Obergefell Citing Loving v Virginia was Incorrect

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So explain using the 14th Amendment how polyamorists cannot marry each other.

Because unlike same-sex couples, no state's marriage law is written to accommodate three or more persons.

 

[Skylar]

can children prevent their parents from divorcing? force them to marry?

No, but courts strive to keep families together and only grant divorce reluctantly...not really fully either until the children are of age. They strive to keep children in contact with BOTH the mother and father. Which in itself is evidence that children sharing the marriage contract is already established in routine practiced law.

Single parents are enticed to marry by states who provide tax incentives for them to do so. And, there is no contract binding them to single parenthood. Every single parent I know is always on the watch to find someone they can provide the missing dad or mom to kids. Gays are contractually resolved for life in such a way that strips children of any hope of either a mother or father. Nuances of contracts and law you may not grasp.

You have a license to practice law?

Don't need one to debate here. Nice non-sequitur. Did you understand my answer or not?

Then show us the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents.

So far your source is yourself. And you're famously ignorant how the law works.

she seems to have a problem distinguishing her fantasies from reality

Oh, definitely. Most of the pseudo-legal gibberish that she's posting isn't for our benefit. Its for hers. She's quite literally her own audience.

Its the rhetorical equivalent of sucking your thumb: essentially a self soothing exercise as she tries to reconcile the dissonance between what she imagined the world is....and what it actually is.

 

[Silhouette]

every single state offers no-fault divorce.

that doesn't sound terribly reluctant to me.

can children prevent their parents from marrying?

The more proper question to ask is "if someone shares some terms of a contract, do they share all terms of that contract always?" The answer is no. The parents create the contract on their own, the children who are there or arrive later share in some of its terms. For thousands of years they shared in the terms that provided them both a mother and father. The courts supported this notion and reinforced it countless millions of times in custody arrangements after divorce where the parents were still kept "quasi-married' so the kids could maintain access to both mother and father.

 

[jillian]

So explain using the 14th Amendment how polyamorists cannot marry each other.

Personally, I don't care if they do

However, as long as polygamy is illegal, the 14th does not apply
Homosexuality is not illegal

Polygamy was decriminalized in Utah I think last year or the year before.

what psychopathology or mental illness makes you obsessed with gays? were you dumped by someone gay? love someone of the same sex?

mostly, no one cares.

you're boring and nuts and a waste of bandwidth

she is obsessed w/ gays the same way Paulitician & Dont Taz Me Bro are obsessed w/ cops and Wildman and M14 Shooter are onsessed w/ fire sticks

Creepy single-issue posters

I think it's nuts. this doesn't even affect her. it has zero to do with her life. yet she spends all day every day drooling over her keyboard

She's disabled in a very tiny and remote town. That and a somewhat recent death in her family apparently pushed quirk to bizarre obsession.

they have meds. I would feel badly for her if she wasn't so vile. she should get help.

 

[Skylar]

Sounds like someone else is obsessed.

Says the gal that created her own website and message board dedicated to 'fighting the gay cult'. And is currently begging for donations to turn her bizarre obsession into her profession.

 

[Skylar]

every single state offers no-fault divorce.

that doesn't sound terribly reluctant to me.

can children prevent their parents from marrying?

The more proper question to ask is "if someone shares some terms of a contract, do they share all terms of that contract always?" The answer is no.

The more proper question is: with your perfect record of failure in predicting any legal outcome, why would even *you* listen to you as a legal source?

Again, what's the use of a 'legal' argument that isn't recognized by the law or the courts? Neither of which recognize children as implied parties in their parent's marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

The Lovings of famous "Loving v Virginia" did not violate the one man/one woman laws of each state so their case wasn't about marriage but instead about racial discrimination. This was a mistake the USSC made last Summer. They thought the Loving case was about marriage. It wasn't. Nothing changed in marriage of one man/ one woman in Loving...

Really? The Loving case was not about marriage? Hmmm......then why did the Court in Loving say this:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

And why did Mildred Loving say this?

"I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Mildred Loving disagreed with you.

Matter of fact- I love it every time you bring up Loving v. Virginia because I get to point out that Mildred Loving- who knew more about marriage discrimination than even the voices in your head- supported marriage equality- and that you Silhouette- think that Mildred Loving was wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

So explain using the 14th Amendment how polyamorists cannot marry each other.

Silhouette if you believe you have a constitutional right to your polyamorous marriage you have the same right as the Lovings and the Obergefills to try to change the law- you are either:
a) try to change the law legislatively or
b) you can go to court to argue for what you consider to be your rights.

No one is stopping you.

By the way- are you in favor of polyamorous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

can children prevent their parents from divorcing? force them to marry?

