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

[Silhouette]

Let's see what you guys buried on the last page with your strawman/ad hominem diversions...oh...right

We were talking about how since infants are implied members of the marriage contract, a contract created for their benefit thousands of years ago to June 2015 to provide both a mother and father to girls and boys, is just another contract when it comes to contract law. To wit:

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

Obergefell attempted to disaffirm the original marriage contract to create brand new conditions to it which, for the first time in human history, seeks to strip boys and girls of either a father or mother as a new and permanent feature of the contract they are being asked to tolerate to their demise now. See my signature and link of amicus briefs for details on that.

 

[bodecea]

Let's see what you guys buried on the last page with your strawman/ad hominem diversions...oh...right

We were talking about how since infants are implied members of the marriage contract, a contract created for their benefit thousands of years ago to June 2015 to provide both a mother and father to girls and boys, is just another contract when it comes to contract law. To wit:

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

Obergefell attempted to disaffirm the original marriage contract to create brand new conditions to it which, for the first time in human history, seeks to strip boys and girls of either a father or mother as a new and permanent feature of the contract they are being asked to tolerate to their demise now. See my signature and link of amicus briefs for details on that.

Any luck today? Any hits?

 

[mdk]

The Justices lucidly cited legal precedent and the Constitution while Sil cites entertainment law. Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

The Justices lucidly cited legal precedent and the Constitution while Sil cites entertainment law. Too funny.

See if the link in my signature talks about contracts or entertainment law. It's the link called "Contracts of Minors"

 

[mdk]

The Justices lucidly cited legal precedent and the Constitution while Sil cites entertainment law. Too funny.

See if the link in my signature talks about contracts or entertainment law. It's the link called "Contracts of Minors"

Wait...You didn't read your own link? How typical. This is from your own link:

In addition to judicial approval of contracts, minors in the entertainment industry are also subject to limitations in the number of hours they can work.

Cal. Lab. Code § 1308.7(a) (2005) states:

No minor shall be employed in the entertainment industry more than eight hours in one day of 24 hours, or more than 48 hours in one week, or before 5 a.m., or after 10 p.m. on any day preceding a school day. However, a minor may work the hours authorized by this section during any evening preceding a non school day until 12:30 a.m. of the non school day.

Judicial approval of contracts by infant entertainers is also authorized in New York. See NY CLS Art & Cult. Affr. § 35.03 (2005). Such approval applies only to performing artists, such as actors, musicians, dancers and professional athletes. The statute attempts to provide a degree of certainty for parties contracting with infants in the entertainment industry, so that the validity of such contracts is less likely to be the subject of litigation.

 

[Skylar]

Let's see what you guys buried on the last page with your strawman/ad hominem diversions...oh...right

We were talking about how since infants are implied members of the marriage contract, a contract created for their benefit thousands of years ago to June 2015 to provide both a mother and father to girls and boys, is just another contract when it comes to contract law. To wit:

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

Obergefell attempted to disaffirm the original marriage contract to create brand new conditions to it which, for the first time in human history, seeks to strip boys and girls of either a father or mother as a new and permanent feature of the contract they are being asked to tolerate to their demise now. See my signature and link of amicus briefs for details on that.

Same spamming. Same debunked pseudo-legal nonsense. As the same holes that killed your argument before are the same holes that kill it now. 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.

There's a reason why your every prediction of a legal outcome has been wrong: you keep citing your imagination and ignoring the law. There's a reason why my predictions on the Obergefell case were spot on. I keep citing the law and ignoring your imagination.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

The Justices lucidly cited legal precedent and the Constitution while Sil cites entertainment law. Too funny.

See if the link in my signature talks about contracts or entertainment law. It's the link called "Contracts of Minors"

Wait...You didn't read your own link? How typical. This is from your own link:

In addition to judicial approval of contracts, minors in the entertainment industry are also subject to limitations in the number of hours they can work.

Cal. Lab. Code § 1308.7(a) (2005) states:

No minor shall be employed in the entertainment industry more than eight hours in one day of 24 hours, or more than 48 hours in one week, or before 5 a.m., or after 10 p.m. on any day preceding a school day. However, a minor may work the hours authorized by this section during any evening preceding a non school day until 12:30 a.m. of the non school day.

Judicial approval of contracts by infant entertainers is also authorized in New York. See NY CLS Art & Cult. Affr. § 35.03 (2005). Such approval applies only to performing artists, such as actors, musicians, dancers and professional athletes. The statute attempts to provide a degree of certainty for parties contracting with infants in the entertainment industry, so that the validity of such contracts is less likely to be the subject of litigation.

