Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
Judicial appointments must be advocates for the main beneficiaries of the marriage contract (children) Parties harmed as described below must come forward and asks that Obergefell be reheard for these reasons (among others):
1. That one of the Justices had advertised to the public before the Hearing how she was going to vote on it: undermining the American judicial process, creating a mistrial (Capteron v A.T Massey Coal 2009) and
2. That that same Justice and one other were performing gay marriages as federal court Justices while the question of "should the fed preside over the states on the question of gay marriage being legitimate" was pending to be Heard (again, Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009) and
3. That there isn't even a remote insinuation in the US Constitution that homosexual behaviors have special rights while other sexual behaviors like polyamory do not (somehow; ironically citing the 14th Amendment). Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) found that homosexuality is NOT covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act even. and
4. That "gay marriage" uses a contract to dismiss even the hope of children (the main beneficiaries of the marriage contract) having the missing gendered parent (which may vitally be their own gender as a role model) missing from a "married" home..which is forbidden under the Infancy Doctrine, children, and contracts. (New York vs Ferber (1982) where it states nobody's civil rights may be exercised if they hurt children physically or mentally) Gay marriage actually damages children via a contract they used to benefit from . Also see: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
The first priority the GOP has in the coming weeks is to fill lower federal court appointments with conservative judges; and to fill the vacancy on the USSC with a conservative Justice like Scalia. When Ginsburg either steps down or is impeached (see #s 1 & 2 above), they will replace her also with a conservative. Then the mistrial called "Obergefell" can be reheard; for the sake of the children it hurts if for no other reason..
Marriage was invented over 1,000 years ago to REMEDY the situation of a child not having either a vital mother or father....not to legally create an inescapable situation where the child will NEVER have a mother or father!
Gays may make great parents in isolated examples; but they never can provide the missing gender. Likewise, wolves may raise a child successfully and lovingly; but they also are deficient when it comes to the parameters of the foundation of what states call "marriage".
And, since divorce comes up all the time in the counter argument I will say right here and plainly that divorce is also about the children in that it is granted reluctantly...with a large portion of the legal proceedings still maintaining the children's benefits of marriage (regular contact with both a mother and father) while the other parts of the marriage contract are dissolved. So, when it comes to childrens' benefits from marriage, they never end. That's how much proof their is that marriage is about children first and adults second.
Considering election 2016 was a referendum from the middle voters on Obergefell; and other "identity politics" they're sick of on the left, which judges or Justices would you recommend Trump's team appoint?
1. That one of the Justices had advertised to the public before the Hearing how she was going to vote on it: undermining the American judicial process, creating a mistrial (Capteron v A.T Massey Coal 2009) and
2. That that same Justice and one other were performing gay marriages as federal court Justices while the question of "should the fed preside over the states on the question of gay marriage being legitimate" was pending to be Heard (again, Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009) and
3. That there isn't even a remote insinuation in the US Constitution that homosexual behaviors have special rights while other sexual behaviors like polyamory do not (somehow; ironically citing the 14th Amendment). Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) found that homosexuality is NOT covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act even. and
4. That "gay marriage" uses a contract to dismiss even the hope of children (the main beneficiaries of the marriage contract) having the missing gendered parent (which may vitally be their own gender as a role model) missing from a "married" home..which is forbidden under the Infancy Doctrine, children, and contracts. (New York vs Ferber (1982) where it states nobody's civil rights may be exercised if they hurt children physically or mentally) Gay marriage actually damages children via a contract they used to benefit from . Also see: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
The first priority the GOP has in the coming weeks is to fill lower federal court appointments with conservative judges; and to fill the vacancy on the USSC with a conservative Justice like Scalia. When Ginsburg either steps down or is impeached (see #s 1 & 2 above), they will replace her also with a conservative. Then the mistrial called "Obergefell" can be reheard; for the sake of the children it hurts if for no other reason..
Marriage was invented over 1,000 years ago to REMEDY the situation of a child not having either a vital mother or father....not to legally create an inescapable situation where the child will NEVER have a mother or father!
Gays may make great parents in isolated examples; but they never can provide the missing gender. Likewise, wolves may raise a child successfully and lovingly; but they also are deficient when it comes to the parameters of the foundation of what states call "marriage".
And, since divorce comes up all the time in the counter argument I will say right here and plainly that divorce is also about the children in that it is granted reluctantly...with a large portion of the legal proceedings still maintaining the children's benefits of marriage (regular contact with both a mother and father) while the other parts of the marriage contract are dissolved. So, when it comes to childrens' benefits from marriage, they never end. That's how much proof their is that marriage is about children first and adults second.
Considering election 2016 was a referendum from the middle voters on Obergefell; and other "identity politics" they're sick of on the left, which judges or Justices would you recommend Trump's team appoint?
Last edited:
