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

[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

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.

Marriage is/was a contract created for children thousands of years ago to insure that their parents stayed together, legally bound, for their benefit. Nobody doubts or argues that children come into the world under all manner of circumstances. In fact, that very observation is WHY the marriage contract was created for children in the first place. In a chaotic world where children often were and are the first to suffer the woes of single parenthood, most notably missing a vital parent (opposite gender of the one in their home) for a balance of role modeling and a proper berth into society, marriage was the contract that was the only thing children had to rely on to bring them this necessary duo of adults to watch over them and model for them silently and outspoken on a daily basis.

Everyone, for thousands of years, understood this, knew this implicitly. (The implied and binding contract, affirmed). And in fact it was why states gave rewards to married men/women: to entice the biggest number of mother/father pairs to provide homes for either their children, or adopted children from the perils mentioned above. Otherwise, there is no benefit a state derives from two gays shacking up. Two heteros shacking up at least hold the promise of getting married to provide the contractual enjoyments to the contract that children sought to enjoy. Your recent illegal revision of the thousands-years-old contract does not provide a benefit to children, who shared in it. In fact, the new illegal revision provides only a loss to children. A loss of either a vital mother or a vital father FOR LIFE...as a new institution. By the very physical structure of a "gay marriage", it is guaranteed that the child no longer even has a whiff of a hope at gaining a vital mother/father home in which to be raised. Again, infants and contract law (see quote) declares this revision void therefore.

The amicus briefs written by adult children who were raised in gay homes noted this vacuum. They noted the lack of the opposite gender as a parent left them lost, wanting, lacking in various ways. They have spoken. Now it's time for those briefs to have their day in Court. You're all about minorities who are suffering having their day in Court. So this shouldn't bother you at all. In fact, you should be the first one to advocate and support those briefs being examined at a SCOTUS hearing under infants and contract law. (See the quote at top) Children, who can't even vote, have priority as a minority group. And so, they must have their interests in the marriage contract reviewed as a matter of compelling law.. The review is mandatory, not optional. (See quote at top)

 

[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.

You're preaching to the choir, mate. lol

It stands in pretty stark contrast to our assessments. As we accurately predicted the outcome of the Obergefell case, the cases that the court would cite, the basis of their legal reasoning, pretty much everything.

How?

By reading the actual rulings that preceded it and the actual law.

 

[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.

 

[mdk]

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is/was a contract created for children thousands of years ago to insure that their parents stayed together, legally bound, for their benefit.

Again, for the 20th time.....no child is married to their parents when their parents marry. They are not party to a marriage.

And for the 3rd time, all of the obligations you've cited have nothing to do with marriage. But with parenthood. As the obligations follow parents. Even if they get divorced. Even if they never married.

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

 

[Silhouette]

Any party who enjoys the benefits of a contract is a party to that contract. Implied contracts are as binding as written ones. There isn't a lawyer on earth who can successfully argue that children did not share implicitly in the enjoyment of the marriage contract's terms of "mother and father for life".

Good luck. (I see y'all had to bring out bright and obnoxious streaming video of devil and chainsaw to divert the conversation...since your words aren't working that well...this topic is really bothering you. And well it should)

 

[Skylar]

Any party who enjoys the benefits of a contract is a party to that contract.

Then why, pray tell, did your own source never once cite the marriage of parents as a 'minor contract'?

Seems a rather vast omission. Either that, or you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Implied contracts are as binding as written ones. There isn't a lawyer on earth who can successfully argue that children did not share implicitly in the enjoyment of the marriage contract's terms of "mother and father for life".

Show us the law recognizing marriage as a 'minor contract'. A minor contract the child apparently enters without consent, consultation, or even existence. As per you, the contract can PRECEDE the birth of any child.

Show us, don't tell us.

Good luck. (I see y'all had to bring out bright and obnoxious streaming video of devil and chainsaw to divert the conversation...since your words aren't working that well...this topic is really bothering you. And well it should)

Laughing....we're fine, Sil. Remember, Obegefell is binding precedent. Its the law in 50 of 50 States.

Its your pseudo-legal gibberish that is gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case. As demonstrated by your perfect record of failure in predicting any legal outcome.

 

[Silhouette]

Contract law doesn't discriminate. It applies across the board no matter what contract is being discussed. Nice try Sky Sky..

 

[Skylar]

Contract law doesn't discriminate. It applies across the board no matter what contract is being discussed. Nice try Sky Sky..

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the law recognizing the marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children.

Your own source doesn't include marriage as such. So you ignore your own source. Obergefell doesn't recognize marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children. So you ignore the Supreme Court. The law doesn't recognize marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for children. So you ignore the law.

Are you starting to see why your made up, pseudo-legal nonsense has nothing to do with the outcome of any case?

