Are "Sanctuary Cities" Limited Where Humans Might Be Hurt?

[Silhouette]

One Major American City Just Gave An Official Middle Finger To Donald Trump

The resolution, which basically said that San Francisco will continue to be San Francisco, regardless of whatever bigoted actions or laws Trump passes, reaffirmed the City by the Bay’s commitment to remaining a Sanctuary City,

Hmmm OK... So a sanctuary city literally means a city where they refuse to abide by federal laws. Did I get that right? So, if say there was another federal law that say, hurts children by say, disenfranchising them via a contract from either a mother or father for life, a thing studies have shown is harmful to them: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY, then cities, counties or states even could refuse to harm children via contract.

Sounds fair. How many cities would like to be sanctuaries where marriage provides the original vital benefits to children...a remedy to single parenthood & their contact via contract with BOTH a mother and father?

Remember, divorce doesn't dissolve children's benefits of marriage. Only they continue while the rest of the contract is dissolved. This shows in expressed law who marriage is for.

Discuss

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, divorce doesn't dissolve children's benefits of marriage. Only they continue while the rest of the contract is dissolved. This shows in expressed law who marriage is for.

Discuss

My discussion- another stupid Silhouette "hate the gays' thread.

The major reason why any children are raised without a parent in their lives is because one or both of their biological parents have 'abandoned' those children- usually by divorce, sometimes by their criminal actions which result in the parents imprisonment- and the children's abandonment.

Remember- preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't benefit a single child.

It only hurts children those children with gay parents.

 

[Claudette]

Guess we'll see what San Fran does when the Fed money dries up and the taxpayers in that city have to come up with that money.

Don't think the taxpayers will like paying extra money so some illegals can live there.

Those kids are the responsibility of their parents. Not the taxpayers.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess Syriusly likes illegal criminals' "rights" but not children's rights and vital benefits the old marriage contract gave them?

Syriusly is a childaphobe.

 

[Silhouette]

Guess we'll see what San Fran does when the Fed money dries up and the taxpayers in that city have to come up with that money.

Don't think the taxpayers will like paying extra money so some illegals can live there.

Those kids are the responsibility of their parents. Not the taxpayers.

This isn't about children of illegals. This thread is about ALL children who used to gain a vital mother and father (irreplaceable by any other combo) from the marriage contract. It was the reason the marriage contract was created: to supply children with the vital missing gender of parent. If you like, a father for the boys. A mother for the girls. Neither role can be faked by a member of another gender.

If San Franfreakshow can ignore federal laws about immigrants, why can't other cities ignore Obergefell in favor of the rights of children?

Get it now?

 

[Theowl32]

100% guaranteed Syriusly lives in a gated community guarded by armed guards.

100% guaranteed he will never allow an illegal to live in his house. Well, he would need to get permission from his parents, so he may have an excuse there.

100% guaranteed Hollywood will not allow illegals to attend their vanity awards parties.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Originally marriage contracts never had any provisions for children at all. Children have no rights to parentage beyond support.

 

[jon_berzerk]

there are two ways to combat this problem

one an amendment changing the census

or two writing a law changing the census to not include illegals

then win at the supreme court

either way the states would not have an incentive to hoard illegal immigrants

 

[Silhouette]

Originally marriage contracts never had any provisions for children at all. Children have no rights to parentage beyond support.

Then I suppose in divorce proceedings we can just eliminate the custody issues and the courts continuing that benefit of contact for children of both their mother and father...

Are you serious?

Not true at all. They are implied parties to all marriage contracts. And, those implied benefits do not end in divorce.

Sorry, an argument in a court of law would not lean in the direction of your conclusion. WAY too much circumstantial evidence to support that marriage was invented for children, because of children...to remedy their problem of a missing either a vital/irreplaceable mother or vital/irreplaceable father....and that children therefore are the main beneficiaries of any marriage contract.

 

[mdk]

Originally marriage contracts never had any provisions for children at all. Children have no rights to parentage beyond support.

Then I suppose in divorce proceedings we can just eliminate the custody issues and the courts continuing that benefit of contact for children of both their mother and father...

Are you serious?

Not true at all. They are implied parties to all marriage contracts. And, those implied benefits do not end in divorce.

