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

[Syriusly]

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.

LOL of course the 'single father' in your mind would be better than two women.

Which just shows that rape is not your real issue- it is gay on the brain.

 

[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.

LOL of course the 'single father' in your mind would be better than two women.

Which just shows that rape is not your real issue- it is gay on the brain.

Umm...if we're talking biological father and the mother is out of the picture for some reason then yeah, the child should be placed in his father's care. On the other hand if we're talking about a single male who wants to adopt, well that seems a bit unusual and would definitely warrant extra vigilance on the part of the authorities. Not to say that single men should't be allowed to adopt but I think it would be reasonable to scrutinize them more than a single woman.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Yes, you mean like this: Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl

 

[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.

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.

Are you saying that courts can invent whether or not parties to a case can have counsel briefing hearings or not, at their whim?

 

[Silhouette]

Parties

The persons who are directly involved or interested in any act, affair, contract, transaction, or legal proceeding; opposing litigants.......Persons who enter into a contract or other transactions are considered parties to the agreement. When a dispute results in litigation, the litigants are called parties to the lawsuit. U.S. law has developed principles that govern the rights and duties of parties. In addition, principles such as the standing doctrine determine whether a person is a rightful party to a lawsuit. Also, additional parties may be added to legal proceedings once litigation has begun. Parties

Obergefell, (page 15 of Opinion) Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

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, there it is. Obergefell announces that the marriage contract involves children (as parties) and provides "profound" benefits directly to just them.

(Obergefell, in complete blind judicial irony, just immediately after the quote above vv)

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5.

Actually, for all parties to agree, they would have had to have representation briefing the Courts all along the way saying so. Such was not the case. In fact, the most important parties to the marriage contract were never, to my knowledge, invited to have their own unique representation briefing any court on any of these marriage/adoption type cases since they began. That is in direct violation of the Infancy Doctrine's protection for children deriving benefits or necessities from contracts they share with adults.

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.

 

[mdk]

Parties

The persons who are directly involved or interested in any act, affair, contract, transaction, or legal proceeding; opposing litigants.......Persons who enter into a contract or other transactions are considered parties to the agreement. When a dispute results in litigation, the litigants are called parties to the lawsuit. U.S. law has developed principles that govern the rights and duties of parties. In addition, principles such as the standing doctrine determine whether a person is a rightful party to a lawsuit. Also, additional parties may be added to legal proceedings once litigation has begun. Parties

Obergefell, (page 15 of Opinion) Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

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, there it is. Obergefell announces that the marriage contract involves children and provides "profound" benefits directly to just them.

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5.

Actually, for all parties to agree, they would have had to have representation briefing the Courts all along the way saying so. Such was not the case. In fact, the most important parties to the marriage contract were never, to my knowledge, invited to have their own unique representation briefing any court on any of these marriage/adoption type cases since they began. That is in direct violation of the Infancy Doctrine's protection for children deriving benefits or necessities from contracts they share with adults.

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.

Either all of these lawyers and jurists in these case are incompetent or you don’t know what you’re talking about. Guess which is more likely?

 

[Silhouette]

Either all of these lawyers and jurists in these case are incompetent or you don’t know what you’re talking about. Guess which is more likely?

Either courts must have all relevant parties having counsel at hearings briefing the court or they don't. Guess which is more likely? Fuck-ups repeated are not suddenly legit by numbers.

 

[mdk]

Either all of these lawyers and jurists in these case are incompetent or you don’t know what you’re talking about. Guess which is more likely?

Either courts must have all relevant parties having counsel at hearings briefing the court or they don't. Guess which is more likely? Fuck-ups repeated are not suddenly legit by numbers.

Yup, all the jurists got it wrong. They should have consulted the imagination of a horse breeder from California instead. lol

 

[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.

Are you saying that courts can invent whether or not parties to a case can have counsel briefing hearings or not, at their whim?

I am saying that the Supreme Court rulings are final.

There is no court that can rule that a Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional. There is no court that can say that a Supreme Court ruling was improper.
There is no court that can overturn a Supreme Court ruling- other than the Supreme Court itself.

There have been two Supreme Court rulings that almost everyone agrees were horrible, horrible unconstitutional rulings- the Dred Scott decision, and the ruling that the Japanese internments were 'constitutional'.

Yet- neither ruling was ever found legally not applicable. In the case of Dred Scott, we passed a Constitutional Amendment to change our Constitution. We have never done anything regarding the Japanese internment case.

Your always bizarre claims that the Supreme Court rulings are 'mistrials' are legally literally impossible.

 

[Syriusly]

Either all of these lawyers and jurists in these case are incompetent or you don’t know what you’re talking about. Guess which is more likely?

Either courts must have all relevant parties having counsel at hearings briefing the court or they don't. Guess which is more likely? Fuck-ups repeated are not suddenly legit by numbers.

