And then seemed shocked and confused when the courts follow the actual law rather than whatever hapless batshit you made up.....Get used to the idea. Its why same sex marriage is legal in 50 of 50 States.

Same sex marriage was not assented to by one of the parties to the marriage contract revision in Obergefell, or any other means of revising it that excluded children. It's an idea you're going to have to get used to. A little bird told me it's an issue that some are adamant on pressing...

You're just spamming the same debunked pseudo-legal gibberish.

No child is married to their parents when their parents get married. Your entire basis of argument is hapless nonsense which has no relevance to the actual law.

And the 'infant contract' you just cited was entertainment law for child actors. Where the child is an explicit party to the contract. Which you've already admitted children aren't in marriage.

I can't stress this point enough: you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know a thing about the law, the terms you're trying to use, contracts, any of it. You're offering us your imaginary, made up version of each, insisting that the courts are bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Laughing....no. They're not. As Obergefell demonstrates elegantly.

 

[Silhouette]

You're just spamming the same debunked pseudo-legal gibberish.

.."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdfhttp://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

If the above quote has been legally debunked, would you please point me to case law where that happened? Thanks.

 

[Skylar]

Same sex marriage was not assented to by one of the parties to the marriage contract revision in Obergefell, or any other means of revising it that excluded children. It's an idea you're going to have to get used to. A little bird told me it's an issue that some are adamant on pressing...

Save of course, that's all pseudo-legal gibberish.

Children aren't married to their parents when their parents are married. Nor are they 'parties' to anyone's marriage. You made all that up, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse for your nonsense rant, Obergefell and Windsor took children into account in their ruling. Finding that the denial of marriage for same sex parents hurts their children. Exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Your assertion that unless 'children' had 'representation' in the Supreme Court hearing it was a 'mistrial' is just more pseudo-legal word salad. There's no such mandate, no such requirement, no such mistrial even possible, no such client. As no lawyer has ever represented 'all children'.

You're just making up this shit as you go along. And it has never had the slightest relevance to the outcome of any case. Yet you continue to cite your imaginary gibberish as law and ignore the actual law.

And unsurprisingly, every legal prediction you've ever made has been wrong. Demonstrating elegantly how worthless your command of the topic is. As you're *always* wrong

 

[Skylar]

You're just spamming the same debunked pseudo-legal gibberish.

.."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

If the above quote has been legally debunked, would you please point me to case law where that happened? Thanks.

That's entertainment law for child actors. Which you've laughably confused with marriage law.

Nope. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

.."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

If the above quote has been legally debunked, would you please point me to case law where that happened? Thanks.

That's entertainment law for child actors. Which you've laughably confused with marriage law.

No, that was taken from law of contracts and infants generally. Let me know when you find that case law, OK?

Here's another. Read it and weep asshole. Good luck proving that either a mother or father aren't necessary to the normal social development to a child in a married home. Marriage was their only hope at gaining that necessity. It was just systematically stripped from the marriage contract without their assent. And Obergefell erred in that way. The revision is void, therefore.

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, 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

Boo hoo hoo...and that link comes from a general description of infants and contract law... Poor Skylar..

 

[Skylar]

.."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

If the above quote has been legally debunked, would you please point me to case law where that happened? Thanks.

The above quote has nothing to do with marriage law. Its entertainment law for child actors.

Which, of course, you know. But really hope we don't.

No, that was taken from law of contracts and infants generally. Let me know when you find that case law, OK?

No, it was taken from a website of a lawyer that represents child actors. The word 'marriage' doesn't even appear anywhere in entire page. Making your claim that its marriage law more ignorant pseudo-legal gibberish.

The entertainment law involves contracts in which child actors are explicit parties. Which you've already admitted isn't the case for children in marriage.

Destroying your entire nonsense argument. Sigh....again.

 

[Silhouette]

The above quote has nothing to do with marriage law. Its entertainment law for child actors.
.

You missed this one. Might want to read my posts before you reply...It's about infants and contracts in general.

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, 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

Some lawyers might be able to prove, with the help of the amicus briefs linked in my signature and the Prince's Trust 2010 survey that not having either a mother or father in the marriage promise/enjoyments that children previously enjoyed, would be to their detriment. Yes...there might be one lawyer out there that might be able to demonstrate that. A mother or a father is a necessity in the marriage contract. Minors of both genders need both.

 

[Skylar]

The above quote has nothing to do with marriage law. Its entertainment law for child actors.
.

You missed this one. Might want to read my posts before you reply...It's about infants and contracts in general.

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, 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

Notice no where in your source does it say that children are parties to the marriage of their parents.

You just proved my point. As you're ignoring your own source......and of course, offering your imagination as law. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

Some lawyers might be able to prove, with the help of the amicus briefs linked in my signature and the Prince's Trust 2010 survey that not having either a mother or father in the marriage promise/enjoyments that children previously enjoyed, would be to their detriment.

And by 'some lawyer', you're again just imagining everything you just posted. Literally pulled sideways out of your ass. Which is the entirety of your argument.

Worse, the Prince's Trust study never even *mentions* mothers or fathers. Let alone measures the effect of any kind of parenting. You're lying your ass off.

Again, you keep citing your imagination, insisting that the courts are bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up. And they still aren't.

 

[Silhouette]

Let me just drive the point home for you Skylar...

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, 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

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public...icRelations/FamilyRelationships/Contracts.asp

This could create a HUGE problem for Obergefell and other "affirmations" of disaffirmation of the marriage contract that children have enjoyed for thousands of years up until the last five or so, at a handful of "judges"... Children enjoyed both a mother and father until gays ripped that away from them recently. Big problem. Look for this to not go away as easily as the rest of the victories you bought, threatened or coerced... Kids are a visceral topic for all people far and wide.

