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

[Silhouette]

And nowhere- nowhere in Obergefell do the Justices say that children are part of the marriage contract.

So that's it? Just lie your way out of the argument?

Here Let me repeat the post and quote and argument for you.

*******

Saying that kids share the marriage contract is just idiocy.

Well then I guess you're calling the 5 Justices that approved Obergefell "idiots"...

Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Page 15 (An actual quote, from the actual Obergefell Opinion, actually reproduced here)

"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.” .... Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests."

Let me assemble the underlined above in a single sentence that can logically be extracted: "Marriage confers benefits important to children's best interests"

By naming children as beneficiaries of the marriage contract, the Court declared THEY ARE PARTNERS IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Thereby, sharing a contract with adults, all statutes re: Infancy Doctrine and contracts apply to proposals to revise said contract. Children had no representation at Obergefell, a document which plaintiffs in Dumont will no doubt be citing up one side and down the other. But you cannot cite a mistrial, an illegal proceeding, as justification for a another proceeding.

The judge in Dumont MUST examine that children share the marriage contract with adults and that one of the most profound benefits they used to enjoy before Obergefell illegally revised it, without their having any counsel briefing, was getting a father out of the deal under their roof. Obergefell fundamentally revised the most paramount benefit a child could extract from the marriage contract, vital to them, important, WITHOUT ANY SEPARATE BRIEFING TO THE COURT ON THE PROFUNDITY OF REMOVING A FATHER FROM THEIR LIFE UNDER THEIR ROOF WITH THE SAME REVISED CONTRACT.

Obergefell and any citations from it therefore in justification of Dumont, is a complete legal miscarriage. For many reasons but also because within its own words, it no longer is a speculation if children share the marriage contract with adults. Obergefell's Opinion made it a matter of written case law.

As far as children go, Obergefell said these things:

1. We acknowledge children are important beneficiaries and share the marriage contract with adults.

2. We agreed to a radical revision of said contract, depriving them of one of the most vital benefits they ever got from the contract.

3. We did so without any counsel briefing on how that might affect the lives of children.

4. Children and the Infancy Doctrine (and the mass of case law backing it up) can just go suck it. We just overruled any potency of the Infancy Doctrine whatsoever. Children are now, via precedent, fair game to exploit in contracts without any representation if said contracts are up for revision with proposed terms to children's harm. Even if said harm is fundamental and profound.

 

[Syriusly]

And nowhere- nowhere in Obergefell do the Justices say that children are part of the marriage contract.

So that's it? Just lie your way out of the argument?

Here Let me repeat the post and quote and argument for you.

*******.

No lie- the Court- none of the Justices ever say that children are part of the marriage contract.

They say that children can benefit when their parents are allowed to marry.

And are harmed when prevented from marrying.

Glad to quote the relevant part again

The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).

Why do you want to harm and humiliate children Silhouette?

 

[Silhouette]

If a judge says that a child or children share benefits of a contract with adults, the gold standard of law says that judge has declared at minimum that the children are implicit partners to that contract. Implicit (implied: not needing to be said) partners to a contract enjoy the same force & effect as expressed or written partners.

Try again. Obergefell was a mistrial for not having children's separate interests per father & mother briefed. If Dumont draws from Obergefell stating that deprivation "is just fine" without briefing, Dumont will also be a mistrial.

 

[mdk]

If a judge says that a child or children share benefits of a contract with adults, the gold standard of law says that judge has declared at minimum that the children are implicit partners to that contract. Implicit (implied: not needing to be said) partners to a contract enjoy the same force & effect as expressed or written partners.

Try again. Obergefell was a mistrial for not having children's separate interests per father & mother briefed. If Dumont draws from Obergefell stating that deprivation "is just fine" without briefing, Dumont will also be a mistrial.

Obergefell wasn't a trial, Matlock. Also, children are not parties to the contract of their marriage in any state in this nation. Deal with it.

 

[Silhouette]

Deal with Obergefell's quote I posted. They've declared children are parties to all marriage contracts in all 50 states.

 

[mdk]

Deal with Obergefell's quote I posted. They've declared children are parties to all marriage contracts in all 50 states.