 

[mdk]

Good luck. (I see y'all had to bring out bright and obnoxious streaming video of devil and chainsaw to divert the conversation...since your words aren't working that well...this topic is really bothering you. And well it should)

Hardly. Why would anyone be bothered by your constant failures and irrelevance concerning this matter? While you continue to whine, gays continue to marry and you can't do jack shit about it.

 

[Skylar]

Good luck. (I see y'all had to bring out bright and obnoxious streaming video of devil and chainsaw to divert the conversation...since your words aren't working that well...this topic is really bothering you. And well it should)

Hardly. Why would anyone be bothered by your constant failures and irrelevance concerning this matter? While you continue to whine, gays continue to marry and you can't do jack shit about it.

Laughing.......Sil's record of perfect failure in predicting the outcome of any case proves that she must be right, of course.

As nothing demonstrates a command of the concepts of the law like always being wrong.

Right?

 

[mdk]

 

[Syriusly]

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"...)

There is no problem.

Marriage is legal throughout the United States for American couples regardless of their gender now.

The Supreme Court ruled according to the Constitution.

Your imaginary interpretation of the law is nothing but the voices in your head.

 

[Syriusly]

Contract law doesn't discriminate. It applies across the board no matter what contract is being discussed. Nice try Sky Sky..

You are still listening to the voices in your head that lie to you.

• The Supreme Court ruled on state marriage law and deemed it violated the 14th Amendment.
• This has nothing to do with contract law
• And the U.S. Constitution is precedent over ANY law- contract or otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

Any party who enjoys the benefits of a contract is a party to that contract. I/QUOTE]

Nope. For instance if my employer enters into a contract to buy new computers for my company- even though I will benefit from that contract- I am not a party in that contract.

Nope. For instance if my employer enters into a contract to buy new computers for my company- even though I will benefit from that contract- I am not a party in that contract

You just make this crap up.

 

[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

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.

Marriage is/was a contract created for children thousands of years ago to insure that their parents stayed together, legally bound, for their benefit. Nobody doubts or argues that children come into the world under all manner of circumstances. In fact, that very observation is WHY the marriage contract was created for children in the first place. In a chaotic world where children often were and are the first to suffer the woes of single parenthood, most notably missing a vital parent (opposite gender of the one in their home) for a balance of role modeling and a proper berth into society, marriage was the contract that was the only thing children had to rely on to bring them this necessary duo of adults to watch over them and model for them silently and outspoken on a daily basis.

Everyone, for thousands of years, understood this, knew this implicitly. (The implied and binding contract, affirmed). And in fact it was why states gave rewards to married men/women: to entice the biggest number of mother/father pairs to provide homes for either their children, or adopted children from the perils mentioned above. Otherwise, there is no benefit a state derives from two gays shacking up. Two heteros shacking up at least hold the promise of getting married to provide the contractual enjoyments to the contract that children sought to enjoy. Your recent illegal revision of the thousands-years-old contract does not provide a benefit to children, who shared in it. In fact, the new illegal revision provides only a loss to children. A loss of either a vital mother or a vital father FOR LIFE...as a new institution. By the very physical structure of a "gay marriage", it is guaranteed that the child no longer even has a whiff of a hope at gaining a vital mother/father home in which to be raised. Again, infants and contract law (see quote) declares this revision void therefore.

The amicus briefs written by adult children who were raised in gay homes noted this vacuum. They noted the lack of the opposite gender as a parent left them lost, wanting, lacking in various ways. They have spoken. Now it's time for those briefs to have their day in Court. You're all about minorities who are suffering having their day in Court. So this shouldn't bother you at all. In fact, you should be the first one to advocate and support those briefs being examined at a SCOTUS hearing under infants and contract law. (See the quote at top) Children, who can't even vote, have priority as a minority group. And so, they must have their interests in the marriage contract reviewed as a matter of compelling law.. The review is mandatory, not optional. (See quote at top)

Contract law doesn't discriminate. It applies across the board no matter what contract is being discussed. Nice try Sky Sky..

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the law recognizing the marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children.

Your own source doesn't include marriage as such. So you ignore your own source.

Tell me, are there different laws of contracts from one contract to another? If so, cite this and your source with a link. Or, if implied and verified contracts are a general area of law that applies across the board to all contracts, then we can move on with this conversation to its next logical point, which is: How will you argue that stripping children of either a father or mother for life, "benefits" them with your new contractual revisions?

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. For instance if my employer enters into a contract to buy new computers for my company- even though I will benefit from that contract- I am not a party in that contract

You just make this crap up.