Even you had a mother and father...

 

[mdk]

I don't even know why anyone even bothers to engage Sil anymore? She is the very soul of confirmation bias and all they matters is her anti-gay narrative. Sil doesn't even care about her own physical and mental well being! What makes you think she is going to care about facts if her own health is a secondary concern?

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, avoid the ad hominems...OK?

What ad hominems?

Since what you posted has no basis in law or fact- where did that come from other than voices in your head?

 

[Syriusly]

Children IMPLICITLY share the marriage contract.
In fact, it was created thousands of years ago FOR THEIR BENEFIT. They are the reason it existed in the first place. It was newly-revised to their predicted detriment in Obergefell 2015, without their participation, input or even representation.

On the contrary, both Windsor and Obergefell explicitly took kids into account. And found that denying same sex parents marriage only harms their children.

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 familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to theirworkers’ 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.

Denying same sex parents marriage actually hurts kids according to the USSC. You ignore that portion of their ruling because its contradicts your nonsense.

Who were the attorneys in either Windsor or Obergefell for the interests of children? .

There were two parties in involved in each case.

The plaintiff's- the gay couples suing the states and the Federal government..

And the defendants- the states or the Federal government.

The plaintiff's and the defendents have attorneys to represent them- nobody else.

Children were neither the plaintiffs nor the defendents.

Showing once again you just make this crap up.

 

[Syriusly]

You aren't right about infants and contract law. You are asserting that children did not and do not implicitly share in the marriage contract. I assure you that you are wrong about that. Go ask any lawyer or judge. Go ahead.

You find a single lawyer or judge that agrees with you- you can't- because they don't exist.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me just drive the point home for you Skylar...

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, 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

This could create a HUGE problem for Obergefell and other "affirmations" of disaffirmation of the marriage contract that children have enjoyed for thousands of years up until the last five or so, at a handful of "judges"... Children enjoyed both a mother and father until gays ripped that away from them recently. Big problem. Look for this to not go away as easily as the rest of the victories you bought, threatened or coerced... Kids are a visceral topic for all people far and wide...

Sigh.

The Supreme Court ruled on the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution trumps both Federal and State law- any law- including contract law that you are misinterpreting.

There is no huge problem- Americans regardless of their gender can now marry each other legally- and the only way bigots can change that is by a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey, you got four posts in trying to bury my points at the top of this page. I'll just repost them. I know you don't want people to see them. Next time, if you're responding to just one poster, keep it all in one post so you don't eat up too much bandwidth.

 

[Skylar]

Let me just drive the point home for you Skylar...

Yet, some contracts cannot be voided. Specifically, a minor remains liable for certain contractual obligations:Taxes...Penalties...Bank regulations....Military....Necessaries
For instance, 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

This could create a HUGE problem for Obergefell and other "affirmations" of disaffirmation of the marriage contract that children have enjoyed for thousands of years up until the last five or so, at a handful of "judges"...

Nope. As the obligation to care for your kids is the product of parenthood. Not marriage. You can tell as the obligation to provide the necessary subsistence, health, comfort, etc for your children.....extends even if you get divorced. It exists even if you've never gotten married.

Its not the product of marriage. Killing your latest piece of pseudo-legal gibberish yet again. With the fact that children aren't married to their parents killing it again.

Your argument is a layer cake of nonsensical, imaginary gibberish.

Oh, and it didn't go unnoticed that you're ignoring the very source you're citing. As no where does it recognize that marriage of parents means their minor children have entered into a contract. You made that up, citing whatever pseudo-legal spasm of imagination that strikes your fancy.

And you had to ignore your own sources to do it.

 

[Skylar]

I don't even know why anyone even bothers to engage Sil anymore? She is the very soul of confirmation bias and all they matters is her anti-gay narrative. Sil doesn't even care about her own physical and mental well being! What makes you think she is going to care about facts if her own health is a secondary concern?

Not just confirmation bias. As she doesn't merely ignore sources that contradict her and recognize those that she feels agree with her.

She imagines things that simply don't exist. Her 'Prince's Trust' study never even mentions mothers or fathers. There's no requirement that there be a representative for 'all children' at a USSC hearing else there is a 'mistrial'. And entertainment law for child actors isn't marriage law.

Sil's argument is one of imagination. Where she makes up her own version of the law, ignores the actual law and then insists that the courts are bound to whatever she makes up.

And she seems genuinely confused when her pseudo-legal gibberish plays no role in the outcome of any case. With her record on predicting legal outcomes being one of unbroken, perfect failure.

 

[mdk]

I don't even know why anyone even bothers to engage Sil anymore? She is the very soul of confirmation bias and all they matters is her anti-gay narrative. Sil doesn't even care about her own physical and mental well being! What makes you think she is going to care about facts if her own health is a secondary concern?

Not just confirmation bias. As she doesn't merely ignore sources that contradict her and recognize those that she feels agree with her.

She imagines things that simply don't exist. Her 'Prince's Trust' study never even mentions mothers or fathers. There's no requirement that there be a representative for 'all children' at a USSC hearing else there is a 'mistrial'. And entertainment law for child actors isn't marriage law.

Sil's argument is one of imagination. Where she makes up her own version of the law, ignores the actual law and then insists that the courts are bound to whatever she makes up.

And she seems genuinely confused when her pseudo-legal gibberish plays no role in the outcome of any case. With her record on predicting legal outcomes being one of unbroken, perfect failure.

You're preaching to the choir, mate. lol