The same ruling you claim to be null and void? That one?

 

[Silhouette]

Deal with Obergefell's quote I posted. They've declared children are parties to all marriage contracts in all 50 states.

The same ruling you claim to be null and void? That one?

Yes, it will be found so. But its essence, already arrived at illegally, is already null and void because a contract children share with adults was revised, removing a key benefit erstwhile enjoyed by children, without their even having counsel at the table. Said revised contract violates the Infancy Doctrine which says that any contract shared between children and adults that contains terms onerous to the children's well being isn't merely voidable, It is void before the ink is dry without challenge.

 

[Syriusly]

If a judge says that a child or children share benefits of a contract with adults, the gold standard of law says that judge has declared at minimum that the children are implicit partners to that contract.

Silly- you are not the 'gold standard of law' and you are the only one making this bizarre legal claim.

And of course you ignore Obergefell's EXPLICIT notice that what you are arguing for harms children- glad to quote it again:

The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).

Why do you want to harm and humiliate children Silhouette?

 

[Syriusly]

Try again. Obergefell was a mistrial

LOL I guess you better let the Supreme Court know........

 

[Syriusly]

Deal with Obergefell's quote I posted. They've declared children are parties to all marriage contracts in all 50 states.

Nope- but they have declared that what you are advocating harms children

The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).

Why do you want to harm and humiliate children Silhouette?

 

[Syriusly]

Deal with Obergefell's quote I posted. They've declared children are parties to all marriage contracts in all 50 states.

The same ruling you claim to be null and void? That one?

Yes, it will be found so. But its essence, already arrived at illegally, is already null and void because a contract children share with adults was revised, removing a key benefit erstwhile enjoyed by children, without their even having counsel at the table. Said revised contract violates the Infancy Doctrine which says that any contract shared between children and adults that contains terms onerous to the children's well being isn't merely voidable, It is void before the ink is dry without challenge.

Aside from the fact that your 'interpretation' of the Infancy Doctrine is absolutely wrong.

The Supreme Court is under no obligation to abide by any 'doctrine'.

Which of course is one of the so very many, many, many reasons why not a single attorney has ever used one of your bizarre legal claims for any reason before any court- ever.

 

[Dragonlady]

Noting that kids share the marriage contract isn't "hate". Noting that boys may not want a father banished from under their roof for life isn't hate.

Justice Thomas warned your ilk about playing victim in the courts. From now on your cult can't smokescreen with victimology. You're going to have to make solid argument why the judge in Dumont should force agencies to place boys in homes where the contract guarantees the boys will never have a father under their roof.

Your bullshit doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Quit pretending it does. No child is guaranteed or barred from having two parents, one of each sex. No child is guaranteed of having two parents living under the same roof.

The Infancy Doctrine is to prevent adults from taking financial advantage of children, of enforcing financial commitments on a child which may not be in their best interests.

No judge would ever rule as you think.

 

[Silhouette]

Your bullshit doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Quit pretending it does. 1. No child is guaranteed or barred from having two parents, one of each sex. No child is guaranteed of having two parents living under the same roof.

2. The Infancy Doctrine is to prevent adults from taking financial advantage of children, of enforcing financial commitments on a child which may not be in their best interests.

1. The marriage contract always guaranteed children both a mother and father. Until the gay marriage push ending at Obergefell; which said children share the benefits of marriage, and then took one of those vital benefits away in finding for Obergefell without children having a say at the table on that benefit's removal.

2. The infancy doctrine IS NOT solely concerned with money. It addresses also psychological and many other necessities. Give it's review a full read when you get a minute. And don't just skim and cherry pick it. Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf


Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Page 15 (An actual quote, from the actual Obergefell Opinion, actually reproduced here)

"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.” .... Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests."

Let me assemble the underlined above in a single sentence that can logically be extracted: "Marriage confers benefits important to children's best interests" Chief of said benefits, a father for boys and a mother for girls. Obergefell destroyed that without one mention of the importance of both fathers and mothers to boys and girls.

That Hearing was a complete farce. Any citation of its conclusions that try to justify or inadvertently promote taking the importance of either a father or mother benefit away from the marriage contract is also a complete farce.

