New GOP Edge: Did 5 Dem/Indp Justices Ratify Child-Deprivation Using Fake "Gay Gene" Premise?

[Silhouette]

As for the existence of the 'gay gene', you're a geneticist now? Remember, Sil.....you have no clue what you're talking about. Not only the law, not on genetics. So what possible value do your assurances on either the law or genetics have? Its like asking a blind person to pontificate on the color orange.

You don't know how to follow links, do you? Did you notice that after I said the gay gene was bullshit I gave two links: One to Johns Hopkins, the other to a site with dozens of links to dozens of studies disproving the "gay gene" crapola? Don't know how to move your cursor over the links and click?

Sil, your links don't say what you do. Remember when you told us about the 'implied beneficiaries' outlined in the Infancy Doctrine and included a link.........to a page that never used the terms 'implied', 'beneficiary' or 'implied beneficary'?

You have no idea what you're talking about. No marriage, in the history of our nation, has ever been voided because of the 'infancy doctrine'. Its *employment contract law*. It has nothing to do with marriage. As demonstrated by the perfect record of failure of your latest in literally *dozens* of threads and thousands of pages of pseudo-legal gibberish.

Yes, they do. And the only way for anyone to know which of us is lying is for people to click them and read them. Agreed?

 

[Skylar]

Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:

Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Let it go....better if no one posts on her silly threads.

We're at what? 40 threads of these rambling, pseudo-legal monuments to medically unmanaged obsessive-compulsive disorder?

50?

And its always the same meaningless nonsense: Sil insisting we ignore the Supreme Court and instead impose her imagination as the law.

Um, no.

 

[Syriusly]

Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:

Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Let it go....better if no one posts on her silly threads.

We're at what? 40 threads of these rambling, pseudo-legal monuments to medically unmanaged obsessive-compulsive disorder?

50?

And its always the same meaningless nonsense: Sil insisting we ignore the Supreme Court and instead impose her imagination as the law.

Um, no.

What is particularly amusing about this thread is how Silhouette spammed her own thread.

So now I am going to sit back and see how long she will continue to spam this thread before she goes off to start another thread full of her nutball claims to try to harm the children of gay couples.

 

[Skylar]

As for the existence of the 'gay gene', you're a geneticist now? Remember, Sil.....you have no clue what you're talking about. Not only the law, not on genetics. So what possible value do your assurances on either the law or genetics have? Its like asking a blind person to pontificate on the color orange.

You don't know how to follow links, do you? Did you notice that after I said the gay gene was bullshit I gave two links: One to Johns Hopkins, the other to a site with dozens of links to dozens of studies disproving the "gay gene" crapola? Don't know how to move your cursor over the links and click?

Sil, your links don't say what you do. Remember when you told us about the 'implied beneficiaries' outlined in the Infancy Doctrine and included a link.........to a page that never used the terms 'implied', 'beneficiary' or 'implied beneficary'?

You have no idea what you're talking about. No marriage, in the history of our nation, has ever been voided because of the 'infancy doctrine'. Its *employment contract law*. It has nothing to do with marriage. As demonstrated by the perfect record of failure of your latest in literally *dozens* of threads and thousands of pages of pseudo-legal gibberish.

Yes, they do. And the only way for anyone to know which of us is lying is for people to click them and read them. Agreed?

Sil, no. They don't. You've been caught lying about 'John Hopkins' literally dozens of times. Your links on the 'infancy doctrine' never mention 'implied beneficiares' 'implied parties' or 'implicit parties'. You keep imagining all of it.

And yet you keep obsessively returning to these same debunked, pseudo-legal ramblings as if by sheer repetition we'll all be convinced to ignore the Supreme Court and instead impose your imagination.

Sorry, Sil.....but you're not making a legal argument. You're offering your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Well all people have to do to clear up this disagreement is to click the links and read them. Easy peasy.

 

[Skylar]

Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:

Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Let it go....better if no one posts on her silly threads.

We're at what? 40 threads of these rambling, pseudo-legal monuments to medically unmanaged obsessive-compulsive disorder?

50?

And its always the same meaningless nonsense: Sil insisting we ignore the Supreme Court and instead impose her imagination as the law.

Um, no.

What is particularly amusing about this thread is how Silhouette spammed her own thread.

So now I am going to sit back and see how long she will continue to spam this thread before she goes off to start another thread full of her nutball claims to try to harm the children of gay couples.

There are literally 40+ threads of this rambling gibberish from Sil. 4 open that she's posted in the last 24 hours. And yet in another fit of obsessive compulsive disorder, she creates a 41st an a 42nd with the same pseudo-legal nonsense.

And is still stuck in the exact same place as she was 3 years ago: she's legally irrelevant. The Supreme Court isn't.

