Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

[Silhouette]

"Silhouette vs the 50 States of the United States of America"

First read this: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

In short, New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) Found that an adult may not exercise a civil right if it results in the physical or psychological harm to a child. "Psychological harm" is identical to "mental injury". Gay marriage contractually-deprives children of either a mother or father for life. Such an act creates mental injury to children.

Some may disagree, but this is the point of contention. Further, if an allegation is made (I am making it today, in public) that depriving a child of either a mother or father for life as a legal-bind is "abuse"..states do not enjoy the luxury of sitting on their hands. The law is clear. It COMPELS states to investigate and get to the bottom of that claim of abuse without prejudice as to the outcome of such an investigation. Each state is compelled by my alleging of child abuse to do a thorough investigation and print a public report on the results of that detailed investigation for public viewing on "whether or not contractually-depriving a child for life of either a mother or father can be mentally abusive".

So says the law.

Then this: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg4.pdf

PUBLIC LAW 93-247 - Jan. 31, 1974

[Page 5]
Sec. 3. For purposes of this Act the term "child abuse and neglect" means the physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, negligent treatment, or maltreatment of a child under the age of eighteen by a person who is responsible for the child's welfare under circumstances which indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or threatened thereby, as determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

[Page 6]

(b) (1) Of the sums appropriated under this Act for any fiscal year, not less than 5 per centum and not more than 20 per centum may be used by the Secretary for making grants to the States for the payment of reasonable and necessary expenses for the purpose of assisting the States in developing, strengthening, and carrying out child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs.

(2)In order for a State to qualify for assistance under this subsection, such State shall--
(A) have in effect a State child abuse and neglect law which shall include provisions for immunity for persons reporting instances of child abuse and neglect from prosecution, under any State or local law, arising out of such reporting;

(B) provide for the reporting of known and suspected instances of child abuse and neglect;

(C) provide that upon receipt of a report of known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect an investigation shall be initiated promptly to substantiate the accuracy of the report, and, upon finding of abuse or neglect, immediate steps shall be taken to protect the health and welfare of the abused or neglected child, as well as that of any other child under the same care who may be in danger of abuse or neglect;

(D) demonstrate that there are in effect throughout the State, in connection with the enforcement of child abuse and neglect laws and with the reporting of suspected instances of child abuse and neglect, such administrative procedures, such personnel trained in child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment, such training procedures, such institutional and other facilities (public and private), and such related multidisciplinary programs and services as may be necessary or appropriate to assure that the State will deal effectively with child abuse and neglect cases in the State;

(E) provide for methods to preserve the confidentiality of all records in order to protect the rights of the child, his parents or guardians;

(F) provide for the cooperation of law enforcement officials, courts of competent jurisdiction, and appropriate State agencies providing human services;

(G) provide that in every case involving an abused or neglected child which results in a judicial proceeding a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to represent the child in such proceedings;

(H) provide that the aggregate of support for programs or projects related to child abuse and neglect assisted by State funds shall not be reduced below the level provided during fiscal year 1973, and set forth policies and procedures designed to assure that Federal funds made available under this Act for any fiscal year will be so used as to supplement and, to the extent practicable, increase the level of State funds which would, in the absence of Federal funds, be available for such programs and projects;

(I) provide for dissemination of information to the general public with respect to the problem of child abuse and neglect and the facilities and prevention and treatment methods available to combat instances of child abuse and neglect; and

(J) to the extent feasible; insure that parental organizations combating child abuse and neglect receive preferential treatment.

*******

Note: in (2) (G) no guardian ad litem was appointed in Obergefell to represent children's unique interests (mother/father) in the marriage contract.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States."

Clearly bigots hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans feel obligated to start ridiculous troll threads.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Gay marriage is legal and will stay legal and there is nothing you can do about it. This is why the Republican Party has become an antiquated party and can't attract younger voters. Your party is geared towards the Baby Boomers who thankfully are now slowly dying out.

 

[daws101]

The op's sick obsession continues.

 

[Silhouette]

The op's sick obsession continues.

You know...you could be right.. My insisting children have both a mother and father could be just a "sick obsession". Let's test it under investigation and prosecution in the courts to see if it's just me or there's actual child abuse going on. See OP for mandates on investigating (2) (C)...

 

[daws101]

The op's sick obsession continues.

You know...you could be right.. My insisting children have both a mother and father could be just a "sick obsession". Let's test it under investigation and prosecution in the courts to see if it's just me or there's actual child abuse going on. See OP for mandates on investigating (2) (C)...

Way to prove my point.

 

[guno]

The op's sick obsession continues.

his religious statues compels him to do it

 

[Silhouette]

The op's sick obsession continues.

You know...you could be right.. My insisting children have both a mother and father could be just a "sick obsession". Let's test it under investigation and prosecution in the courts to see if it's just me or there's actual child abuse going on. See OP for mandates on investigating (2) (C)...

Way to prove my point.

Was your point to push this issue into a court of law? If so, I "proved your point"...lol..

 

[Skylar]

Thread 52 on the same topic. Each with dozens, if not hundreds of pages of your obsessive, pseudo-legal gibberish. Along with a website you've created, dedicatd to the topic where you offer long, disjointed rants about homosexuals and beg for donations to fight them. And your own message board on yuku where you're the only participant in the 29 threads you've created on the topic of gays......

