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

[Skylar]

"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...

If that's all I said, perhaps. But instead, I demonstrated how your claims are imaginary nonsense as I called them pseudo-legal babble.

For example, children aren't married to their parents. Your pseudo-legal gibberish insists that they are. You're obviously wrong. As you can find no reference whatsoever to children being married to their parents in the actual law.

You insist that unless 'all children' have 'representation' in a USSC hearing that its a 'mistrial'. Which is just nonsensical word salad. A hearing isn't a trial. Making a 'mistrial' a physical impossibility. There is no such requirement that 'all children' have representation. You imagined it. Individual people have representation in a USSC hearing. Not age groups.

And so your gibberish goes on, with you citing whatever you make up as the law. And then laughably being confused and confounded when the USSC follows the actual law rather than your pseudo-legal babble.

Get used to being confused.

 

[mdk]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

That is hysterical coming from you. How many anti-gay threads have you started? Methinks the one-trick pony doth protest too much...

 

[Skylar]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

That is hysterical coming from you. How many anti-gay threads have you started? Methinks the one-trick pony doth protest too much...

37 in total. Each with dozens to hundreds of pages.

As I said, Sil's posts are what mental illness looks like.

 

[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...

For example, children aren't married to their parents.

Hey Skylar, how come in divorce court most of the time is dedicated to sifting out arrangements with the children? That's because the courts recognize children share a part of the marriage contract and have rights to both their mother and father...

Oops!

 

[Skylar]

"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...

For example, children aren't married to their parents.

Hey Skylar, how come in divorce court most of the time is dedicated to sifting out arrangements with the children? That's because the courts recognize children share a part of the marriage contract and have rights to both their mother and father...

Because these are the parents of the children. The obligations you've cited follow parenthood. Not marriage. The obligations to care for their kids exist even if there is no marriage. Even when the marriage ends. As has been explained to you exhaustively.

Remember, you don't actually know a thing about the law. You know only what you *imagine* the law is. And your imagination has no relevance to the outcome of any case. Nor has the slightest impact on any marriage.

As demonstrated elegantly by the fact that 50 of 50 states recognize same sex marriage. And the USSC having explicitly contradicted your nonsense....finding that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts their children. Exactly the opposite of your claims.

But feel free to show us the law saying that children are married to their parents. You'll find you're just quoting the voices in your head.

 

[Silhouette]

For example, children aren't married to their parents.

Hey Skylar, how come in divorce court most of the time is dedicated to sifting out arrangements with the children? That's because the courts recognize children share a part of the marriage contract and have rights to both their mother and father...

Because these are the parents of the children. The obligations you've cited follow parenthood. Not marriage. The obligations to care for their kids exist even if there is no marriage. Even when the marriage ends. As has been explained to you exhaustively.

So, even though the marriage contract was created at its inception over a thousand years ago precisely so children could have both a mother and father in their home, you're saying that cemented institution "is no longer valid as to children"...just recently in the last decade...?

Again...Good luck!

 

[Skylar]

For example, children aren't married to their parents.

Hey Skylar, how come in divorce court most of the time is dedicated to sifting out arrangements with the children? That's because the courts recognize children share a part of the marriage contract and have rights to both their mother and father...

Because these are the parents of the children. The obligations you've cited follow parenthood. Not marriage. The obligations to care for their kids exist even if there is no marriage. Even when the marriage ends. As has been explained to you exhaustively.

So, even though the marriage contract was created at its inception over a thousand years ago precisely so children could have both a mother and father in their home, you're saying that cemented institution "is no longer valid as to children"...just recently in the last decade...?

Laughing......the last time you talked about your imaginary 'children are married to their parents' gibberish it was 'thousands of years ago'. Now its 'a thousand'. Did history magically rearrange itself in the interim between those two posts? Or are you just making this pseudo-legal babble up as you go along.

Pick one.

Again...Good luck!

Oh, I'm fine. Every state recognized same sex marriage before you started babbling incoherently about what you imagine the law is. And every state still recognizes same sex marriage after.