Sorry, an argument in a court of law would not lean in the direction of your conclusion. WAY too much circumstantial evidence to support that marriage was invented for children, because of children...to remedy their problem of a missing either a vital/irreplaceable mother or vital/irreplaceable father....and that children therefore are the main beneficiaries of any marriage contract.

Bullshit. Children are not an implied, or an explicit, part of the marriage contract of their parents in any state. Not one. This is nothing more then a comforting lie you tell yourself to justify your anti-gay marriage narrative.

 

[Silhouette]

Originally marriage contracts never had any provisions for children at all. Children have no rights to parentage beyond support.

Then I suppose in divorce proceedings we can just eliminate the custody issues and the courts continuing that benefit of contact for children of both their mother and father...

Are you serious?

Not true at all. They are implied parties to all marriage contracts. And, those implied benefits do not end in divorce.

Sorry, an argument in a court of law would not lean in the direction of your conclusion. WAY too much circumstantial evidence to support that marriage was invented for children, because of children...to remedy their problem of a missing either a vital/irreplaceable mother or vital/irreplaceable father....and that children therefore are the main beneficiaries of any marriage contract.

Bullshit. Children are not an implied, or an explicit, part of the marriage contract of their parents in any state. Not one. This is nothing more then a comforting lie you tell yourself to justify your anti-gay marriage narrative.

OK everyone, did you get that? Custody isn't an issue, keeping kids in contact with vital mothers and fathers in divorce...where the marriage contract benefits to the de facto parties to it (children) continue DESPITE THE WISHES OF THE ADULTS, OFTEN...

Sorry mdk...way too much previous case law and precedent and circumstantial evidence draws children in bark-tight as beneficiaries (implied parties to) the marriage contract. And you know contracts cannot be revised to onerous terms without all parties having representation at the Table (2015). Especially when those onerous terms affect children as parties to contract...

This one's in the bag. Even your best spin doctors aren't going to convince anyone..not one single person besides your choir (hellbent on harming children) that "marriage isn't and never has been about children".



Cities that don't want to harm children should become sanctuary cities away from Obergefell; ensuring marriage still remedies the fatherless or motherless children in their city, or state.

Once the precedent for "protecting people's rights" is set as to justification for violating federal statutes, decisions or law, you don't get to pick favorites. Some cities may want to protect children in marriage.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Originally marriage contracts never had any provisions for children at all. Children have no rights to parentage beyond support.

Then I suppose in divorce proceedings we can just eliminate the custody issues and the courts continuing that benefit of contact for children of both their mother and father...

Are you serious?

Not true at all. They are implied parties to all marriage contracts. And, those implied benefits do not end in divorce.

Sorry, an argument in a court of law would not lean in the direction of your conclusion. WAY too much circumstantial evidence to support that marriage was invented for children, because of children...to remedy their problem of a missing either a vital/irreplaceable mother or vital/irreplaceable father....and that children therefore are the main beneficiaries of any marriage contract.

Bullshit. Children are not an implied, or an explicit, part of the marriage contract of their parents in any state. Not one. This is nothing more then a comforting lie you tell yourself to justify your anti-gay marriage narrative.

OK everyone, did you get that? Custody isn't an issue, keeping kids in contact with vital mothers and fathers in divorce...where the marriage contract benefits to the de facto parties to it (children) continue DESPITE THE WISHES OF THE ADULTS, OFTEN...

Sorry mdk...way too much previous case law and precedent and circumstantial evidence draws children in bark-tight as beneficiaries (implied parties to) the marriage contract. And you know contracts cannot be revised to onerous terms without all parties having representation at the Table (2015). Especially when those onerous terms affect children as parties to contract...

This one's in the bag. Even your best spin doctors aren't going to convince anyone..not one single person besides your choir (hellbent on harming children) that "marriage isn't and never has been about children".

Children have a right to support. There is no right of a child to contact with any parent. Those are parental rights.

If a child had a right to parental contact how is that right enforced when the parent does not want contact? Hint. It isn't.

 

[Syriusly]

I guess Syriusly likes illegal criminals' "rights" but not children's rights and vital benefits the old marriage contract gave them?

Syriusly is a childaphobe.

Unlike you, I am not constantly starting threads with the sole purpose of trying to harm children.

Remember- preventing a gay couple does not help a single child.

Preventing gay parents with children from marrying harms their children.

