Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Children are not wedding cakes, catered parties or photographs. They are viable US citizens with rights of their own intrinsic to them. They cannot be demanded and traded like chattel in the interest of "equality" (of habitual-BEHAVIORS calling themselves an identity...for which there is no protection in the US Constitution; else there'd have to be for ALL behaviors calling themselves "(fill in the blank) Americans".Sure, jwoodie, but you have to get it codified in law that comports with the Constitution, case law, and state statute. Yeah, I know you just want to point at your version of The Bible, but that is not how our secular Republic works.
I don't need to. Children exist as US Citizens and they are also protected by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are already protected by the US Constitution.Sure, Sil, sure. Convince SCOTUS.
Sorry. Read page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion & weep bro.The children had no standing, nor should they have had standing.
The matter was about marriage not children, Sil.
Check out the heteros.Now, onto the case... Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court
When we last discussed, Michigan orphans were allowed to join the suit, (as all children should have separate counsel advising on any legal matter involving the tweaking of family law, particularly marriage and adoption where they share the contracts with adults: see: Infancy Doctrine). Good, finally the courts are recognizing which parties to a shared contract were barred from briefing previous multiple cases in these family law matters...
Now, the orphans who joined the suit and Catholic Charities were allowed to file "additional pages". Seems boring at first glance, but what that means is, they're fine-tuning their arguments. That happened May 1, 2018. I believe its surrounding a motion to dismiss the suit; which actually should happen and here's why...
The lesbians who brought the suit (and dragonlady confirmed here in post #473 of the other thread herein linked above) not to really make Catholic charities adopt out boys to fatherless marriage contracts (for life) they'd be forced to share with adults (illegal per the infancy doctrine). They know that Catholics may do as they please with their orphanages so long as they self-fund. 1st Amendment protections are stiff for religious objections. The lesbians know they have other choices besides Catholic Charities to try to pry away boys (and little girls) to take home to their fatherless-for-life contractual-guarantee.
No...what the lesbians want in Dumont vs Lyon is to strip Catholic Charities of money they vitally need for the massive numbers of orphans they care for in the State of Michigan. You see, the LGBT wants to use the whip of "separation of church and state" TO PUNISH the Catholic Charities which will result (as they well know beforehand) in the direct proximal harm to orphaned children in the State of Michigan.
Here's what dragonlady said in her post 473 here: Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?
Dragonlady, LGBT apologist and fierce advocate here at USMB and I suspect professionally elsewhere, says in an unapologetic tone "yeah, the LGBT is seeking to take the main lifeblood away that feeds and cares for the bulk of Michigan orphans from people who have traditionally cared for these poor children for millennia now. LGBT wants these vulnerable kids to be corralled in secular non-moral pens for equal and unquestioned distribution based on what the adults want."The briefs you’re talking about are the briefs of children who have been helped by the Catholic agency that the want to continue to receive funding because of all of their good works on behalf of orphans.
The judge isn’t reviewing briefs on whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, but rather whether a Catholic agency which refuses to place children with gay couples should continue to receive public funding.
I can guarantee you that if you applied to adopt a child anywhere and said "yeah, I'm gonna deprive this kid of clothing or food or shelter for life", you'd be denied. But apparently the cult of LGBT thinks with the shoehorn they got outside of due process (Obergefell 2015) that this means they can waltz into an adoption agency and demand they disgorge children, even when they announce to the adoption agent by their very physical arrangement "we intend to deprive this child of a father for life using binding contractual terms we'll force this kid to share with us."
Sinister enough, right? But actually there's a root in the muck even deeper than that (are you listening NAMBLA?) It's that the cult of LGBT wants ALL vulnerable children now technically available to "marrieds" (though the test of fatherless and motherless contracts still can save the day) to be coughed up on demand just because they have these contracts: all in the name of "equality!". And so, we have arrived at the real reason for the push on gay marriage where civil unions were sufficing just fine for the LGBTs to share bank accounts, hospital visits and the like The one thing they couldn't get with mere civil unions is a guaranteed access to our nation's most vulnerable little kids to bring home behind closed doors...
I always have to bring up gay pride parades at this point because if this is what they flaunt in public as a uniquely cohesive group (have you ever heard of any LGBT person being against these parades in a public way? And if so, what percentage of their cult do you think they represent? Maybe .0000000001%?) then WHAT ARE THEY DOING around kids, especially those not technically related to them by blood, behind closed doors?? The nation's most vulnerable children now stand poised to be legally forced into these homes:
We have the Judiciary, for a reason.DUMONT V LYON
Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?
I'd like to start out this thread by reminding that "Current Events" are for those things that are current that people are monitoring in a general way. Since the thread linked below this paragraph was dungeoned into "Law and Justice" subforum, people stopped hearing about it. Mission accomplished?
Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?
In any event, some interesting things have been happening since it was put out of sight, so to speak. And, they are current and ongoing. Most importantly the impact of how this case is decided literally could be the official case law that sends both fathers and mothers as unique irreplaceable roles (think about that folks who are in custody battles..) as "irrelevant". That isn't just a garden variety "Law and Justice" matter. It's an area of social impact the magnitude of something we've never seen before in the history of human civilization....
...Think about that for a minute...
At least you’re consistent at being a ridiculous, ignorant bigot.What do you think, not SCOTUS? Do you believe it is proper to shut out any party to a contract at a contract revision hearing?Sil, SCOTUS ruled against your type of thinking.
SCOTUS does not, will not, interpret Obergefell as you do.
You will fail here on this argument as you have for years now.
This judge in Dumont allowed orphans to join the suit to plead their unique interests via counsel briefing. Do you suppose if this judge writes any language into a decision that elevates children as separate essential legal entities in these family law cases that their absence in other cases will shed a new light on them?
You understand how precedent works, right?
Of course we do. And you'd think that by the time a judge made it to the appellate system, s/he'd know that all parties (named beneficiaries to: see Obergefell Opinion page 15 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution ) to a contract-revision hearing must have counsel present.We have the Judiciary, for a reason.
equal protection of the law applies.Of course we do. And you'd think that by the time a judge made it to the appellate system, s/he'd know that all parties (named beneficiaries to: see Obergefell Opinion page 15 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution ) to a contract-revision hearing must have counsel present.We have the Judiciary, for a reason.
That didn't happen. So there was no real actual Judiciary involved in any of the other cases where the contract was up for revision.
You can’t even make one pointed argument and you’re hypocritical enough to call others ignorant.At least you’re consistent at being a ridiculous, ignorant bigot.What do you think, not SCOTUS? Do you believe it is proper to shut out any party to a contract at a contract revision hearing?Sil, SCOTUS ruled against your type of thinking.
SCOTUS does not, will not, interpret Obergefell as you do.
You will fail here on this argument as you have for years now.
This judge in Dumont allowed orphans to join the suit to plead their unique interests via counsel briefing. Do you suppose if this judge writes any language into a decision that elevates children as separate essential legal entities in these family law cases that their absence in other cases will shed a new light on them?
You understand how precedent works, right?
This follows the birth parents' right to specify the type of home they want their children placed inProspective parents should have no right to adopt. The adoption agency should clearly state the criteria it uses to evaluate applicant parents. This follows the birth parents' right to specify the type of home they want their children placed in. In the case of orphans, this right should transfer to the children's legal guardian or closest living relative. The child's best interests should always take precedence over a prospective parent's desire to adopt.