Exactly as I told you when you started this thread, your imagination has no relevance to anyone's marriage, to any law, to the outcome of any case.

And guess what? It still doesn't.

 

[Silhouette]

A simple logical progression for Skylar. Skylar, in a court of law when this challenge comes, your task will be to destroy the "Given" part of this logical equation. Because if you cannot destroy the "Given" part, parts 1 & 2 of "Ergo" are indisputable logical conclusions. Particularly "Ergo" #2...

This is why I keep saying to you "Good luck!". The burden your group bears legally now is to show how marriage was not conceived of and maintained for the benefits of raising children over say...a thousand years. And if you cannot overcome that (which you cannot, I'll bet the house) then your only hope after that is to somehow, without solid evidence to convince beyond a shadow of a doubt (see Prince's Trust 2010 PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY youth survey or the link in my signature to amicus briefs of adult children raised by gays) to "demonstrate" that stripping a boy of a father or a girl of a mother for life is somehow a benefit to them. Infants and contract law state that if there be any doubt whatsoever that a new revision to a contract they once enjoyed may not benefit them, that revision is null and void.

The burden is upon you.

And not to belabor the point...but...good luck!

Given: The marriage contract is and always has been about more than just two people coming together randomly and shacking up for tax breaks. It was and is about providing a mother and father for children expected and anticipated to arrive in that stable and proper home.

1 Ergo: children were/are implicit parties to the marriage contract. Indeed, paramount are their interests. They were not invited to Obergefell. And also, their protests (see link in my signature) against motherless/fatherless new "marriages" fell on deaf ears. The USSC acted as if those amicus briefs didn't exist...

2 Ergo: infants and contract law void any marriage contract that seeks to deny either a mother or father to children for life.

 

[Skylar]

The marriage contract is and always has been about more than just two people coming together randomly and shacking up for tax breaks. It was and is about providing a mother and father for children expected and anticipated to arrive in that stable and proper home.

Again, you're offering us your imaginary verson of the law, where children are 'married to their parents' and parties to a marriage that almost always occurs before they were actually born.

Which, of course, is pseudo-legal horseshit. And of course, gloriously irrelevant to the Obergefell ruling which wasn't about contract law. But 14th amendment violations.

Remember, you can make up whatever you'd like and call it 'the law'. But your imagination has no relevance to the actual law or the outcome of any case.

 

[Syriusly]

Contract law is contract law. ..

Contract law is contract law.

Not marriage law.

Not the Constitution.

The Supreme Court overturned State marriage laws based upon the U.S. Constitution.

Contract law was never a part of the ruling because it has nothing to do with it- and doesn't trump the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Given: The marriage contract is and always has been about more than just two people coming together randomly and shacking up for tax breaks. It was and is about providing a mother and father for children expected and anticipated to arrive in that stable and proper home.

You saying 'given' doesn't actually make what you say true.

Here is my favorite Supreme Court explanation of marriage- and note- not one word about 'contract'


In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

 

[Syriusly]

For example, children aren't married to their parents.

Hey Skylar, how come in divorce court most of the time is dedicated to sifting out arrangements with the children? That's because the courts recognize children share a part of the marriage contract and have rights to both their mother and father...

Yet no time is spent at all in Divorce court regarding children- when the couple has no children.

And couples who have children together- but are not married- still go to court- over the exact same custody issues.

The courts do not recognize that children 'share part of the marriage contract'- hell if they did, then children could prevent their parents divorces- far from it- children usually have very little say in even determining which parent has custody over them- whether the custody hearing is part of a divorce settlement- or outside of a divorce settlement.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm reposting this point because Syriusly has spammed three posts talking just to me, using ad hominems and burying yet another good point on a page...eating up USMB bandwidth as she does. So, here's my point again:

******
A simple logical progression for Skylar. Skylar, in a court of law when this challenge comes, your task will be to destroy the "Given" part of this logical equation. Because if you cannot destroy the "Given" part, parts 1 & 2 of "Ergo" are indisputable logical conclusions. Particularly "Ergo" #2...

