Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

[Silhouette]

Helpful links:
(These studies date from WAAAAAAAAAAY back in 2006-2011 so naturally the empirical data has completely fundamentally changed since then into the far off "future" of today (cusp of 2018)

But here you go anyway:
Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
The Importance of Fathers
fatherhood.pdf

An excerpt from the Psychology Today 2011 article:

*******
What does the research say these days? According to a report in "Fathers and Their Impact on Children's Well-Being":
"Even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections.

The way fathers play with their children also has an important impact on a child's emotional and social development. Fathers spend a higher percentage of their one-to-one interactions with infants and preschoolers in stimulating, playful activity than do mothers. From these interactions, children learn how to regulate their feelings and behavior.

Children with involved, caring fathers have better educational outcomes. The influence of a father's involvement extends into adolescence and young adulthood. Numerous studies find that an active and nurturing style of fathering is associated with better verbal skills, intellectual functioning, and academic achievement among adolescents."
(www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/fatherhood.pdf)
*********

What we have going on today is a legal challenge in Michigan where two lesbians are suing faith-based adoption agencies and others to force them to adopt children to them. Naturally upon any win it would let gay men force the same agencies to adopt little boys (and girls) out to them as well.

Will we inadvertently, by handing these lesbians a win, by legislating the importance of both fathers and mothers in marriage out of children's lives? We've seen how the LGBT machine has been progressing forward craftily and incrementally using absurd quantum-jump precedents. First it was Lawrence v Texas where gay acts in PRIVATE were decriminalized. Then for some reason Loving v Virginia (about interracial marriage) was cited as a reason to take those private acts of sodomy and make them OK to be PUBLIC by (wrongly) declaring behaviors = race, (the Judicial Branch rewriting the 14th Amendment fundamentally outside their power to do so). Once that was sealed, that was used as a jumping off point for 2015 to bring us Obergefell (forced gay marriage against states' wishes and overturning in just two years Windsor 2013 which said it was up to the states to decide). From there we now have Dumont vs Lyon in Michigan seeking to set the precedent of "fathers (or mothers..later) aren't important in marriage when it comes to qualifying for adoption".

I'll leave you folks with this link to ponder how a contract that bans children for life from either a mother or father is illegal and harmful. The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

Discuss the final chance you have to take back your power to regulate the social milieu in which you and your community will be forced to live with forever, if you sit back and act like "this case doesn't matter either, just let the gays have whatever they want.." Your future will be the bed you made and have to lie in. Get active. Weigh in on the Dumont vs Lyon's case. Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

If you want to cross your fingers and hope that just a religious argument will win Dumont vs Lyons, good luck. Where waffling and illegal precedents will be cited by lazy judges who have given up in apathy or are actively stumping for the LGBT cult (either one just as deadly), to defeat religious objections...because nobody is really into religions these days anyways, these same judges might sit up in their chair if they were forced to recognize that banning children for life using a contract is an institutionalized form of child abuse. Where maybe 25% of Americans would become upset that religions take a back seat to the LGBT cult, I can promise you at least 85% of people would be outraged at the idea of institutionalized (contractual) collective children's suffering taking a back seat to the LGBT cult.

Did you know that if you're aware child abuse is happening or pending, you are required by law to act and if you don't you can go to jail? That goes for judges as well.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the Dumont v Lyon complaint: Dumont v. Lyon Complaint | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution | Foster Care

And an excerpt: (religious defense beware...)

...private agencies and pays them with taxpayer dollars. In other words, private agencies performing a public function with taxpayer dollars and under contract with the State cannot perform actions that would be unconstitutional if performed directly by the State. 10.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment bars the State from providing or refusing to provide government services, such as the care of children in the foster care system, based on religious criteria. The Establishment Clause also prohibits the State from delegating a government function to religious organizations and then allowing those organizations to perform that government function pursuant to religious criteria...

So anyone so inclined to write an amicus brief to the court in the appropriate timing (these briefs have a very tight schedule to be submitted, failure to do so would judicially-legislate fathers (or mothers) into contractual irrelevance on a technicality), should address flaws in the petitioner's submission OUTSIDE religious considerations. See link in the OP for the "Gay marriage vs children's rights...".

 

[Silhouette]

Another excerpt from Dumont v Lyons:

-5-
13.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seek declaratory and injunctive relief directing officials of DHHS and its sub-agency, the Children’s Services Agency (“CSA”), to ensure that private child placing agencies that are contracted by the State and funded with tax dollars to provide adoption and foster care services to children, do not turn away same-sex couples or other potentially qualified families based on religious eligibility criteria.

Agreed. If they receive money from the state to act as a public-adoption agency, they will lose this case. So instead, let their argument be secular and about banning children from either a mother or father for life using a contract: NOBODY (including a judge) is legally-allowed (Infancy Doctrine, see link in OP to "gay marriage vs children...) to use or participate in enforcing or enhancing a contract that strips a child for life of a necessity vital to their best well being.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL Silhouette is spamming her own thread!

 

[Syriusly]

Here's the Dumont v Lyon complaint: Dumont v. Lyon Complaint | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution | Foster Care

And an excerpt: (religious defense beware...)

...private agencies and pays them with taxpayer dollars. In other words, private agencies performing a public function with taxpayer dollars and under contract with the State cannot perform actions that would be unconstitutional if performed directly by the State. 10.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment bars the State from providing or refusing to provide government services, such as the care of children in the foster care system, based on religious criteria. The Establishment Clause also prohibits the State from delegating a government function to religious organizations and then allowing those organizations to perform that government function pursuant to religious criteria...

