Bermuda Becomes First Country to Repeal Same-Sex Marriage After Widespread Criticisms

[Silhouette]

If every judge, every lawyer and every ruling doesn't recognize your interpretation, the problem is your interpretation.
Iike, it's wrong.

If every single judge did not invite a counsel to represent a party to a case, it would make that action no less illegal. 1,000 judges could fuck up in this regard and that fuck up would be no less of a fuck up. It's called due process. No judge or vast group of judges in the US can create kangaroo proceedings. Not even by oversight. Not even at the very top of our judicial system. Such mistakes must be overturned and the cases heard properly.

Obergefell itself declared that children were intrinsic to and derived benefits of the marriage contract (declaring they are implicit partners to it). And, children had NO unique representation briefing the courts on the various hearings that weighed taking away either a father or mother for life via a contractual bind.

Once again, what the Infancy Doctrine has to say about children having counsel in weighty civil cases in which they have a stake. Obergefell quotes clearly tie children fast and hard to both the entire concept of marriage and the benefits of the contract which they share and derive:

Here's the quote about what the Infancy Doctrine requires (note both the direct quote and the link provided, and specific time-saving directions to exact quote location within the lengthy document, to double-check veracity):

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(Page 8 of PDF Page 53 of actual document; at the bottom paragraph)

..Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well.

There is nothing more extraordinary to a child or children collectively than a court ratifying a brand new contract they are a part of, that seeks to bind them away for life from either a mother or father (necessities). If that isn't compelling enough, then there is no civil case in which the above quote would apply. (Note the quote says this requirement in civil trials of separate counsel briefing on behalf of children is backed by case law; re: "upheld"...the footnotes in the document linked cite various locations of this case law.)

Your side might have argued properly, if children had counsel briefing, that "mothers or fathers aren't necessities to daughters or sons". And the court may have defied reams of peer-reviewed studies to the contrary in its decision ultimately. But that debate never happened because children had no required counsel at the hearings. Ergo, by the most forgiving definition of a mistrial, those hearings were mistrials.

 

[rightwinger]

Bermuda will have to see how their tourism is this year

Could cost $$$

 

[Silhouette]

Bermuda will have to see how their tourism is this year

Could cost $$$

I'm booking a trip there just because of their bravery and decency and respect for due process. Think Chic Fil-A. Your shrinking group of supporters aren't going to turn the tide. I hope Bermuda has room for a line that's going to form out their door of people wanting to tour there to show their support (and enjoy the kick ass ocean/beaches and serene accommodations!)

 

[rightwinger]

Bermuda will have to see how their tourism is this year

Could cost $$$

I'm booking a trip there just because of their bravery and decency and respect for due process. Think Chic Fil-A. Your shrinking group of supporters aren't going to turn the tide. I hope Bermuda has room for a line that's going to form out their door of people wanting to tour there to show their support (and enjoy the kick ass ocean/beaches and serene accommodations!)

Sure you are

 

[Syriusly]

Who wants to defend their marking of the courts' refusal to include mandatory child counsel briefing as "funny"? Your reasons for making fun of children not having the required representation at the hearings?

Children have no legal standing in divorce proceedings

Why would yet to be born children have legal standing?

Children have guardians ad litem in divorce proceedings. (separate counsel briefing the court on their unique benefits and needs from the marriage proposed to be dissolved) And, the divorce isn't final until the children's needs and vital necessities have been attended to..

Nope- children can have guardians ad litem- it certainly is not required and most children never have them.

And a divorce can be finalized long before the children's 'needs' are attended to.

As always- you are just lying.

 

[Syriusly]

Bermuda will have to see how their tourism is this year

Could cost $$$

I'm booking a trip there just because of their bravery and decency and respect for due process. Think Chic Fil-A. Your shrinking group of supporters aren't going to turn the tide. I hope Bermuda has room for a line that's going to form out their door of people wanting to tour there to show their support (and enjoy the kick ass ocean/beaches and serene accommodations!)

Sure you are.

Just like you reported the parents of the transgender kid to the police......

 

[Syriusly]

If every judge, every lawyer and every ruling doesn't recognize your interpretation, the problem is your interpretation.
Iike, it's wrong.

If every single judge did not invite a counsel to represent a party to a case, it would make that action no less illegal.

Nope.

It is literally impossible for the Supreme Court to make an illegal ruling.

The Supreme Court of course found that
gay couples had the same right to marriage as other couples- in part- because if when they did have children- their children would be harmed by preventing them from marrying.

Why do you want those children harmed?

 

[Syriusly]

no we wouldn't. but that's so funny... same deadender trumsters (32%) oppose gay marriage. but you think you're representative of the majority?

here is reality:

In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%.

Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. And today, support for same-sex marriage is at its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2017, a majority of Americans (62%) support same-sex marriage, while 32% oppose it.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

Remember, polls were dead wrong when it came to predicting the outcome of the presidential election.

no, they weren't. she got the national vote predicted by the polls.

and there was no reason for the polls to contemplate the possibility of comey making his bizarre statement 10 days before the election.

but nice try. I'm always amused when trumptards play that card and the "fake news" card.

Baloney. Polls predicted a landslide victory for Clinton, and the pollsters are still scratching their heads as to what went wrong. But let's not derail this thread. I think the levels of American support for gay marriage sited in that poll is greatly exaggerated, for the same reasons the presidential polls were wrong. 1. they weren't polling a diverse group 2. people were scared to answer honestly

So why are you scared to answer that question honestly?

 

[Syriusly]

On what basis do you imagine yourself being such a fine legal scholar, more than all the judges and lawyers?

The ability to read. Obergefell said children share benefits of the marriage contract. n.

No- that is not what Obergefell said- once again quoting the actual language of Obergefell:

Citing Obergefell:
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. 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


As always- you are just lying.

Just want to point out- Silhouette studiously avoids responding to my posts where I cite the actual language of 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

 

[Silhouette]

If the USSC held a hearing and did not invite one of the parties to have counsel present and briefing, that hearing most certainly would be illegal and outside due process. NOBODY in the US is outside the law. Not even USSC.

 

[Silhouette]

If every judge, every lawyer and every ruling doesn't recognize your interpretation, the problem is your interpretation.
Iike, it's wrong.

If every single judge did not invite a counsel to represent a party to a case, it would make that action no less illegal. 1,000 judges could fuck up in this regard and that fuck up would be no less of a fuck up. It's called due process. No judge or vast group of judges in the US can create kangaroo proceedings. Not even by oversight. Not even at the very top of our judicial system. Such mistakes must be overturned and the cases heard properly.

Obergefell itself declared that children were intrinsic to and derived benefits of the marriage contract (declaring they are implicit partners to it). And, children had NO unique representation briefing the courts on the various hearings that weighed taking away either a father or mother for life via a contractual bind.

Once again, what the Infancy Doctrine has to say about children having counsel in weighty civil cases in which they have a stake. Obergefell quotes clearly tie children fast and hard to both the entire concept of marriage and the benefits of the contract which they share and derive:

Here's the quote about what the Infancy Doctrine requires (note both the direct quote and the link provided, and specific time-saving directions to exact quote location within the lengthy document, to double-check veracity):

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(Page 8 of PDF Page 53 of actual document; at the bottom paragraph)

..Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well.

There is nothing more extraordinary to a child or children collectively than a court ratifying a brand new contract they are a part of, that seeks to bind them away for life from either a mother or father (necessities). If that isn't compelling enough, then there is no civil case in which the above quote would apply. (Note the quote says this requirement in civil trials of separate counsel briefing on behalf of children is backed by case law; re: "upheld"...the footnotes in the document linked cite various locations of this case law.)

Your side might have argued properly, if children had counsel briefing, that "mothers or fathers aren't necessities to daughters or sons". And the court may have defied reams of peer-reviewed studies to the contrary in its decision ultimately. But that debate never happened because children had no required counsel at the hearings. Ergo, by the most forgiving definition of a mistrial, those hearings were mistrials.

Sure you are.

Just like you reported the parents of the transgender kid to the police......

I reported the boy being abused in CA to the DOJ, not the police who obviously will not act on his behalf in the state that panders to child abuse. But that's off topic. Care to stay on topic (see above) and not spam?

 

[AZGAL]

Surely missing from all the modern day discussion of marriage is both the benefits and/or harms to WOMEN. iN ADDITION, THE SYMBOL OF THE WEDDING CAKE is the innocence and fertility of the BRIDE aka WOMAN.

 

[impuretrash]

So why are you scared to answer that question honestly?

I'm not. I think legalizing gay marriage legitimizes degeneracy, unfortunately the framers of our constitution never envisioned this country becoming so depraved that the document would be used to justify hedonism.

 

[Syriusly]

So why are you scared to answer that question honestly?

I'm not. I think legalizing gay marriage legitimizes degeneracy, unfortunately the framers of our constitution never envisioned this country becoming so depraved that the document would be used to justify hedonism.

So you are okay with harming children- in order to prevent the 'legitimacy of degenceracy'.

Fascinating.

 

[Syriusly]

If every judge, every lawyer and every ruling doesn't recognize your interpretation, the problem is your interpretation.
Iike, it's wrong.

If every single judge did not invite a counsel to represent a party to a case, it would make that action no less illegal. 1,000 judges could fuck up in this regard and that fuck up would be no less of a fuck up. It's called due process. No judge or vast group of judges in the US can create kangaroo proceedings. Not even by oversight. Not even at the very top of our judicial system. Such mistakes must be overturned and the cases heard properly.

Obergefell itself declared that children were intrinsic to and derived benefits of the marriage contract (declaring they are implicit partners to it). And, children had NO unique representation briefing the courts on the various hearings that weighed taking away either a father or mother for life via a contractual bind.