Adults are different. This 'implied-benefit' issue only applies to contracts as they apply to infants involved in them. Adults can create and sever contracts all day long, as long as all parties agree. Infants under contract laws get special unspoken and unwavering protections if a contract benefits them...even if they themselves want to sever it. They can't if the contract benefits them.

For instance, there is an implied contract that children enjoy that says for them to stay in school until...I think it's the 8th grade..it varies from state to state I think... Children, even though they may desperately wish to break that contract, are not allowed to because society found that it benefits them greatly in later life. So they are bound by law to attend school until a given age.

 

[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.

Marriage is/was a contract created for children thousands of years ago to insure that their parents stayed together, legally bound, for their benefit. Nobody doubts or argues that children come into the world under all manner of circumstances. In fact, that very observation is WHY the marriage contract was created for children in the first place. In a chaotic world where children often were and are the first to suffer the woes of single parenthood, most notably missing a vital parent (opposite gender of the one in their home) for a balance of role modeling and a proper berth into society, marriage was the contract that was the only thing children had to rely on to bring them this necessary duo of adults to watch over them and model for them silently and outspoken on a daily basis.

Everyone, for thousands of years, understood this, knew this implicitly. (The implied and binding contract, affirmed). And in fact it was why states gave rewards to married men/women: to entice the biggest number of mother/father pairs to provide homes for either their children, or adopted children from the perils mentioned above. Otherwise, there is no benefit a state derives from two gays shacking up. Two heteros shacking up at least hold the promise of getting married to provide the contractual enjoyments to the contract that children sought to enjoy. Your recent illegal revision of the thousands-years-old contract does not provide a benefit to children, who shared in it. In fact, the new illegal revision provides only a loss to children. A loss of either a vital mother or a vital father FOR LIFE...as a new institution. By the very physical structure of a "gay marriage", it is guaranteed that the child no longer even has a whiff of a hope at gaining a vital mother/father home in which to be raised. Again, infants and contract law (see quote) declares this revision void therefore.

The amicus briefs written by adult children who were raised in gay homes noted this vacuum. They noted the lack of the opposite gender as a parent left them lost, wanting, lacking in various ways. They have spoken. Now it's time for those briefs to have their day in Court. You're all about minorities who are suffering having their day in Court. So this shouldn't bother you at all. In fact, you should be the first one to advocate and support those briefs being examined at a SCOTUS hearing under infants and contract law. (See the quote at top) Children, who can't even vote, have priority as a minority group. And so, they must have their interests in the marriage contract reviewed as a matter of compelling law.. The review is mandatory, not optional. (See quote at top)

Contract law doesn't discriminate. It applies across the board no matter what contract is being discussed. Nice try Sky Sky..

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the law recognizing the marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children.

Your own source doesn't include marriage as such. So you ignore your own source.

Tell me, are there different laws of contracts from one contract to another? If so, cite this and your source with a link. Or, if implied and verified contracts are a general area of law that applies across the board to all contracts, then we can move on with this conversation to its next logical point, which is: How will you argue that stripping children of either a father or mother for life, "benefits" them with your new contractual revisions?

Couldn't find anywhere in the law where a marriage is recognized as a 'minor contract', huh? The reason is obvious: it isn't. Not in the law, not in your own sources, not in the USSC. You have no point. You're simply spamming the same debunked pseudo-legal nonsense.

No, a child isn't married to their parents when their parents marry.

No, a marriage isn't an 'implied contract' of children.

No, there being no 'representative' for 'all children' at a USSC hearing doesn't result in a 'mistrial'.

Yes, the USSC took children into consideration in their ruling, finding that denying same sex parents marriage hurts their children.

No, the Obergefell was not about contract law.

Yes, the Obergefell ruling 14th amendment violations of equal protection.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. And repeating the same gibberish doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. For instance if my employer enters into a contract to buy new computers for my company- even though I will benefit from that contract- I am not a party in that contract

You just make this crap up.

Adults are different. This 'implied-benefit' issue only applies to contracts as they apply to infants involved in them. Adults can create and sever contracts all day long, as long as all parties agree. Infants under contract laws get special unspoken and unwavering protections if a contract benefits them...even if they themselves want to sever it. They can't if the contract benefits them.

For instance, there is an implied contract that children enjoy that says for them to stay in school until...I think it's the 8th grade..it varies from state to state I think... Children, even though they may desperately wish to break that contract, are not allowed to because society found that it benefits them greatly in later life. So they are bound by law to attend school until a given age.

Says you, citing you. You're just making up this nonsense as you go along. And when your logic is demonstrated to be psuedo-legal drivel.....you make up an imaginary 'exception' to your imagination 'requirement'.

None of it is real. None of it is even remotely relevant to the outcome of any case. As the court isn't bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

 

[mdk]

The fact that gays are getting married in all 50 states proves that Obergefell is void. Too funny.