This is why I keep saying to you "Good luck!". The burden your group bears legally now is to show how marriage was not conceived of and maintained for the benefits of raising children over say...a thousand years. And if you cannot overcome that (which you cannot, I'll bet the house) then your only hope after that is to somehow, without solid evidence to convince beyond a shadow of a doubt (see Prince's Trust 2010 PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY youth survey or the link in my signature to amicus briefs of adult children raised by gays) to "demonstrate" that stripping a boy of a father or a girl of a mother for life is somehow a benefit to them. Infants and contract law state that if there be any doubt whatsoever that a new revision to a contract they once enjoyed may not benefit them, that revision is null and void.

The burden is upon you.

And not to belabor the point...but...good luck!

Given: The marriage contract is and always has been about more than just two people coming together randomly and shacking up for tax breaks. It was and is about providing a mother and father for children expected and anticipated to arrive in that stable and proper home.

1 Ergo: children were/are implicit parties to the marriage contract. Indeed, paramount are their interests. They were not invited to Obergefell. And also, their protests (see link in my signature) against motherless/fatherless new "marriages" fell on deaf ears. The USSC acted as if those amicus briefs didn't exist...

2 Ergo: infants and contract law void any marriage contract that seeks to deny either a mother or father to children for life.

************

Skylar, how will you argue, specifically and historically, that marriage was not created and maintained with the express purpose of anticipation of the arrival of children into a stable man/woman home for their best interest?

I'd like to hear your specifics, not a string of ad hominems and your friend Syriusly kicking in for a diversion with spam until the point gets lost in a sea of spammed pages...

And Syriusly, you can harp all day long about "how adults have this or that or the other rights!" And I'll just keep reminding you that their rights, no matter how compelling, cannot interfere with infants rights to enjoyments and necessities they had per contract, including the marriage contract.

Your only hope is to argue that children did not ever, nor do they have now, rights implied in any marriage contract. And as I keep telling Skylar...."good luck"..

 

[Skylar]

I'm reposting this point because Syriusly has spammed three posts talking just to me, using ad hominems and burying yet another good point on a page...eating up USMB bandwidth as she does. So, here's my point again:

I don't think 'spamming' means what you think it means. Spamming is cutting and the pasting the same thing over and over.

You know, like you just did.

What Sy did is called 'replying'.

******
A simple logical progression for Skylar. Skylar, in a court of law when this challenge comes, your task will be to destroy the "Given" part of this logical equation. Because if you cannot destroy the "Given" part, parts 1 & 2 of "Ergo" are indisputable logical conclusions. Particularly "Ergo" #2...

Your argument breaks on 'children are married to their parents'.

Nope.

There's a reason why your record of predicting the outcome of any case is one of perfect failure. Its because you keep offering us your imagination as the law. While ignoring what the law actually says.

The burden your group bears legally now is to show how marriage was not conceived of and maintained for the benefits of raising children over say...a thousand years. And if you cannot overcome that (which you cannot, I'll bet the house) then your only hope after that is to somehow, without solid evidence to convince beyond a shadow of a doubt (see Prince's Trust 2010 PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY youth survey or the link in my signature to amicus briefs of adult children raised by gays) to "demonstrate" that stripping a boy of a father or a girl of a mother for life is somehow a benefit to them. Infants and contract law state that if there be any doubt whatsoever that a new revision to a contract they once enjoyed may not benefit them, that revision is null and void.

The burden is upon you.

And not to belabor the point...but...good luck!

Given: The marriage contract is and always has been about more than just two people coming together randomly and shacking up for tax breaks. It was and is about providing a mother and father for children expected and anticipated to arrive in that stable and proper home.

1 Ergo: children were/are implicit parties to the marriage contract. Indeed, paramount are their interests. They were not invited to Obergefell. And also, their protests (see link in my signature) against motherless/fatherless new "marriages" fell on deaf ears. The USSC acted as if those amicus briefs didn't exist...

2 Ergo: infants and contract law void any marriage contract that seeks to deny either a mother or father to children for life.

