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

[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.

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:

I notice you STILL have not commented on the passage in the Infancy Doctrine that mandates counsel for children at civil hearings with extraordinary consequences for their interests...like new banishment of either a father or mother for life.

The entire third rationale for Obergefell was the discussion of how children and child-raising was an inseparable part of the whole of their consideration of what marriage itself is. They devoted an entire area of emphasis to it. There's no wiggling out of it Skylar.

Indeed it is YOU who are stuck...

 

[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

Again......the term 'part of the whole of marriage' doesn't appear in Obergefell.

You're literally inventing passages for the Supreme Court ruling and then demanding we recognize them as the law.

No.

 

[Skylar]

I notice you STILL have not commented on the passage in the Infancy Doctrine that mandates counsel for children at civil hearings with extraordinary consequences for their interests...like new banishment of either a father or mother for life.

Show me where in the passages one the Infancy Doctrine where it has ever been applied to the marriage of the parents of the child.

You can't, Sil. The Infancy Doctrine only applies to business contracts that the child they are a party to. Marriage is neither a business contract nor is any child party to the marriage of their parents.

Its not the courts that are confused about the application of the Infancy Doctrine. Its just you.

Your argument dies on the same hill it has for the last 3 years. And remains just as legally irrelevant

 

[Syriusly]

I notice you STILL have not commented on the passage in the Infancy Doctrine that mandates counsel for children at civil hearings with extraordinary consequences for their interests...like new banishment of either a father or mother for life.

Show me where in the passages one the Infancy Doctrine where it has ever been applied to the marriage of the parents of the child.

You can't, Sil. The Infancy Doctrine only applies to business contracts that the child they are a party to. Marriage is neither a business contract nor is any child party to the marriage of their parents.

Its not the courts that are confused about the application of the Infancy Doctrine. Its just you.

Your argument dies on the same hill it has for the last 3 years. And remains just as legally irrelevant

Bizarrely if the Infancy Doctrine did apply to marriage contracts- which it doesn't- it would mean that kids would be able to among other things, the kids could dissolve the contract- yes kids would be able to initiate divorce proceedings for their family

 

[Silhouette]

Bizarrely if the Infancy Doctrine did apply to marriage contracts- which it doesn't- it would mean that kids would be able to among other things, the kids could dissolve the contract- yes kids would be able to initiate divorce proceedings for their family

No, children are not allowed per the ID to dissolve contracts for their benefit. But indeed, if the conditions of the family are hostile enough, they can be removed for their protection, divorce or not. No contract can bind them to conditions hostile to their own benefit...and they cannot dissolve contracts for their benefit.

Nice sound bite. Try reading the whole document next time.

 

[Skylar]

I notice you STILL have not commented on the passage in the Infancy Doctrine that mandates counsel for children at civil hearings with extraordinary consequences for their interests...like new banishment of either a father or mother for life.

Show me where in the passages one the Infancy Doctrine where it has ever been applied to the marriage of the parents of the child.

You can't, Sil. The Infancy Doctrine only applies to business contracts that the child they are a party to. Marriage is neither a business contract nor is any child party to the marriage of their parents.

Its not the courts that are confused about the application of the Infancy Doctrine. Its just you.

Your argument dies on the same hill it has for the last 3 years. And remains just as legally irrelevant

Bizarrely if the Infancy Doctrine did apply to marriage contracts- which it doesn't- it would mean that kids would be able to among other things, the kids could dissolve the contract- yes kids would be able to initiate divorce proceedings for their family

Yup. That's all the Infancy Doctrine allows: for children to void a business contract they are a party to that is disadvantageous to them.

Its been 3 years and still Sil doesn't have the first clue what the Infancy Doctrine actually is. And yet sits dumbfounded and confused why the Supreme Court won't ignore *itself* and instead accept her imagination as the law.

She should probably get used to that feeling of hapless confusion.

 

[Skylar]

Bizarrely if the Infancy Doctrine did apply to marriage contracts- which it doesn't- it would mean that kids would be able to among other things, the kids could dissolve the contract- yes kids would be able to initiate divorce proceedings for their family

No, children are not allowed per the ID to dissolve contracts for their benefit. But indeed, if the conditions of the family are hostile enough, they can be removed for their protection, divorce or not. No contract can bind them to conditions hostile to their own benefit...and they cannot dissolve contracts for their benefit.