No, but courts strive to keep families together and only grant divorce reluctantly...

Frankly that is just another example of you lying.

Was the court reluctant to grant your divorce? Did the judge require your to stay with your soon to be husband for another say 5 years?

Almost every state in the Union is a no-fault divorce state- the couple file the papers and they get divorced.
No reluctance involved.

 

[jillian]

can children prevent their parents from divorcing? force them to marry?

No, but courts strive to keep families together and only grant divorce reluctantly...not really fully either until the children are of age. They strive to keep children in contact with BOTH the mother and father. Which in itself is evidence that children sharing the marriage contract is already established in routine practiced law.

Single parents are enticed to marry by states who provide tax incentives for them to do so. And, there is no contract binding them to single parenthood. Every single parent I know is always on the watch to find someone they can provide the missing dad or mom to kids. Gays are contractually resolved for life in such a way that strips children of any hope of either a mother or father. Nuances of contracts and law you may not grasp.

You have a license to practice law?

Don't need one to debate here. Nice non-sequitur. Did you understand my answer or not?

Then show us the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents.

So far your source is yourself. And you're famously ignorant how the law works.

she seems to have a problem distinguishing her fantasies from reality

Oh, definitely. Most of the pseudo-legal gibberish that she's posting isn't for our benefit. Its for hers. She's quite literally her own audience.

Its the rhetorical equivalent of sucking your thumb: essentially a self soothing exercise as she tries to reconcile the dissonance between what she imagined the world is....and what it actually is.

then why pretend she should be treated as if she's saying anything?

 

[ogibillm]

every single state offers no-fault divorce.

that doesn't sound terribly reluctant to me.

can children prevent their parents from marrying?

The more proper question to ask is "if someone shares some terms of a contract, do they share all terms of that contract always?" The answer is no. The parents create the contract on their own, the children who are there or arrive later share in some of its terms. For thousands of years they shared in the terms that provided them both a mother and father. The courts supported this notion and reinforced it countless millions of times in custody arrangements after divorce where the parents were still kept "quasi-married' so the kids could maintain access to both mother and father.

nobody is kept 'quasi-married'

can the adult child of a single parent sue that parent for the abuse of raising them outside of a two-parent home?

 

[Syriusly]

can children prevent their parents from divorcing? force them to marry?

No, but courts strive to keep families together and only grant divorce reluctantly...not really fully either until the children are of age. They strive to keep children in contact with BOTH the mother and father. Which in itself is evidence that children sharing the marriage contract is already established in routine practiced law.

Single parents are enticed to marry by states who provide tax incentives for them to do so. And, there is no contract binding them to single parenthood. Every single parent I know is always on the watch to find someone they can provide the missing dad or mom to kids. Gays are contractually resolved for life in such a way that strips children of any hope of either a mother or father. Nuances of contracts and law you may not grasp.

You have a license to practice law?

No, she's just making this shit up as she goes along. I once heard her insist that since the Supreme Court didn't have a 'representative' for 'all children' in the Obergefell hearing that the ruling was a 'mistrial'.

Its essentially pseudo-legal madlibs with Sil. Though one fact to keep in mind regarding Sil's legal claims:

She's always wrong. Every time she's predicted a legal outcome, court ruling, legal justification, etc.....she's been wrong. Every single time, without exception.

Guessing would provide a better average that Sil has managed.

Meanwhile in every state in the United States:
Couples are getting legally married- regardless of their gender.
Children without married parents suddenly have married parents.
Children without homes and family are getting adopted by Americans- gay and straight

Silhouette hates all of that.

 

[Skylar]

can children prevent their parents from divorcing? force them to marry?

No, but courts strive to keep families together and only grant divorce reluctantly...not really fully either until the children are of age. They strive to keep children in contact with BOTH the mother and father. Which in itself is evidence that children sharing the marriage contract is already established in routine practiced law.

Single parents are enticed to marry by states who provide tax incentives for them to do so. And, there is no contract binding them to single parenthood. Every single parent I know is always on the watch to find someone they can provide the missing dad or mom to kids. Gays are contractually resolved for life in such a way that strips children of any hope of either a mother or father. Nuances of contracts and law you may not grasp.

You have a license to practice law?

Don't need one to debate here. Nice non-sequitur. Did you understand my answer or not?

Then show us the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents.

So far your source is yourself. And you're famously ignorant how the law works.

she seems to have a problem distinguishing her fantasies from reality

Oh, definitely. Most of the pseudo-legal gibberish that she's posting isn't for our benefit. Its for hers. She's quite literally her own audience.

Its the rhetorical equivalent of sucking your thumb: essentially a self soothing exercise as she tries to reconcile the dissonance between what she imagined the world is....and what it actually is.

then why pretend she should be treated as if she's saying anything?