You are constantly arguing to harm the children of gays- because you hate gays just that much.

 

[Syriusly]

Originally marriage contracts never had any provisions for children at all. Children have no rights to parentage beyond support.

Then I suppose in divorce proceedings we can just eliminate the custody issues.

In a large portion of divorces there are no custody issues- because there are no children.
And of course unmarried couples with children, who split up have to deal with custody issues also.

The courts only need to get involved with custody issues when:
a) A couple has children and
b) The couple is seperating and
c) They either cannot agree on custody- or do not trust each other to abide by an agreement.

Reaching a Child Custody Agreement out of Court | Lawfirms.com

Of course if marriage was really all about kids, then courts would only grant a divorce if they decided it was in the best interest of the kids. But in most states, divorce is 'no fault' and parents can divorce regardless of the 'best interest' of the children.

 

[Syriusly]

100% guaranteed Syriusly lives in a gated community guarded by armed guards.

100% guaranteed he will never allow an illegal to live in his house. Well, he would need to get permission from his parents, so he may have an excuse there.

100% guaranteed Hollywood will not allow illegals to attend their vanity awards parties.

Once again Owlboy displays his bigotry and ignorance.

I am impressed though that his parents allow him the use of the internet in the basement of the bunker in Idaho.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q WAY too much circumstantial evidence to support that marriage was invented for children,

You keep saying that.

Yet you are never able to provide any of that 'evidence'

Its almost like it is just made up by the voices in your head.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Marriage was invented to secure treaties and agreements as to peace and trade. Marriage protected inheritance rights. Marriage has never been for children.

In primitive cultures children are raised communally without regard as to parentage.

Today no child has a right to a parent. Parents walk out every day. Parents must provide financial support but are never required to give emotional support. Love is not a function of the law.

 

[mdk]

OK everyone, did you get that? Custody isn't an issue, keeping kids in contact with vital mothers and fathers in divorce...where the marriage contract benefits to the de facto parties to it (children) continue DESPITE THE WISHES OF THE ADULTS, OFTEN...

Sorry mdk...way too much previous case law and precedent and circumstantial evidence draws children in bark-tight as beneficiaries (implied parties to) the marriage contract. And you know contracts cannot be revised to onerous terms without all parties having representation at the Table (2015). Especially when those onerous terms affect children as parties to contract...

This one's in the bag. Even your best spin doctors aren't going to convince anyone..not one single person besides your choir (hellbent on harming children) that "marriage isn't and never has been about children".

Pretend all you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that children are not parties to the marriage contract of their parents. The courts can compel a parent to monetarily support the child, but it can't compel the parent to be part of the child's life if the parent doesn't want to be a part of their child's life.

You also like to claim that children didn't have any representation in Obergefell even though hundreds of amicus briefs were filed on behalf of children in support, and in opposition, to gay marriage. These facts don't disappear simply b/c you refuse to acknowledge them.

 

[Silhouette]

Children have a right to support. There is no right of a child to contact with any parent. Those are parental rights.

If a child had a right to parental contact how is that right enforced when the parent does not want contact? Hint. It isn't.

So then children of wolf packs, polygamists, incest and single parents all get the benefits of marriage (via their adults who do); because sometimes they are raised OK in those environments.

That's your logic.

Sanctuary cities may see differently. They may, for instance, read the thousands of studies where the statistics bear out that father/mother marriage is a vital environment for children as the remedy for "gay" or single (missing gender) or polygamy (diluted father) parents. Marriage used to be a remedy. Now it's just a word without meaning to the children who used to derive vital benefits from the contract.. For the well being and safety of children, some cities may become sanctuary cities away from Obergefell. Or whole states can do that.

It would be funny watching the democrats line up to fight that concept... They would have to produce an equal or better amount of studies "proving" that girls don't do any better with a mother or boys don't do any better with a father than their peers who have both.. I'd love to see the APA squirm and trip over their words on that one...Or that children deriving vital benefits from a contract are "not really parties to that contract"...and that that contract's benefits to them can be dissolved without their having representation at that Table...

Obergefell was a mistrial. That decision is toast just as soon as the new crew swears in.. In the mean time, cities and whole states can become sanctuaries for children by refusing to strip them of their rightful benefits of marriage...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You can think whatever you want. Reality is against you.

Children have very few rights.