************

Skylar, how will you argue, specifically and historically, that marriage was not created and maintained with the express purpose of anticipation of the arrival of children into a stable man/woman home for their best interest?

I'd like to hear your specifics, not a string of ad hominems and your friend Syriusly kicking in for a diversion with spam until the point gets lost in a sea of spammed pages...

And Syriusly, you can harp all day long about "how adults have this or that or the other rights!" And I'll just keep reminding you that their rights, no matter how compelling, cannot interfere with infants rights to enjoyments and necessities they had per contract, including the marriage contract.

Your only hope is to argue that children did not ever, nor do they have now, rights implied in any marriage contract. And as I keep telling Skylar...."good luck"..

We've got no burden to do a thing. As you're not actually citing the law. You're citing your imagination. And it obligates no one to do anything.

You can tell by the fact that same sex marriage is legal in 50 of 50 States. While you're still gloriously irrelevant.

 

[Silhouette]

You do have the burden because children were cut out of their rights to the marriage contract (the reason for its inception for thousands of years) in Obergefell and other gay marriage decisions that didn't take the lack of a father or mother to boys and girls into account. Contract laws are contract laws. You can't change them with regards to an important necessity for children just because your current fancy is to do so. Any attempt to do that is legally void. Read the quote in my signature...

 

[bodecea]

You do have the burden because children were cut out of their rights to the marriage contract (the reason for its inception for thousands of years) in Obergefell and other gay marriage decisions that didn't take the lack of a father or mother to boys and girls into account. Contract laws are contract laws. You can't change them with regards to an important necessity for children just because your current fancy is to do so.

How's the trolling for hits today? Any interest?

 

[Skylar]

You do have the burden because children were cut out of their rights to the marriage contract (the reason for its inception for thousands of years) in Obergefell and other gay marriage decisions that didn't take the lack of a father or mother to boys and girls into account.

Nope. As children aren't married to their parents. Instantly killing your 'logic chain'. Both Windsor and Obergefell do take children into account, finding that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts their children. Finally, your claim that children have a 'right to opposite sex parents' doesn't exist.

You hallucinated the whole thing.

Contract laws are contract laws. You can't change them with regards to an important necessity for children just because your current fancy is to do so. Any attempt to do that is legally void. Read the quote in my signature...

Obergefell wasn't about contract law. It was about the 14th amendment. Killing your argument a third time. The only one insanely insisting that children are married to their parents under contract law....is you. Citing you.

The law doesn't say this. Contract law doesn't say this. The courts don't say this. The USSC doesn't say this. Its just you, making up pseudo-legal gibberish as you go along.

Which obligates no one to do anything. See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

You do have the burden because children were cut out of their rights to the marriage contract (the reason for its inception for thousands of years) in Obergefell and other gay marriage decisions that didn't take the lack of a father or mother to boys and girls into account. Contract laws are contract laws. You can't change them with regards to an important necessity for children just because your current fancy is to do so.

How's the trolling for hits today? Any interest?

SSDD. Just Sil sucking her thumb, telling herself that her imagination is the law.

And her every claim still be gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm reposting this point because Syriusly has spammed three posts talking just to me, using ad hominems and burying yet another good point on a page...

LOL- 'another good point'- you have yet to raise one good point.

As I keep pointing out:

Contract law is contract law
Marriage law is marriage law
They are not the same thing.

The U.S. Constitution supercedes all other law- and the Court ruled on the Constitutionality of Marriage law.

Everything you have posted is legally ridiculous.

 

[Syriusly]

You do have the burden because children were cut out of their rights to the marriage contract (the reason for its inception for thousands of years) in Obergefell and other gay marriage decisions that didn't take the lack of a father or mother to boys and girls into account. Contract laws are contract laws. You can't change them with regards to an important necessity for children just because your current fancy is to do so. Any attempt to do that is legally void. Read the quote in my signature...

None of what you posted- other than 'contract laws are contract laws' is true.

No matter what the voices in your head tell you.