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

[Silhouette]

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.

No, there are many reasons why a Catholic can object to two women acting as mother and "father" to a child. Because their marriage contract advertises the boy or girl adopted out to them will never know a father under their roof. Never. Not one chance with lesbian "marriages". The Bible has some things to say also about men lying with men and women lying with women.

The federal funding is sticky though. They will lose on that point, unless, they have children's separate counsel pitching the argument that finding in favor of the lesbians will make fathers legally-irrelevant as a benefit under a child's roof and share in the marriage contract's benefits the child would otherwise enjoy. THAT is the compelling argument that would make a judge sit with furrowed brows in his chambers for weeks.

What this judge decides to do may even open the precedent barn door to the soft form of child trafficking where semen, surrogacies etc. are creating children essentially for trade in the gay marriage market, where they cannot have children with each other otherwise. It's a distant spin off, but if you make fathers or mothers irrelevant, only as vessels to churn out babies, then all sorts of weird legal shit can follow. Yes, it's already happening, but states are resisting it with both heels dug in. This case would kick their good objections to this type of child trafficking to the curb.

I do not envy the judge in this case. He should look carefully at the fact that Obergefell ripped away the main benefit to children in marriage (both mother and father) without their having so much as a peep of a word, at any hearing I know of to date up to Obergefell, about the TITANIC legal ramifications of that miscarriage of justice.

 

[mdk]

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.

No, there are many reasons why a Catholic can object to two women acting as mother and "father" to a child. Because their marriage contract advertises the boy or girl adopted out to them will never know a father under their roof. Never. Not one chance with lesbian "marriages". The Bible has some things to say also about men lying with men and women lying with women.

The federal funding is sticky though. They will lose on that point, unless, they have children's separate counsel pitching the argument that finding in favor of the lesbians will make fathers legally-irrelevant as a benefit under a child's roof and share in the marriage contract's benefits the child would otherwise enjoy. THAT is the compelling argument that would make a judge sit with furrowed brows in his chambers for weeks.

I love that you demand lesbians provide a father under their roof, despite the fact that you can’t do the same. You demand gay people live by a standard that you yourself can’t meet. Worry about your own household before peeping in the windows of others.

 

[Silhouette]

I love that you demand lesbians provide a father under their roof, despite the fact that you can’t do the same. You demand gay people live by a standard that you yourself can’t meet. Worry about your own household before peeping in the windows of others.

Are you talking about single parents who have no contract banishing the missing gender? Ones who have the promise of a father or mother missing for the kids?

 

[mdk]

I love that you demand lesbians provide a father under their roof, despite the fact that you can’t do the same. You demand gay people live by a standard that you yourself can’t meet. Worry about your own household before peeping in the windows of others.

Are you talking about single parents who have no contract banishing the missing gender? Ones who have the promise of a father or mother missing for the kids?

To you, making a father irrvelant only matters if a contract is in involved b/c it allows you to gas on about gays all the while excusing your fatherless household.

 

[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.

No, there are many reasons why a Catholic can object to two women acting as mother and "father" to a child. Because their marriage contract advertises the boy or girl adopted out to them will never know a father under their roof. Never. Not one chance with lesbian "marriages". The Bible has some things to say also about men lying with men and women lying with women.

The federal funding is sticky though. They will lose on that point, unless, they have children's separate counsel pitching the argument that finding in favor of the lesbians will make fathers legally-irrelevant as a benefit under a child's roof and share in the marriage contract's benefits the child would otherwise enjoy. THAT is the compelling argument that would make a judge sit with furrowed brows in his chambers for weeks.

What this judge decides to do may even open the precedent barn door to the soft form of child trafficking where semen, surrogacies etc. are creating children essentially for trade in the gay marriage market, where they cannot have children with each other otherwise. It's a distant spin off, but if you make fathers or mothers irrelevant, only as vessels to churn out babies, then all sorts of weird legal shit can follow. Yes, it's already happening, but states are resisting it with both heels dug in. This case would kick their good objections to this type of child trafficking to the curb.