Because she lies constantly. And an uninformed audience might hear a lie and think is true.

For example: that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents. This simply isn't true. No court nor law recognizes any of it. But if you didn't know what 'implied parties' were, it might sound true.

And that's where the corrections we provide come in.

 

[Dot Com]

Sounds like someone else is obsessed.

says the chick who is the only contributer on her anti-gay forum

 

[Syriusly]

[ The courts supported this notion and reinforced it countless millions of times in custody arrangements after divorce where the parents were still kept "quasi-married' so the kids could maintain access to both mother and father.

So when the divorced father remarries- is he guilty of 'quasi-bigamy'?

 

[Dot Com]

Sounds like someone else is obsessed.

Says the gal that created her own website and message board dedicated to 'fighting the gay cult'. And is currently begging for donations to turn her bizarre obsession into her profession.

^ that

you can't make this stuff up. She is just like koshergrl & her obsession w/ abortion but koshergrl didn't create a forum of her own and post obsessively about it like sillywet has done

 

[Skylar]

every single state offers no-fault divorce.

that doesn't sound terribly reluctant to me.

can children prevent their parents from marrying?

The more proper question to ask is "if someone shares some terms of a contract, do they share all terms of that contract always?" The answer is no. The parents create the contract on their own, the children who are there or arrive later share in some of its terms. For thousands of years they shared in the terms that provided them both a mother and father. The courts supported this notion and reinforced it countless millions of times in custody arrangements after divorce where the parents were still kept "quasi-married' so the kids could maintain access to both mother and father.

nobody is kept 'quasi-married'

can the adult child of a single parent sue that parent for the abuse of raising them outside of a two-parent home?

Sil is just making up more pseudo-legal gibberish. Marriage is gloriously irrelevant to the obligation that parents are held to. As the obligations exist even if the parents have never married. Or get divorced.

The first thing to remember when reading anything Sil posts...is that she genuinely has no idea what she's talking about.

 

[jillian]

Don't need one to debate here. Nice non-sequitur. Did you understand my answer or not?

Then show us the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents.

So far your source is yourself. And you're famously ignorant how the law works.

she seems to have a problem distinguishing her fantasies from reality

Oh, definitely. Most of the pseudo-legal gibberish that she's posting isn't for our benefit. Its for hers. She's quite literally her own audience.

Its the rhetorical equivalent of sucking your thumb: essentially a self soothing exercise as she tries to reconcile the dissonance between what she imagined the world is....and what it actually is.

then why pretend she should be treated as if she's saying anything?

Because she lies constantly. And an uninformed audience might hear a lie and think is true.

For example: that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents. This simply isn't true. No court nor law recognizes any of it. But if you didn't know what 'implied parties' were, it might sound true.

And that's where the corrections we provide come in.

true. it has zero basis in any law in this country or any other that I know of.

why do you think anyone pays attention enough to what she says to think she comes close to not being delusional?

I'm not being critical, I just figure maybe if no one answered her, she'd go away.

 

[Skylar]

Sounds like someone else is obsessed.

Says the gal that created her own website and message board dedicated to 'fighting the gay cult'. And is currently begging for donations to turn her bizarre obsession into her profession.

^ that

you can't make this stuff up. She is just like koshergrl & her obsession w/ abortion but koshergrl didn't create a forum of her own and post obsessively about it like sillywet has done

Not just her own messageboard. Her own *website*. Its in her sig. Take a look. Its a bit of a freakshow.

 

[Skylar]

Then show us the law or court ruling that recognizes that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents.

So far your source is yourself. And you're famously ignorant how the law works.

she seems to have a problem distinguishing her fantasies from reality

Oh, definitely. Most of the pseudo-legal gibberish that she's posting isn't for our benefit. Its for hers. She's quite literally her own audience.

Its the rhetorical equivalent of sucking your thumb: essentially a self soothing exercise as she tries to reconcile the dissonance between what she imagined the world is....and what it actually is.

then why pretend she should be treated as if she's saying anything?

Because she lies constantly. And an uninformed audience might hear a lie and think is true.

For example: that children are implied parties in the marriage of their parents. This simply isn't true. No court nor law recognizes any of it. But if you didn't know what 'implied parties' were, it might sound true.

And that's where the corrections we provide come in.

true. it has zero basis in any law in this country or any other that I know of.

why do you think anyone pays attention enough to what she says to think she comes close to not being delusional?

I'm not being critical, I just figure maybe if no one answered her, she'd go away.

Her own messageboard suggests otherwise. As she's the only participant. Every reply is to herself.

And yet she has 29 active threads.

I've been dealing with pseudo-legal conspiracy theories for a while. The best reply is rational and factual.