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

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Silhouette, Nov 29, 2017.

  1. Silhouette
    Online

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    24,828
    Thanks Received:
    1,830
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +9,630
    What about Britain's 2010 Youth Survey link? You didn't mention that...

    Is it because the largest survey of youth of its kind found that the lack of a mother for girls or a lack of a father for boys is detrimental to them? Imagine having a contract saying "you will never have the hope even of a mother or father for life!" That's what Dumont is asking adoption agencies to be OK with. I'm saying at the very least, orphans of Michigan need competent counsel briefing the court on the counter argument.

    And since you're lying about Obergefell's third-tier declaration on page 15 -that children share benefits with adults from the marriage contract- the Infancy Doctrine requires that children have representation at any hearing seeking to fundamentally revise those ancient benefits. They will not be bound and gagged out of court as you would LOVE them to be.

    Who hates children? Any person who would stump for them not to be allowed say on whether or not a contract can ban them for life from either a father or mother...which is detrimental to their ancient benefits from marriage contracts.

    Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,669
    You mean the survey that doesn't once mention gay parents?

    The document that says that father figures don't have to be biological or legal fathers but can be coaches and other paternal figures?

    You mean the document that undermines everything you claim?
     
  3. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,669
    Wow- you are just doubling down in the lies:

    As I have shown before:
    a) Obergefell never once says that children are part of a marriage contract- but Obergefell does say that denying gays marriage harms their children.

    Why do you want to harm children?

    b) The Infancy Doctrine of course says no such thing- again you just are lying- the infancy doctrine protects children from bad contracts


    upload_2018-3-6_15-48-34.png

    But a child is liable on a contract for 'necessaries'- so if the contract requires a lawyer- then the child is responsible for paying the lawyer.
    upload_2018-3-6_15-48-23.png

    There is absolutely nothing in the Infancy Doctrine that applies to marriage or adoption.

    Which is why there is not a single case of it every being cited in a marriage case or an adoption case.

    Remember in all of this- you are lying- and lying in order to harm children.

    How do we know that you want to harm children? Because Obergefell says that denying marriage to gays who are parents harms their children.

    Why do you want to harm children?
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Silhouette
    Online

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    24,828
    Thanks Received:
    1,830
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +9,630
    Except here, as you saw on the previous page, liar:

    Hmm.. let's see. Marriage contract affords "protections" for children. Check. And it is "important to children's best interests". And, historically that has always been because it provides fathers for boys and mothers for girls.

    If you want to revamp that contractual benefit children enjoyed with/from adults in the marriage contract, you invite children to have a say in those types of hearings seeking to take that contractual benefit away from them. Otherwise, it's a mistrial.

    Why do you want to harm children by gagging them in court? Not only are you advocating binding them away from a father for life using a (n illegal) contract, you advocating barricading them away from briefing the courts on that alarming new and huge precedent, never before realized in any law that I know of.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. mdk
    Offline

    mdk Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    32,773
    Thanks Received:
    8,272
    Trophy Points:
    1,780
    Ratings:
    +53,680
    You have claimed on numerous occasions that Obergefell v. Hodges is null and yet you are citing it as evidence for your delusional case. You have zero consistently and even less credibility.
     
  6. Silhouette
    Online

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    24,828
    Thanks Received:
    1,830
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +9,630
    ^^ it will be cited to overturn itself via its own third tier of rationale stating marriage is a contract children share benefits from with adults. And that taking the prime benefit since ancient times from kids...using the same contract...without kids having representation briefing their case, is a mistrial.

    But Obergefell was a mistrial for a number of arrogant reasons. Like a shotgun overturning. Just point in its general direction & shoot.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,669
    Yes- and you want to take those protections away from the children of gay parents.

    You know that marriage is important to their children's best interest but you actively promote policies which would harm them.

    Why do you want to harm children?
     
  8. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,669
    Silhouette's own post reply button is apparently avoiding her craziness.

    Marriage is a contract between two people- and when children are involved it provides important protections to children- and as noted in Obergefell- denying marriage to those parents harms their children.

    Why do you keep advocating for harm for children?
     
  9. Silhouette
    Online

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    24,828
    Thanks Received:
    1,830
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +9,630
    In general, legally speaking, who has dominant legal status for protection? Gay adults or children? And, why have children been shut out of these family law hearings that affect their collective future as a demographic, so deeply? It's no small legal feat to use a contract to permanently remove the hope of a child ever knowing a mother or father.

    Yes Obergefell was a family law hearing, as is Dumont. Check the language in Obergefell's third tier. It's riddled with "families, family, kids, marriage, family, family, family". Also, Dumont. Same thing in the pleadings.
     
  10. mdk
    Offline

    mdk Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    32,773
    Thanks Received:
    8,272
    Trophy Points:
    1,780
    Ratings:
    +53,680
    Keep pissing in the wind, Sil.
     

Share This Page