 

[Silhouette]

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

I. ELEMENTS AND RATIONALES OF THE INFANCY DOCTRINE

A. The Rule

The infancy doctrine protects persons under the legally designated age of adulthood from both "crafty adults' and their own bad judgment. The doctrine is based on the presumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract.

I wonder if "crafty adults" would include judges who do not invite children to have separate counsel at any proposed revisions of contracts they share with adults?

...The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor. The right to avoid the contract lasts until a reasonable time after reaching adulthood as long as the minor has not ratified the contract as an adult. All jurisdictions allow the minor to disaffirm the contract and not perform further.

So, any orphan boy, say, who does not want to go into a home where a contract he'll share tells him on its face that he will never have a father under his roof growing up, would at the minimum have to have counsel present at any adoption proceeding. But that's not the case if you read the first rule of the Infancy Doctrine. That says that even when children want something (if a boy could want to be deprived of a father under his roof growing up), that child cannot contract for such a situation.

Ergo, unless fathers for boys are legally pronounced "no longer vital to them" in this case of Dumont, adoption agencies MUST NOT allow children to go into homes where they will share a contract depriving them of a father under their roof for their childhood (for life), even when the children themselves appear to assent to that situation.

The judge's hands are tied in this matter. We saw the incremental progression from Lawrence v Texas to the legal highjacking that was Obergefell and its predecessors in case law starting from when the gay judge in CA overruled the vote of tens of millions. Now private decriminalized acts of sodomy are trying to use miscarriage of justice to force their way into contracts with children that deprive them of a father (render fathers legally meaningless to boys and girls).

If that's not a textbook example of crafty adults machinating to deprive children of a vital benefit of a contract they share with them, nothing is.

 

[Syriusly]

Your bullshit doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Quit pretending it does. 1. No child is guaranteed or barred from having two parents, one of each sex. No child is guaranteed of having two parents living under the same roof.

2. The Infancy Doctrine is to prevent adults from taking financial advantage of children, of enforcing financial commitments on a child which may not be in their best interests.

1. The marriage contract always guaranteed children both a mother and father. .

Again bullshit.

All the times that the marriage contract has not guaranteed children both a mother and a father.
1) Mother and father- married- drug addicts- children taken away from them for neglect- according to Silhouette- this couldn't happen.
2) Mother and father- married- father abandons family and runs off to join the circus. Legally the only obligation the father has is to pay child support. No obligation to be a father at all.
3) Mother and father- married- decide to legally separate- mother moves to Argentina and never sees children again. No obligation for the mother to 'mother' at all.
4) Mother and father- married- decide to divorce- the marriage contract does not prevent divorce, nor does it provide for the children to prevent a divorce.

Silhouette just makes this crap up in her never ending pursuit of harming gays- and their children.

 

[Syriusly]

Your bullshit doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Quit pretending it does. 1. No child is guaranteed or barred from having two parents, one of each sex. No child is guaranteed of having two parents living under the same roof.

2. The Infancy Doctrine is to prevent adults from taking financial advantage of children, of enforcing financial commitments on a child which may not be in their best interests.

Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Page 15 (An actual quote, from the actual Obergefell Opinion, actually reproduced here)

"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.” .... Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests."

Let me assemble the underlined above in a single sentence that can logically be extracted: "Marriage confers benefits important to children's best interests" Chief of said benefits, a father for boys and a mother for girls.

Except- as you know- the court didn't say that was one of the benefits- the court specified the benefits- you just ignore them. The benefits listed are:
Material benefits
Permanency
Stability
Recognition
Predictability
Preventing Stigma

As the court noted:

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.

Why do you keep insisting on promoting policies that the court has noted harms and humiliates children?

 

[Syriusly]

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

If that's not a textbook example of crafty adults machinating to deprive children of a vital benefit of a contract they share with them, nothing is.

No- its just an example of your delusional obsession.

 

[Dragonlady]

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

I. ELEMENTS AND RATIONALES OF THE INFANCY DOCTRINE

A. The Rule

The infancy doctrine protects persons under the legally designated age of adulthood from both "crafty adults' and their own bad judgment. The doctrine is based on the presumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract.

I wonder if "crafty adults" would include judges who do not invite children to have separate counsel at any proposed revisions of contracts they share with adults?

...The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor. The right to avoid the contract lasts until a reasonable time after reaching adulthood as long as the minor has not ratified the contract as an adult. All jurisdictions allow the minor to disaffirm the contract and not perform further.

So, any orphan boy, say, who does not want to go into a home where a contract he'll share tells him on its face that he will never have a father under his roof growing up, would at the minimum have to have counsel present at any adoption proceeding. But that's not the case if you read the first rule of the Infancy Doctrine. That says that even when children want something (if a boy could want to be deprived of a father under his roof growing up), that child cannot contract for such a situation.

Ergo, unless fathers for boys are legally pronounced "no longer vital to them" in this case of Dumont, adoption agencies MUST NOT allow children to go into homes where they will share a contract depriving them of a father under their roof for their childhood (for life), even when the children themselves appear to assent to that situation.

The judge's hands are tied in this matter. We saw the incremental progression from Lawrence v Texas to the legal highjacking that was Obergefell and its predecessors in case law starting from when the gay judge in CA overruled the vote of tens of millions. Now private decriminalized acts of sodomy are trying to use miscarriage of justice to force their way into contracts with children that deprive them of a father (render fathers legally meaningless to boys and girls).

If that's not a textbook example of crafty adults machinating to deprive children of a vital benefit of a contract they share with them, nothing is.

Bullshit. Total and complete bullshit. Your words “I wonder if” perfectly encapsulate your knowledge that your musings on the Infancy Doctrine is bullshit.

The Infancy Doctrine is meant to provide relief from the obligations imposed by legal contracts signed by children. A child has no legal obligations in adoption.

 

[Syriusly]

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

I. ELEMENTS AND RATIONALES OF THE INFANCY DOCTRINE

A. The Rule

The infancy doctrine protects persons under the legally designated age of adulthood from both "crafty adults' and their own bad judgment. The doctrine is based on the presumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract.

I wonder if "crafty adults" would include judges who do not invite children to have separate counsel at any proposed revisions of contracts they share with adults?

...The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor. The right to avoid the contract lasts until a reasonable time after reaching adulthood as long as the minor has not ratified the contract as an adult. All jurisdictions allow the minor to disaffirm the contract and not perform further.

So, any orphan boy, say, who does not want to go into a home where a contract he'll share tells him on its face that he will never have a father under his roof growing up, would at the minimum have to have counsel present at any adoption proceeding. But that's not the case if you read the first rule of the Infancy Doctrine. That says that even when children want something (if a boy could want to be deprived of a father under his roof growing up), that child cannot contract for such a situation.

Ergo, unless fathers for boys are legally pronounced "no longer vital to them" in this case of Dumont, adoption agencies MUST NOT allow children to go into homes where they will share a contract depriving them of a father under their roof for their childhood (for life), even when the children themselves appear to assent to that situation.

The judge's hands are tied in this matter. We saw the incremental progression from Lawrence v Texas to the legal highjacking that was Obergefell and its predecessors in case law starting from when the gay judge in CA overruled the vote of tens of millions. Now private decriminalized acts of sodomy are trying to use miscarriage of justice to force their way into contracts with children that deprive them of a father (render fathers legally meaningless to boys and girls).

If that's not a textbook example of crafty adults machinating to deprive children of a vital benefit of a contract they share with them, nothing is.

Bullshit. Total and complete bullshit. Your words “I wonder if” perfectly encapsulate your knowledge that your musings on the Infancy Doctrine is bullshit.

The Infancy Doctrine is meant to provide relief from the obligations imposed by legal contracts signed by children. A child has no legal obligations in adoption.

There is the law.......and then there is the law in Silhouette's head.

They exist in two different universes.

 

[Dragonlady]

The case she’s referencing in the thread title is actually a case being brought by the ACLU which is about the State of Michigan providing government funding to a private Catholic adoption agency which refuses to place children with same sex couples.

Their argument is that gay couples can use other agencies. The ACLU is arguing that an agency which discriminates against gay couples should not receive government funding.

So even the premise of her thread is a lie.