So anyone so inclined to write an amicus brief to the court in the appropriate timing (these briefs have a very tight schedule to be submitted, failure to do so would judicially-legislate fathers (or mothers) into contractual irrelevance on a technicality), should address flaws in the petitioner's submission OUTSIDE religious considerations. See link in the OP for the "Gay marriage vs children's rights...".

Oh please do.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Another excerpt from Dumont v Lyons:

-5-
13.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seek declaratory and injunctive relief directing officials of DHHS and its sub-agency, the Children’s Services Agency (“CSA”), to ensure that private child placing agencies that are contracted by the State and funded with tax dollars to provide adoption and foster care services to children, do not turn away same-sex couples or other potentially qualified families based on religious eligibility criteria.

Agreed. If they receive money from the state to act as a public-adoption agency, they will lose this case. So instead, let their argument be secular and about banning children from either a mother or father for life using a contract: NOBODY (including a judge) is legally-allowed (Infancy Doctrine, see link in OP to "gay marriage vs children...) to use or participate in enforcing or enhancing a contract that strips a child for life of a necessity vital to their best well being.

The adoption contract provides parents for children without parents.

You prefer that children remain without ANY parents- rather than be adopted by 2 gay parents.

And of course that is the thinking that the plaintiffs oppose.

They want children to have parents.

 

[ScienceRocks]

no,,,

Just that people of the same sex will be able to adopt kids. That is ok in my opinion.

 

[Silhouette]

no,,,

Just that people of the same sex will be able to adopt kids. That is ok in my opinion.

So fathers (& mothers) are contractually irrelevant now where kids are concerned? Not talking about lesbians who had children out of wedlock and then "got married" (banning those children for life from a father using a contract). I'm talking about lesbians seeking to con-scribe new children not currently present in that arrangement into the same father-ban-for-life.

 

[Syriusly]

no,,,

Just that people of the same sex will be able to adopt kids. That is ok in my opinion.

So fathers (& mothers) are contractually irrelevant now where kids are concerned? .

Actually parents are very relevant to the kids who have been abandoned by their actual mothers and fathers- and are looking for forever parents.

Why do you prefer children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

 

[Silhouette]

Actually parents are very relevant to the kids who have been abandoned by their actual mothers and fathers- and are looking for forever parents.

Why do you prefer children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

Why not also five married parents under contract together? Surely polygamy would beat all in your "it's about the number not the type of parents" argument? Five loving polygamous married parents. Why not? Because even you have said that arrangement "wouldn't be good for the kids". And only citing your prejudices against polygamists when you did; using stereotyped negative examples.

At least polygamists offer both mother & father to kids. So you see, your "other than" marriage contract/ adoption in alternatives has flaws where it is not one man/one woman. And, two lesbians under contract ban children involved from a father for life. Such a contract cannot be used to qualify for adoption.

Another gaping question of this thread is in the title: Should a handful of judges "bench-legislate" father or mother contractual banishment as a norm 300 million people MUST accept? Must we let a handful of people tell us that contracts involving children can now contain terms that make fathers or mothers legally irrelevant, to use said contracts to force adoption agencies to agree with them?

Religious or not. If I worked for a secular adoption agency I would be required by the strictest interpretation of the law (the only kind to be had when a child's welfare is at stake) to NOT adopt to such a couple. I cannot participate in banishing children from a necessity using a contract. So this isn't only a question of religious agencies refusal, it's one of legal mandate and conscience when it comes to protecting children in general.

 

[Silhouette]

And screen the members of those defense attorney teams well. Don't want any gay-sympathist implants nudging advice away from a win...again...and again...and again...

The strategy of course is "file the suit in a state that there might be already sympathists placed in ranking positions". Then: "be sure to insert a Judas in the defense's legal team: one who is very gifted with gab". Then "advise defense on a strategy you already have a rock solid plan to unravel so your win will be certain".

Beware. It's shady and underhanded but this type of thing happens more often than you'd be comfortable with in civil lawsuits. Especially ones where one party has a LOT of money behind it (Soros, the ACLU etc.)

 

[Syriusly]

Actually parents are very relevant to the kids who have been abandoned by their actual mothers and fathers- and are looking for forever parents.

Why do you prefer children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

Why not also five married parents.

Why do you prefer children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

 

[Syriusly]

And screen the members of those defense attorney teams well. Don't want any gay-sympathist implants nudging advice away from a win...again...and again...and again..)

LOL- Silhouette- nothing is preventing you from filing that law suit.

Or sending in your suggestions.

The attorneys I am sure could use a good laugh.

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you prefer children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

My preference is irrelevant to a contract that banishes children from either a father or mother for life. We've been round and round about this. Try to keep up.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you prefer children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

My preference is irrelevant to a contract that banishes children from either a father or mother for life. We've been round and round about this. Try to keep up.

No- you specifically argue to prevent gay couples from adopting children- so once again:

Why do you prefer- and promote- children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you prefer children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

My preference is irrelevant to a contract that banishes children from either a father or mother for life. We've been round and round about this. Try to keep up.

Mirroring the national polls- USMB like most Americans- approves of legal same gender marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

While 85% of the people polled here at USMB (equally spread across the entire political spectrum) say they feel both a mother and father are important to children. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life? How again does gay marriage supply both a father and mother to children?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet another thread predicated on ignorance, fear, stupidity, and bigotry.

 

[Silhouette]

Yet another thread predicated on ignorance, fear, stupidity, and bigotry.

Yes. You are ignorant of the Infancy Doctrine. Because of that you fear it will derail your cult's stupid blunder of creating a contract that is bigoted against children.

Well put.

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you prefer children not to have any parents- than a single parent or two gay parents?

Single parents have no contract banishing the kids involved from either a father or mother for life. Gay "married" couples do possess such a contract. And those terms are illegal per the Infancy Doctrine as you already know.

Round and round and round we go Syriusly.