 

[Skylar]

^^ Well all people have to do to clear up this disagreement is to click the links and read them. Easy peasy.

Sil.....we've already followed the links. They don't say what you do. You've been caught lying literally dozens of times.

You need a new shtick. As you're getting no mileage out of this one.

 

[Syriusly]

Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:
Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

Would anyone bother to read that word salad? Just more butthurt from the homophobic bigots who cannot accept Gay marriage.

Let it go....better if no one posts on her silly threads.

We're at what? 40 threads of these rambling, pseudo-legal monuments to medically unmanaged obsessive-compulsive disorder?

50?

And its always the same meaningless nonsense: Sil insisting we ignore the Supreme Court and instead impose her imagination as the law.

Um, no.

What is particularly amusing about this thread is how Silhouette spammed her own thread.

So now I am going to sit back and see how long she will continue to spam this thread before she goes off to start another thread full of her nutball claims to try to harm the children of gay couples.

There are literally 40+ threads of this rambling gibberish from Sil. 4 open that she's posted in the last 24 hours. And yet in another fit of obsessive compulsive disorder, she creates a 41st an a 42nd with the same pseudo-legal nonsense.

And is still stuck in the exact same place as she was 3 years ago: she's legally irrelevant. The Supreme Court isn't.

yep

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:

Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

"Pedosexual" Will Be the Degenerates' Next Invented Word

Sex is between a man and a woman. So even the word "homosexual" is a deviation from logical language.

 

[Silhouette]

^ Agreed.

 

[Silhouette]

There are literally 40+ threads of this rambling gibberish from Sil. 4 open that she's posted in the last 24 hours. And yet in another fit of obsessive compulsive disorder, she creates a 41st an a 42nd with the same pseudo-legal nonsense.

And is still stuck in the exact same place as she was 3 years ago: she's legally irrelevant. The Supreme Court isn't.

Are you worried that people might see that the court was legally required to have children have unique representation in the extraordinary circumstance of proposing for the first time in human history a legal mandate to states to ratify fatherless or motherless marriage contracts? It's right there in the quotes. Or do you want people to not follow the links to the discussion of that requirement in law? Complete with billions of footnotes to existing supporting case law?

 

[Syriusly]

Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:

Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

"Pedosexual" Will Be the Degenerates' Next Invented Word

Sex is between a man and a woman. So even the word "homosexual" is a deviation from logical language.

So if a man rapes another man- it isn't a sex crime- it is just the equivalent of hitting him in the face?

 

[Skylar]

Are you worried that people might see that the court was legally required to have children have unique representation in the extraordinary circumstance of proposing for the first time in human history a legal mandate to states to ratify fatherless or motherless marriage contracts? It's right there in the quotes. Or do you want people to not follow the links to the discussion of that requirement in law? Complete with billions of footnotes to existing supporting case law?

Yawning.....nope. As none of the 'requirements' you're claiming actually exist. No matter how hard you imagine otherwise, children aren't married to their parents. They aren't 'implied parties' to that marriage, no 'implicit parties' or 'implied beneficiaries' or any of the other pseudo-legal gibberish you've made up. Nor does any source you've cited say that they are.

Its just you....citing you. All while ignoring the Supreme Court. A supreme Court that has found that banning same sex marriage hurts children:

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

You pretend that this finding doesn't exist. And then even more laughably, pretend that because you ignore it, that the Supreme Court is bound to your imagination.

Um, nope.

 

[Skylar]

Another argument we've seen online with respect to the Infancy Doctrine is that "it no longer is relevant" (says the predatory adult and/or ignorant attorney/judge/Justice). An example cited from the review of the Doctrine addresses specifically adults taking advantage of minors online. But it applies to any situation where an adult finds taking advantage of a minor acceptable as a convenience to himself:

*****
Page 70 of actual text Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

In addition, the present risk from the infancy doctrine is generally low because most minors, parents, and even attorneys are not well informed about the availability of the infancy doctrine int the first place. Moreover, when it is raised, online businesses may be very effective in making minors believe they have no realistic remedy; vulnerability to that kind of persuasion is an example of what the infancy doctrine intends to address. ...smart attorneys for major online service providers would advise their clients to privately settle rather than pursue a lawsuit (or publicity) that may draw attention to the existence of the infancy doctrine and set further adverse precedent. Thus, the infancy doctrine remains underused. Public policy may actually support a program to educate minors about the doctrine and encourage its use, and to educate adults on the doctrine and the policies it represents

****

Educating about the ID and how it was violated numerous times by Obergefell's Hearing and Conclusions is to the end that I endeavor here.