What is more likely is that you are just delusional - and that your claims have nothing to do with reality- legal or otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

Parties

The persons who are directly involved or interested in any act, affair, contract, transaction, or legal proceeding; opposing litigants.......Persons who enter into a contract or other transactions are considered parties to the agreement. When a dispute results in litigation, the litigants are called parties to the lawsuit. U.S. law has developed principles that govern the rights and duties of parties. In addition, principles such as the standing doctrine determine whether a person is a rightful party to a lawsuit. Also, additional parties may be added to legal proceedings once litigation has begun. Parties

Obergefell, (page 15 of Opinion) Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

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, there it is. Obergefell announces that the marriage contract involves children (as parties) and provides "profound" benefits directly to just them.

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5.

e]

Odd isn't it- how Silhouette conveniently edits things- to omit the actual facts that directly refute her claims?

First she lies about what Obergefell says- and then she leaves out where Obergefell directly says she is wrong- and what she argues for harms children

Quoting Obergefell again

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

I do not know how Silhouette can be more either delusional- or lying- when Obergefell declares flat out that denying gay marriage harms their children- when she then cites Obergefell in her efforts to harm children.

 

[Silhouette]

The important quotes to remember re: Obergefell & my points are not the ones affirming adults as parties to the marriage contract. They are the quotes affirming kids as direct & important parties to the contract.

Adults had counsel briefing the courts on the proposed changes. Kids didn't. So, mistrial. All parties to a case are required to have counsel briefing.

 

[Silhouette]

Either all of these lawyers and jurists in these case are incompetent or you don’t know what you’re talking about. Guess which is more likely?

Either courts must have all relevant parties having counsel at hearings briefing the court or they don't. Guess which is more likely? Fuck-ups repeated are not suddenly legit by numbers.

What is more likely is that you are just delusional - and that your claims have nothing to do with reality- legal or otherwise.

I'll ask this again: Do you believe that a unique party to a case must have counsel separately briefing the court or not?

 

[Silhouette]

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

No, actually not.

An official act in Bermuda rolled back "gay marriage" there. An official act can roll it back here too. That act in our case would be a survey of the various court hearings on gay marriage from the bottom up to see if children had separate counsel briefing on their behalf in each instance. Because you see, Obergefell announced that marriage contracts impart direct benefits to children, indeed "necessities". So Obergefell declared that all along, children have been implicit parties to marriage contracts. All parties to a case with unique interests (such as for instance, retaining age old benefits of BOTH mother and father from the marriage contract) are required..."shall"...not "may"...have counsel briefing the court.

This never happened in the US on any of these cases. So each and every one is a mistrial.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Our superiors. Those who are neither black, nor women, nor gay, nor muslim, but defend them all as though they were one. The poor dears deserve it because your heart is in helping the downtrodden. Your cause are those you think of as your inferiors. They need your help.

In this case, the lowly gays seek your assistance. You need to up your game. For them.

So my people are "our superiors"? Which are "my inferiors? Wtf are you talking about? I think YOU need help.

You people are our superiors. We are your inferiors. We need your help. You are none of the things for which you argue so stridently. Are you black? A woman? Gay? muslim?

I don't fight for blacks or muslims.

Only gays and women are your inferiors. They need your assistance.

Why are gays and women my inferiors?

They need your protection.

 

[Aba Incieni]

.

 

[Taz]

So my people are "our superiors"? Which are "my inferiors? Wtf are you talking about? I think YOU need help.

You people are our superiors. We are your inferiors. We need your help. You are none of the things for which you argue so stridently. Are you black? A woman? Gay? muslim?

I don't fight for blacks or muslims.

Only gays and women are your inferiors. They need your assistance.

Why are gays and women my inferiors?

They need your protection.

And I'm doing what I can

 

[Syriusly]

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

No, actually not.

An official act in Bermuda rolled back "gay marriage" there. .

And that is why every reference you make to Obergefell is off topic in this thread.

But hey- its not as if this is the first thread of yours that you have derailed and then whined when people post rebuttals you don't like.

 

[Syriusly]

The important quotes to remember re: Obergefell & my points are not the ones affirming adults as parties to the marriage contract. They are the quotes affirming kids as direct & important parties to the contract..

Obergefell specifically contradicts your fantasy claims

Quoting Obergefell again

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

I do not know how Silhouette can be more either delusional- or lying- when Obergefell declares flat out that denying gay marriage harms their children- when she then cites Obergefell in her efforts to harm children.

 

[Syriusly]

Either all of these lawyers and jurists in these case are incompetent or you don’t know what you’re talking about. Guess which is more likely?

Either courts must have all relevant parties having counsel at hearings briefing the court or they don't. Guess which is more likely? Fuck-ups repeated are not suddenly legit by numbers.

What is more likely is that you are just delusional - and that your claims have nothing to do with reality- legal or otherwise.

I'll ask this again: Do you believe that a unique party to a case must have counsel separately briefing the court or not?

Ask away- an imaginary person is not a party to marriage- and that is what you are claiming.

Obergefell is very clear:
One of the many reasons why laws preventing gay marriage are unconstitutional is because those laws harm any children that they have- Obergefell does not make children a partner in a marriage- not ever.

Obergefell says that preventing marriage- harms the children gay couples have.

Why do you want to harm children?