Show us one example of the Infancy Doctrine ever being used to dissolve any marriage.

You can't. Its never happened. As you have no idea what the Infancy Doctrine is.

You're stuck.

Nice sound bite. Try reading the whole document next time.

Laughing....says the person that quoted the document as saying that children are 'implied beneficiaries' of marriage. Despite neither the word 'implied' nor 'beneficiaries' being used once.

Sorry Sil....but we can't read your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

Apparently you ^^ can't read post #45. Do you need glasses? Mother/father marriage is for their benefit.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently you ^^ can't read post #45. Do you need glasses? Mother/father marriage is for their benefit.

Notice how you still haven't shown us one marriage, in the history of our nation, that has ever been dissolved because of the Infancy Doctrine.

Its never happened, Sil. Children are not parties to the marriage of their parents. And all the Infancy Doctrine has ever allowed is for a child to void a business contract they are a party to that is disadvantageous to them.

That's it. All your other imaginary babble about the Infancy Doctrine is just you making nonsense up.

 

[Syriusly]

Bizarrely if the Infancy Doctrine did apply to marriage contracts- which it doesn't- it would mean that kids would be able to among other things, the kids could dissolve the contract- yes kids would be able to initiate divorce proceedings for their family

No, children are not allowed per the ID to dissolve contracts for their benefit. .

Or we can look at what the Infancy Doctrine actually says rather than what the voices in your head say.
Infancy Doctrine
A doctrine that allows minors to disaffirm or cancel most contracts they have entered into with adults. Doctrine based on public policy that reasons that minors should be protected from unscrupulous behavior of adults. -Disaffirmance- the act of a minor to rescind a contract under the infancy doctrine.

 

[Syriusly]

Apparently you ^^ can't read post #45. Do you need glasses? Mother/father marriage is for their benefit.

Talking to yourself again Silhouette? Or your 'post reply' button to hard for you to find?

 

[Silhouette]

In post #45 it says that infants can't eradicate contracts of mother/ father marriage because they can't dissolve contracts for their benefit.

 

[Syriusly]

In post #45 it says that infants can't eradicate contracts of mother/ father marriage because they can't dissolve contracts for their benefit.

Post #45 is full of all sorts of crazy delusional shit

 

[TemplarKormac]

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...

Part II: Children Are/Aren't Implicitly Involved In A Marriage Contract: (An argument of LGBT convenience depending on the day and the weather apparently..)

As many here know, I've put forward argument as to how gay marriage is illegal because it violates the Infancy Doctrine. The Infancy Doctrine (ID) was created in the 15th Century as ironclad prohibition of adults from taking advantage of minors in situations involving contracts. It has been under attack in recent times in the US out of convenience to adults who want to take advantage of minors. (irony). So here is what a treatise on the ID has to say about it's applicability in modern day law:

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf The Infancy Doctrine In Modern Days
******
"...These recent trends in markets as well as in contract practice and law leave minors more exposed to potentially harmful or unfair terms. The infancy doctrine is their only viable protection.
Thus, this is a particularly appropriate time to shine a light on the infancy doctrine--to determine what it includes and whether it needs adjustments. Although the infancy doctrine is well-established in American jurisprudence, even well-established legal doctrines should be periodically reexamined to determine if they still serve their intended purpose or have become a barrier to justice...

...A. The Rule:
The infancy doctrine protects persons under the legally designated age of adulthood from both "crafty adults" and their own bad judgment. The doctrine is based on the presumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract...
.. The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor...

********

Crafty Adults = Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg & Kennedy.... (see post #1 herein & crafty use of language to deprive children contractually of either a father or mother for life without their having unique representation..)