And you'll notice in your 'Infancy Doctrine Inquiries', there's not a single mention of children being the 'implied parties' to the marriage of their parents, nor the 'implied beneficiaries', nor is the term 'implied' ever used, nor the term 'beneficiary' nor is 'implied parties.

You imagined all of that nonsense.

And your imagination isn't a legal stand, Sil. As we've explain to you literally dozens of times across your dozens of threads on this exact same topic.

 

[Silhouette]

Did I imagine that in civil cases of extraordinary circumstances...like ratifying a contract that banishes kids from either a mother or father for life... that a necessity is for children to have their own interests represented by counsel?

 

[Skylar]

Did I imagine that in civil cases of extraordinary circumstances...like ratifying a contract that banishes kids from either a mother or father for life... that a necessity is for children to have their own interests represented by counsel?

You certainly imagined all that pseudo-legal gibberish about the Infancy Doctrine applying to the marriage of parents of the child. You made up any reference to 'implied parties', 'implicity parties', 'implied beneficiaries', as well as any mention of 'implied' anything, or any mention of 'beneficiaries' in the 'Infancy Doctrine Inquiries'.

In your entire document, there's not a single mention of the infancy doctrine restricting or any anyway effecting the marriage of parents of a child.

You made all that up. And your imagination isn't the law, Sil.

You're stuck

 

[Syriusly]

Did I imagine that in civil cases of extraordinary circumstances...like ratifying a contract that banishes kids from either a mother or father for life... that a necessity is for children to have their own interests represented by counsel?

You certainly imagined all that pseudo-legal gibberish about the Infancy Doctrine applying to the marriage of parents of the child. You made up any reference to 'implied parties', 'implicity parties', 'implied beneficiaries', as well as any mention of 'implied' anything, or any mention of 'beneficiaries' in the 'Infancy Doctrine Inquiries'.

In your entire document, there's not a single mention of the infancy doctrine restricting or any anyway effecting the marriage of parents of a child.

You made all that up. And your imagination isn't the law, Sil.

You're stuck

If imaginary future potential children were part of the marriage contract- wouldn't it be a necessity for the actual children to be represented by counsel if that contract were being dissolved?

 

[Silhouette]

Did I imagine that in civil cases of extraordinary circumstances...like ratifying a contract that banishes kids from either a mother or father for life... that a necessity is for children to have their own interests represented by counsel?

You certainly imagined all that pseudo-legal gibberish about the Infancy Doctrine applying to the marriage of parents of the child. You made up any reference to 'implied parties', 'implicity parties', 'implied beneficiaries', as well as any mention of 'implied' anything, or any mention of 'beneficiaries' in the 'Infancy Doctrine Inquiries'.

In your entire document, there's not a single mention of the infancy doctrine restricting or any anyway effecting the marriage of parents of a child.

If marriage is a contract, and Obergefell's third rationale for favoring is children are "part of the whole of marriage", then children are "part of the whole of the marriage contract." And, therefore, the Infancy Doctrine need not mention marriage specifically if it is a contract. The ID is about ALL contracts involving children

And..

I notice you made no comment about children needing mandatory representation in the civil suit Obergefell. Revising a contract they're involved in in civil trial which the outcome was to eliminate their historical benefit for life using that contract, most certainly means Obergefell violated the ID by not having any counsel present for children's unique interests in the marriage contract's radical proposed revision.

 

[Skylar]

Did I imagine that in civil cases of extraordinary circumstances...like ratifying a contract that banishes kids from either a mother or father for life... that a necessity is for children to have their own interests represented by counsel?

You certainly imagined all that pseudo-legal gibberish about the Infancy Doctrine applying to the marriage of parents of the child. You made up any reference to 'implied parties', 'implicity parties', 'implied beneficiaries', as well as any mention of 'implied' anything, or any mention of 'beneficiaries' in the 'Infancy Doctrine Inquiries'.

In your entire document, there's not a single mention of the infancy doctrine restricting or any anyway effecting the marriage of parents of a child.

If marriage is a contract, and Obergefell's third rationale for favoring is children are "part of the whole of marriage", then children are "part of the whole of the marriage contract." And, therefore, the Infancy Doctrine need not mention marriage specifically if it is a contract. The ID is about ALL contracts involving children

The term 'part of the whole of marriage' is never uttered in Obergefell. That's your imagination. Nor have the courts ever recognized that a child is a party to the marriage of their parents.

Ever.

You've imagined both. And your imagination is not a legal standard. Meanwhile, Obergefell found that banning same sex marriage did humiliate and hurt children:

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

You ignore the explicit findings of Obergefell while replacing them with your imagination. That's not a legal argument.

You're stuck.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ I think you're the one who is stuck. Read your posts. They're like a broken record...