....where you only talk to yourself.

Sigh.....do any of us even need to be here for this meltdown, Sil?

 

[mdk]

The op's sick obsession continues.

You know...you could be right.. My insisting children have both a mother and father could be just a "sick obsession". Let's test it under investigation and prosecution in the courts to see if it's just me or there's actual child abuse going on. See OP for mandates on investigating (2) (C)...

Unless they are single and hope is all that matters.

Cute spam thread, though.

 

[daws101]

The op's sick obsession continues.

You know...you could be right.. My insisting children have both a mother and father could be just a "sick obsession". Let's test it under investigation and prosecution in the courts to see if it's just me or there's actual child abuse going on. See OP for mandates on investigating (2) (C)...

Way to prove my point.

Was your point to push this issue into a court of law? If so, I "proved your point"...lol..

There you go again. The ignorance of obsession .

 

[mdk]

This thread should be renamed: "Sil delusions vs. Reality.

 

[Skylar]

"Silhouette vs the 50 States of the United States of America"

First read this: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Ferber never even mentions marriage nor finds that same sex marriage causes any child any harm. You do. Citing yourself.

The Supreme Court contradicts you repeatedly, finding first that denying same sex marriage hurts children

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives...

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

And again in Obergefell;

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

And also finding that same sex marriage is beneficial to children:

Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests.

So you've ignored the explicit findings of the Supreme Court on the effect of same sex marriage on children and made up your own. Then laughably insist that the law and the courts are bound to your imagination and must ignore the Supreme Court.

Um, no. The courts are under no such obligation. As your imagination is legally meaningless. Worse, you ignoring the Supreme Court isn't a legal argument.

Note: in (2) (G) no guardian ad litem was appointed in Obergefell to represent children's unique interests (mother/father) in the marriage contract.

Oi. You really don't know how guardian ad litem work, do you?

They are assigned by a judge to represent a specific child in a court hearing like a divorce. Not 'all children', as you're insisting be done. No Supreme Court has ever assigned one for any hearing in the court's history. Nor is there any requirement to do so. You made all that up.

Nor has any court or law ever found that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children. You made that up too. With the Supreme Court explicitly finding that the right to marry isn't dependent on children:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Killing your argument yet again. Your entire argument is ignoring the explicitly findings of the Supreme Court and then pretending their findings don't exist.

SIl, that's not a legal argument.

There is a reason why every legal prediction you've ever made, every prediction on the outcome of a case, a court ruling, a legal basis, a stay, every single one has been wrong. Without exception. Your record of failure in predicting legal outcomes is perfect;

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And can't distinguish between your imagination and the actual law.

 

[Syriusly]

The op's sick obsession continues.

You know...you could be right.. My insisting children have both a mother and father could be just a "sick obsession".

Millions of children have either no mother or no father in their lives- thousands have neither.

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

 

[Silhouette]

Millions of children have either no mother or no father in their lives- thousands have neither.

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

Single parents aren't contractually binding children away from a mother or father for life, without the possibility of parole. Gay people who sign a marriage contract ARE binding children away from a mother or father for life. The contract can't contain terms that impose mental harm to children with their having no chance of escape.

It's quite simple.

 

[Skylar]

Millions of children have either no mother or no father in their lives- thousands have neither.

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

Single parents aren't contractually binding children away from a mother or father for life, without the possibility of parole. Gay people who sign a marriage contract ARE binding children away from a mother or father for life.

Save of course that all your babble about a marriage of parents creating a minor contract for children is just pseudo-legal nonsense. No law nor court has ever recognized such gibberish. Nor have any of the legal sources you've presented ever backed the claim.

Its just you, citing your imagination. And that's not a legal argument.

Remember, you don't know a thing about contract law.

The contract can't contain terms that impose mental harm to children with their having no chance of escape.

It's quite simple.

What's quite simple is that you're ignoring the explicit findings of the Supreme Court and replacing them with your imagination. And then laughably insisting that the law and courts are bound to your imagination.

Um, no. They're not. As same sex marriage being performed in 50 of 50 states demonstrates elegantly.

 

[Syriusly]

Millions of children have either no mother or no father in their lives- thousands have neither.

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

Single parents e.

Are doing the exact same thing you claim same gender parents are doing- raising a child without a parent of the opposite gender.

So Silhouette- once again- millions of child have either no mother or father in their lives

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

 

[Skylar]

Millions of children have either no mother or no father in their lives- thousands have neither.

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

Single parents e.

Are doing the exact same thing you claim same gender parents are doing- raising a child without a parent of the opposite gender.

So Silhouette- once again- millions of child have either no mother or father in their lives

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

Sil was a single parent. So clearly her standards don't apply to them.

 

[Syriusly]

Millions of children have either no mother or no father in their lives- thousands have neither.

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

Single parents e.

Are doing the exact same thing you claim same gender parents are doing- raising a child without a parent of the opposite gender.

So Silhouette- once again- millions of child have either no mother or father in their lives

Exactly how will you insist that the children of single parents get that missing mother or father?

Sil was a single parent. So clearly her standards don't apply to them.

You mean the state didn't require her to remarry for the children's sake- or presuming she was ever married- prevent her from divorcing- because 'contractual law' wouldn't allow that?

 

[mdk]

As of today...

50 states: 1

Silhouette: 0

Better luck tomorrow~