For other discussions enumerated in depth, with helpful informative links about children involved in gay marriage and gay adoptions see these thread OPs: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer & Another 2017 LGBT Court Case, & Specifically Gay Adoption Of Unwanted Kids: A Poll

So those who would argue we not look at the ID when considering how children are affected by the marriage contract which they implicitly have a share in, are those who would argue that children ought not to be protected from adults in contracts. And those are precisely the types of adults the ID was created for. So they are in essence arguing for the extinguishing of the core intent of the ID.

Their next argument has been "well children simply are in no way shape or form a requirement of the marriage license/contract!!" That is a strawman argument since profits aren't present at the onset of any new business contract, and may never arrive, yet they are anticipated and most certainly are part of the implicit expectations and terms of that contract. So new businesses aren't "required" to produce profit-proof on day 1, that would be absurd. Neither are marriage "required" to produce children on day one...or ever if they cannot or won't conceive. But we don't design the entire concept of a business or marriage contract to negate the expected statistical return of such an endeavor.

That argument being put to rest, the next you will hear is "The Court doesn't recognize children as intrinsic to the marriage contract!" Obergefell not only recognizes children as implicit parties even as a "third basis" (emphasis for their total decision in Obergefell), they said that marriage was vital to their best development:

*******
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

....__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.
********
Bearing all that in mind, the revision of the marriage contract terms to include homosexuality includes a revision that deprives children implicitly intrinsic to the marriage contract of either a vital father or mother for life. Did you know that child endangerment laws require you to act even upon suspicion of danger to a child, not even needing proof? And did you know that failure to act is punishable in a court of law? And did you know that judges and Justices are not exempt from that law and if they fail to protect or abet abuse or neglect or banishment of children from a vital necessity, that they can be removed from the bench? Now you know how our system of checks and balances keeps even rogue judges from becoming demi-gods as they were in Obergefell. Because Obergefell for the first time in human history enshrines the dethroning of importance of fathers to boys and mothers to girls in contract and family law.

Wow, didn't think of it that way, did you? Now you do. Here's what the ID says about depriving children of necessities:
****
2. Necessaries

"....Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well."
****

There are two problems with that passage with respect to Obergefell: 1. There is a preponderance of psychological and statistical data that supports that fathers are a necessity to boys. And the same mother to girls. and 2. Obergefell HAD NO UNIQUE REPRESENTATION AT THE HEARING FOR CHILDREN. Given that Obergefell essentially eliminated two vital necessities to boys and girls with the sweep of five pens, that civil hearing was EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE for children in general to be affected into time unknown. Given that, the Court was REQUIRED to have separate counsel at the Hearing involving the children IT SAID ITSELF IN ITS OPINION THAT WERE/ARE INTRINSIC TO MARRIAGE.

So, on those points alone Obergefell's fabulous-five Justices were in gross error...and guilty of child endangerment via deprivation of key elements necessary to their "best interests" (their own quote).

 

[Silhouette]

Notice there isn't much substantive rebuttal to the points on page 1. Just ridicule. Makes you wonder.

 

[g5000]

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.

Why are you bigots so obsessed with gay sex?

 

[Skylar]

In post #45 it says that infants can't eradicate contracts of mother/ father marriage because they can't dissolve contracts for their benefit.

The law doesn’t recognize any of that, Sil.

You keep citing your imagination as the law. And then get so confused why the courts follow the actual law rather than your imaganition.

Get used to it

 

[Skylar]

Notice there isn't much substantive rebuttal to the points on page 1. Just ridicule. Makes you wonder.

Sorry, Sil.....but the Infancy doctrine simply doesn’t say what you imagine it does. No child is a party to the marriage of their parents.

Which is why not one marriage has ever been dissolved by the infancy dotrine.

Ever. You’re stuck.

 

[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...

Part II: Children Are/Aren't Implicitly Involved In A Marriage Contract: (An argument of LGBT convenience depending on the day and the weather apparently..)