Trivial detail, hardly worth mentioning. I'm shocked, *shocked* I tell you, that the Supreme Court doesn't cite California entertainment law for child actors as marriage law.

 

[Skylar]

The Justices lucidly cited legal precedent and the Constitution while Sil cites entertainment law. Too funny.

See if the link in my signature talks about contracts or entertainment law. It's the link called "Contracts of Minors"

More pseudo-legal gibberish.

1) Obergefell wasn't about contract law. It was about 14th amendment violations of the right to equal protection under the law and due process. Exactly as we told you it would be. Rendering all your babble moot.

2) There's no requirements that 'infants' have 'representation' lest the case be a 'mistrial'. Hearings aren't trials. And *individuals* have representation in them. Not age groups. Rendering your silliness moot again.

3) No infant is married to their parents. Rendering all your silly gibbering about 'implied contracts' more useless nonsense from a person that has no idea what she's talking about.

Once again, you just make up your own version of the law. And then seem confused and confounded when the courts follow the *actual* law rather than whatever pseudo-legal nonsense you've made up.

Get used to it.

 

[Syriusly]

We were talking about how since infants are implied members of the marriage contract, t.

Now you are using the royal 'we' to describe yourself?

LOL.

YOU have posted what the voices in your head have told you- which have nothing to do with the law.

Infants have nothing to do with marriage- marriage has nothing to do with infants and the Supreme Court's ruling has nothing to do with infants.

 

[Skylar]

We were talking about how since infants are implied members of the marriage contract, t.

Now you are using the royal 'we' to describe yourself?

LOL.

YOU have posted what the voices in your head have told you- which have nothing to do with the law.

Infants have nothing to do with marriage- marriage has nothing to do with infants and the Supreme Court's ruling has nothing to do with infants.

But the voices told Sil that infants are married to their parents.

Surely the Supreme Court has to respect that. Surely.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey, you filled up another page. Each of your posts one after the other accusing me of spamming. Ever hear of irony? Good for you guys! But also, good for copy and paste...

Wait...You didn't read your own link? How typical. This is from your own link

Near the end of the page it discusses the entertainment industry, military and other more specific types of contracts. But at the beginning it talks about the general scope of infants and contract law. To wit:

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

Obergefell attempted to disaffirm the original marriage contract to create brand new conditions to it which, for the first time in human history, seeks to strip boys and girls of either a father or mother as a new and permanent feature of the contract they are being asked to tolerate to their demise now. See my signature and link of amicus briefs for details on that.

You can cling to your "entertainment industry" life-preserver and form your defense of why somehow that justifies removing either a mother or father for life from infants' previous enjoyment of the thousands-years-old marriage contract. Again....good luck with that!

 

[Skylar]

Hey, you filled up another page. Each of your posts one after the other accusing me of spamming. Ever hear of irony?

You're posting the same pseudo-legal gibberish over and over. That's spamming. The post below you've posted 14 times in this thread. Even though it was already debunked as Entertainment law for child actors that has nothing to do with marriage. The word 'marriage' doesn't appear anywhere on that page, or anywhere in anything you've cited for a reason.

Near the end of the page it discusses the entertainment industry, military and other more specific types of contracts. But at the beginning it talks about the general scope of infants and contract law. To wit:

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

That's entertainment law for child actors. Not marriage law. Nor are children married to their parents. Nor was Obergefell about contract law, but 14th amendment violations.

Your narrative fails 3 times. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Obergefell attempted to disaffirm the original marriage contract to create brand new conditions to it which, for the first time in human history, seeks to strip boys and girls of either a father or mother as a new and permanent feature of the contract they are being asked to tolerate to their demise now. See my signature and link of amicus briefs for details on that.

That's parenthood. Not marriage. They aren't the same thing. Further, denying same sex parents marriage doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that their children can never have married parents. Which hurts these children and helps no child. Which the courts have recognized and cited in both the Windsor and Obergefell decision.

And yet bizarrely, you ignore both rulings and make up your own version of a 'contract'. You're literally citing your imagination as the law. All while ignoring the actual law.

Are you starting to see why your every legal prediction has been wrong? What's the value of a 'legal' argument that has no relevance to the outcome of any case, nor is recognized as valid in any court?

Thumbsucking, apparently.

 

[Silhouette]

Contract law is contract law. Again...good luck arguing that you can strip a necessity away from a minor who previously enjoyed that necessity (a mother and father in marriage) per contract. In this case the previous enjoyment ran uninterrupted for over a thousand years.

Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood....LUCK!

Keep clinging to that weak ass diversion and see how far it gets you in front of a judge who has been recently briefed on the ENTIRE SCOPE of infants and contract laws..

 

[Skylar]

Contract law is contract law.

Children aren't married to their parents. The only one saying they are....is you. And you have no idea what you're talking about. You're literally making this pseudo-legal gibberish up as you go along.

Obergerfell wasn't about contract law. It was about 14th amendment violations. Obergefell and Windsor explicitly found that denying same sex parents marriage hurts their children. The exact opposite of your claim. So you ignore both rulings.

Alas, closing your eyes doesn't make the world disappear.

Again...good luck arguing that you can strip a necessity away from a minor who previously enjoyed that necessity (a mother and father in marriage) per contract. In this case the previous enjoyment ran uninterrupted for over a thousand years.

You're clearly confused. I need to argue nothing. As same sex marriage is the law in 50 of 50 States. Its you that needs to present a compelling legal argument. And so far you've offered us your imagination as the law. And then seem confounded and confused when the court follows the actual law rather than whatever pseudo-legal jibber jabber you've made up.

Get used to being confused.

 

[mdk]

Hey, you filled up another page. Each of your posts one after the other accusing me of spamming. Ever hear of irony? Good for you guys! But also, good for copy and paste...

Wait...You didn't read your own link? How typical. This is from your own link

Near the end of the page it discusses the entertainment industry, military and other more specific types of contracts. But at the beginning it talks about the general scope of infants and contract law. To wit:

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

Obergefell attempted to disaffirm the original marriage contract to create brand new conditions to it which, for the first time in human history, seeks to strip boys and girls of either a father or mother as a new and permanent feature of the contract they are being asked to tolerate to their demise now. See my signature and link of amicus briefs for details on that.

You can cling to your "entertainment industry" life-preserver and form your defense of why somehow that justifies removing either a mother or father for life from infants' previous enjoyment of the thousands-years-old marriage contract. Again....good luck with that!

Gays continue to marry and your babble isn't going to change that fact. Again...good luck with that!

You may now carry on with your regularly scheduled spam fest.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays continue to marry and your babble isn't going to change that fact. Again...good luck with that!

You may now carry on with your regularly scheduled spam fest.

That isn't the question of law. The question of law is whether or not gays may continue to draw up contracts to the demise of minors who share them...

 

[Skylar]

Gays continue to marry and your babble isn't going to change that fact. Again...good luck with that!

You may now carry on with your regularly scheduled spam fest.

That isn't the question of law. The question of law is whether or not gays may continue to draw up contracts to the demise of minors who share them...

Nope. The legal question before the Obegefell court was if the states could deny same sex couples marriage licenses. The answer was no, due to 14th amendment violations.

All your pseudo-legal gibberish is just you making shit up. Its you that says that children are married to their parents. The law doesn't. Its you that insists that entertainment law is marriage law. The law doesn't. Its you that laughably insisted that unless 'all children' have 'representation' in a USSC hearing then its a 'mistrial'. Which is just pseudo-legal word salad.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're citing your imagination as the law. And your imagination has no relevance to the outcome of any case.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

Your logic seems to be that because a decision was made improperly, it is still a binding decision. I disagree. And so do infant and contracts laws..

 

[Skylar]

Your logic seems to be that because a decision was made improperly, it is still a binding decision. I disagree. And so do infant and contracts laws..

Nope. You're still hopelessly confused. You're in that state of denial where you project whatever hapless batshit you've made up onto everyone else. And then insist that everyone agrees with you.

Sigh...alas, its still you, citing yourself. Which is just pseudo-legal gibberish.

My logic is that the decision had nothing to do with contract law, that infants aren't married to their parents, and that denying same sex parents marriage hurts their children. And as the Windsor and Obergefell decision make ludicriously clear, I'm right.

I was able with pretty solid accuracy predict the outcome of the Obergefell case. I told you the legal logic they would use. I told you the cases they would cite. I told you the protections in the constitution they would base the case on. And I was right on all counts.

You were perfectly wrong. And the reason you cant accurately predict the outcome of any case is that you keep citing your imagination as the law. YOu make up nonsense that isn't in the law and then demand that court cases abide your imagination.

Laughing......nope.

 

[Silhouette]

"batshit"...."gibberish".. "state of denial"...."psuedo-legal"....."hopelessly confused"...."citing myself" (despite the links I provided)...."perfectly wrong"..."nonsense"...."laughing"...

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...