Once again, what the Infancy Doctrine has to say about children having counsel in weighty civil cases in which they have a stake. Obergefell quotes clearly tie children fast and hard to both the entire concept of marriage and the benefits of the contract which they share and derive:

Here's the quote about what the Infancy Doctrine requires (note both the direct quote and the link provided, and specific time-saving directions to exact quote location within the lengthy document, to double-check veracity):

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(Page 8 of PDF Page 53 of actual document; at the bottom paragraph)

..Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well.

There is nothing more extraordinary to a child or children collectively than a court ratifying a brand new contract they are a part of, that seeks to bind them away for life from either a mother or father (necessities). If that isn't compelling enough, then there is no civil case in which the above quote would apply. (Note the quote says this requirement in civil trials of separate counsel briefing on behalf of children is backed by case law; re: "upheld"...the footnotes in the document linked cite various locations of this case law.)

Your side might have argued properly, if children had counsel briefing, that "mothers or fathers aren't necessities to daughters or sons". And the court may have defied reams of peer-reviewed studies to the contrary in its decision ultimately. But that debate never happened because children had no required counsel at the hearings. Ergo, by the most forgiving definition of a mistrial, those hearings were mistrials.

Sure you are.

Just like you reported the parents of the transgender kid to the police......

I reported the boy being abused in CA to the DOJ, not the police who obviously will not act on his behalf in the state that panders to child abuse. But that's off topic. Care to stay on topic (see above) and not spam?

Sure you did.......

LOL- every time you discuss Obergefell in regards to Bermuda you are off topic for this thread.

 

[Syriusly]

If every judge, every lawyer and every ruling doesn't recognize your interpretation, the problem is your interpretation.
Iike, it's wrong.

If every single judge did not invite a counsel to represent a party to a case, it would make that action no less illegal.

Obergefell itself declared that children were intrinsic to and derived benefits of the marriage contract

Just because the voices in your head keep telling you this doesn't make either true.

Here is what Obergefell actually says:

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

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

If the USSC held a hearing and did not invite one of the parties to have counsel present and briefing, that hearing most certainly would be illegal and outside due process. NOBODY in the US is outside the law. Not even USSC.

According to whom would it be 'illegal'?

What court would prosecute that violation of the law- exactly?

As I said- it is literally impossible for a Supreme Court decision to be illegal.

 

[impuretrash]

So why are you scared to answer that question honestly?

I'm not. I think legalizing gay marriage legitimizes degeneracy, unfortunately the framers of our constitution never envisioned this country becoming so depraved that the document would be used to justify hedonism.

So you are okay with harming children- in order to prevent the 'legitimacy of degenceracy'.

Fascinating.

I don't see how the lack of a federal mandate legalizing gay marriage harms kids. From my perspective, it only causes harm to society which inevitably causes harm on kids. No way should two gay guys ever have the right to adopt a child, because they'll probably rape him. I'm less concerned about lesbian parents.. they probably won't molest the kid, but more likely indoctrinate him to hate men or convince him that he's transgender.

 

[Syriusly]

So why are you scared to answer that question honestly?

I'm not. I think legalizing gay marriage legitimizes degeneracy, unfortunately the framers of our constitution never envisioned this country becoming so depraved that the document would be used to justify hedonism.

So you are okay with harming children- in order to prevent the 'legitimacy of degenceracy'.

Fascinating.

I don't see how the lack of a federal mandate legalizing gay marriage harms kids. From my perspective, it only causes harm to society which inevitably causes harm on kids. No way should two gay guys ever have the right to adopt a child, because they'll probably rape him. I'm less concerned about lesbian parents.. they probably won't molest the kid, but more likely indoctrinate him to hate men or convince him that he's transgender.

So why do you think that men are usually rapists?

I mean I do agree- if you look at rape statistics it is certainly a male issue.

If we were really concerned about sexual assault and adoptive kids- well then of course the preference would be two lesbians- since women have a much lower rape of sexual assault than men.

So it would be like this in order of preference:
2 women
1 woman
1 man, 1 woman
1 man
2 men

If of course the concern was sexual safety.

I think that there certainly could be an argument made that men should not be allowed to adopt- based upon rape statistics.

 

[impuretrash]

So why do you think that men are usually rapists?

I mean I do agree- if you look at rape statistics it is certainly a male issue.

If we were really concerned about sexual assault and adoptive kids- well then of course the preference would be two lesbians- since women have a much lower rape of sexual assault than men.

So it would be like this in order of preference:
2 women
1 woman
1 man, 1 woman
1 man
2 men

If of course the concern was sexual safety.

I think that there certainly could be an argument made that men should not be allowed to adopt- based upon rape statistics.

Because human beings are animals, and even though we have big brains we are still driven by primal behaviors rooted in biology. Of course men are more likely to commit rape and every other act of violence..men and women are different... Family court almost always sides with the mother when it comes to custody hearings and for good reason although sometimes it's not always in the child's best interest and good fathers get the shaft. An ideal family unit will always be a man and a woman. Second best would be single mother, 3rd best would be single father. Lesbian parents a distant fourth and homosexuals pretty much out of the question especially for adoptions.