As many here know, I've put forward argument as to how gay marriage is illegal because it violates the Infancy Doctrine. The Infancy Doctrine (ID) was created in the 15th Century as ironclad prohibition of adults from taking advantage of minors in situations involving contracts. It has been under attack in recent times in the US out of convenience to adults who want to take advantage of minors. (irony). So here is what a treatise on the ID has to say about it's applicability in modern day law:

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf The Infancy Doctrine In Modern Days
******
"...These recent trends in markets as well as in contract practice and law leave minors more exposed to potentially harmful or unfair terms. The infancy doctrine is their only viable protection.
Thus, this is a particularly appropriate time to shine a light on the infancy doctrine--to determine what it includes and whether it needs adjustments. Although the infancy doctrine is well-established in American jurisprudence, even well-established legal doctrines should be periodically reexamined to determine if they still serve their intended purpose or have become a barrier to justice...

...A. The Rule:
The infancy doctrine protects persons under the legally designated age of adulthood from both "crafty adults" and their own bad judgment. The doctrine is based on the presumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract...
.. The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor...

********

Crafty Adults = Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg & Kennedy.... (see post #1 herein & crafty use of language to deprive children contractually of either a father or mother for life without their having unique representation..)

For other discussions enumerated in depth, with helpful informative links about children involved in gay marriage and gay adoptions see these thread OPs: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer & Another 2017 LGBT Court Case, & Specifically Gay Adoption Of Unwanted Kids: A Poll

So those who would argue we not look at the ID when considering how children are affected by the marriage contract which they implicitly have a share in, are those who would argue that children ought not to be protected from adults in contracts. And those are precisely the types of adults the ID was created for. So they are in essence arguing for the extinguishing of the core intent of the ID.

Their next argument has been "well children simply are in no way shape or form a requirement of the marriage license/contract!!" That is a strawman argument since profits aren't present at the onset of any new business contract, and may never arrive, yet they are anticipated and most certainly are part of the implicit expectations and terms of that contract. So new businesses aren't "required" to produce profit-proof on day 1, that would be absurd. Neither are marriage "required" to produce children on day one...or ever if they cannot or won't conceive. But we don't design the entire concept of a business or marriage contract to negate the expected statistical return of such an endeavor.

That argument being put to rest, the next you will hear is "The Court doesn't recognize children as intrinsic to the marriage contract!" Obergefell not only recognizes children as implicit parties even as a "third basis" (emphasis for their total decision in Obergefell), they said that marriage was vital to their best development:

*******
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925);Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384

....__ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.
********
Bearing all that in mind, the revision of the marriage contract terms to include homosexuality includes a revision that deprives children implicitly intrinsic to the marriage contract of either a vital father or mother for life. Did you know that child endangerment laws require you to act even upon suspicion of danger to a child, not even needing proof? And did you know that failure to act is punishable in a court of law? And did you know that judges and Justices are not exempt from that law and if they fail to protect or abet abuse or neglect or banishment of children from a vital necessity, that they can be removed from the bench? Now you know how our system of checks and balances keeps even rogue judges from becoming demi-gods as they were in Obergefell. Because Obergefell for the first time in human history enshrines the dethroning of importance of fathers to boys and mothers to girls in contract and family law.

Wow, didn't think of it that way, did you? Now you do. Here's what the ID says about depriving children of necessities:
****
2. Necessaries

"....Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well."
****

There are two problems with that passage with respect to Obergefell: 1. There is a preponderance of psychological and statistical data that supports that fathers are a necessity to boys. And the same mother to girls. and 2. Obergefell HAD NO UNIQUE REPRESENTATION AT THE HEARING FOR CHILDREN. Given that Obergefell essentially eliminated two vital necessities to boys and girls with the sweep of five pens, that civil hearing was EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE for children in general to be affected into time unknown. Given that, the Court was REQUIRED to have separate counsel at the Hearing involving the children IT SAID ITSELF IN ITS OPINION THAT WERE/ARE INTRINSIC TO MARRIAGE.

So, on those points alone Obergefell's fabulous-five Justices were in gross error...and guilty of child endangerment via deprivation of key elements necessary to their "best interests" (their own quote).

Alas, the courts have never recognized that a child is a party to the marriage of their parents. Sil’s entire psuedo-legal argument is predicated on the idea that they are.

Nor has a single marriage ever been voided by the infancy doctrine.....ever.

What’s the use of a “legal” argument that isn’t recognized by the law nor any court?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Broken record. Let us know when you can offer substance/quotes/links...