The Latest In the Landmark Court Case the LGBT Would Rather You Not Remain Current On..

[JakeStarkey]

It was arrived at legitimately, and that Sil cannot prove different matters not at all.

 

[Syriusly]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

OP needs to get used to it

You must be gay. Other wise you would not stick up for this filth same as over on my post .

You must be a bigot. Otherwise you would not stick up harming children like Silhouette does.

 

[Syriusly]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

OP needs to get used to it

If it was arrived at legitimately, I'd have to get used to it. Except parties to the marriage contract weren't present at Obergefell, the case that Dumont's punitive lesbians will cite in their briefs..

All the parties involved in Obergefell were present.

What is sad is that you believe that you know more than not only the lawyers on both sides of Obergefell, and the lawyers on both sides of Dumont- but you also think you know more than all 9 of the Justices of the Supreme Court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil knows what she knows, Syriusly. Let it go.

I am.

Final poster here. She is totally lost.

 

[Silhouette]

It was arrived at legitimately, and that Sil cannot prove different matters not at all.

Well was there separate counsel briefing children's key longstanding benefits (both mother and father) proposed to be removed at the radical contract-revision Hearing in 2015? No? No lengthy petition needed. A party to the suit was missing from the suit.

 

[Syriusly]

It was arrived at legitimately, and that Sil cannot prove different matters not at all.

Well was there separate counsel briefing children's key longstanding benefits (both mother and father) proposed to be removed at the radical contract-revision Hearing in 2015? No? No lengthy petition needed. A party to the suit was missing from the suit.

The same separate counsel that attends on behalf of children in every divorce proceeding in America was present at Obergefell.

 

[Silhouette]

The same separate counsel that attends on behalf of children in every divorce proceeding in America was present at Obergefell.

I was wondering which divorce proceeding involves instilling a contract that banishes the kids from ever having either a father or mother sharing their roof for life? Most divorcees seek to re-establish relationships with new spouses fairly quickly; and overwhelmingly, courts do triple back flips to see kids still see both parents under their roofs. Guardian ad litems are appointed if parents don't quickly agree to these terms. So in divorce there is a keen interest to see kids satisfied of needing BOTH mother and father.

In the LANDMARK contract-revision hearing of Obergefell, parties to the contract were not present and had no unique counsel briefing. The new contract banishes either a mother or father from kids' home for life. Kids had absolutely zero say in that decision.

 

[Silhouette]

You must be a bigot. Otherwise you would not stick up harming children like Silhouette does.

Syriusly, do you suppose that if the lesbian punitive-litigants in this case win, and succeed in stripping away public funds currently helping orphans in Catholic Charity care, that any children will be proximally-harmed by these lesbians' litigious campaign to punish?

 

[Syriusly]

You must be a bigot. Otherwise you would not stick up harming children like Silhouette does.

Syriusly, do you suppose that if the lesbian punitive-litigants in this case win, and succeed in stripping away public funds currently helping orphans in Catholic Charity care, that any children will be proximally-harmed by these lesbians' litigious campaign to punish?

Silhouette, do you suppose that if you succeed in making gay marriage illegal that thousands and thousands of children will be harmed exactly as Obergefell noted their decision?

 

[Syriusly]

The same separate counsel that attends on behalf of children in every divorce proceeding in America was present at Obergefell.

I was wondering which divorce proceeding involves instilling a contract that banishes the kids from ever having either a father or mother sharing their roof for life? Most divorcees seek to re-establish relationships with new spouses fairly quickly; and overwhelmingly, courts do triple back flips to see kids still see both parents under their roofs. Guardian ad litems are appointed if parents don't quickly agree to these terms. So in divorce there is a keen interest to see kids satisfied of needing BOTH mother and father.

You are the one who has claimed that children are part of marriage contracts- and you are the one who claims that children must be represented in any case regarding marriage.

So where are the lawyers representing children in every divorce case in America Silhouette?

If law requires that children have legal representation- where is their legal representation in every single divorce case?

 

[Silhouette]

You are the one who has claimed that children are part of marriage contracts- and you are the one who claims that children must be represented in any case regarding marriage.

No, Obergefell claimed it. Page 15 of the Opinion. They said children were beneficiaries of the marriage contract. They had no representation at that contract's proposed radical-revision at the Obergefell Hearing. So the Court busted itself in its own Opinion. Those Justices knew about the existence of the Infancy Doctrine before that Hearing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wanna bet the Biggest Orgy in the World is mostly Republicans.

Look at what they elected for president. They're just as nasty as he is.

They're hypocrites. They hate Gays for loving their best friends that happen to be the same sex but totally accept someone that fucks other women while their wives are pregnant with their own baby.

My, that's a very specific accusation you're leveling. Prove it.