I do not envy the judge in this case. He should look carefully at the fact that Obergefell ripped away the main benefit to children in marriage (both mother and father) without their having so much as a peep of a word, at any hearing I know of to date up to Obergefell, about the TITANIC legal ramifications of that miscarriage of justice.

Your fears of child sex trafficking are seriously misplaced. The greatest sexual danger to children is the presence in the home of a heterosexual male with no biological connection to female children in the home.

Sexual abuse of young girls by their step-fathers is a far greater danger to children than being adopted by a gay couple. It happens so frequently that it’s a cliche.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2832&context=clr

And still you focus on gay adoption.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

This started to happen a long time ago. Parents have the Kids in school getting a Progressive education from about 8 to 3pm. Parents get home around 6 feed the brood, and put the into bed about 9 and that is about it. No much time to learn what is going on at school.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

I do not envy the judge in this case. He should look carefully at the fact that Obergefell ripped away the main benefit to children in marriage (both mother and father) without their having so much as a peep of a word, at any hearing I know of to date up to Obergefell, about the TITANIC legal ramifications of that miscarriage of justice.

I predict with great certainty that no one- not on either side- will be mentioning any 'argument' you have made ever here at USMB in this case.

If Obergefell gets mentioned at all- it will just to point out that gay couples have the same constitutional right to marriage as straight couples- and that denying them marriage harms their children.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No, there are many reasons why a Catholic can object to two women acting as mother and "father" to a child. Because their marriage contract advertises the boy or girl adopted out to them will never know a father under their roof. Never. Not one chance with lesbian "marriages". The Bible has some things to say also about men lying with men and women lying with women.

The federal funding is sticky though. They will lose on that point, unless, they have children's separate counsel pitching the argument that finding in favor of the lesbians will make fathers legally-irrelevant as a benefit under a child's roof and share in the marriage contract's benefits the child would otherwise enjoy. THAT is the compelling argument that would make a judge sit with furrowed brows in his chambers for weeks.

What this judge decides to do may even open the precedent barn door to the soft form of child trafficking where semen, surrogacies etc. are creating children essentially for trade in the gay marriage market, where they cannot have children with each other otherwise. It's a distant spin off, but if you make fathers or mothers irrelevant, only as vessels to churn out babies, then all sorts of weird legal shit can follow. Yes, it's already happening, but states are resisting it with both heels dug in. This case would kick their good objections to this type of child trafficking to the curb.

I do not envy the judge in this case. He should look carefully at the fact that Obergefell ripped away the main benefit to children in marriage (both mother and father) without their having so much as a peep of a word, at any hearing I know of to date up to Obergefell, about the TITANIC legal ramifications of that miscarriage of justice.

Your fears of child sex trafficking are seriously misplaced. The greatest sexual danger to children is the presence in the home of a heterosexual male with no biological connection to female children in the home.

Sexual abuse of young girls by their step-fathers is a far greater danger to children than being adopted by a gay couple. It happens so frequently that it’s a cliche.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2832&context=clr

And still you focus on gay adoption.

Actually she just focuses on gay gay gay.

Gay marriage
Gay adoption
Gay parades
Gay whatever.

You are absolutely correct of course- not just step fathers but boy friends. Children being raised by a single mom are at a higher risk than children being raised by a mom and dad because of the higher risk that the mom will end up with a boyfriend in the home.

But you will never see Silhouette start a thread about dangers to children- except- and only- when it can be blamed on gays.

 

[Syriusly]

I love that you demand lesbians provide a father under their roof, despite the fact that you can’t do the same. You demand gay people live by a standard that you yourself can’t meet. Worry about your own household before peeping in the windows of others.

Are you talking about single parents who have no contract banishing the missing gender? Ones who have the promise of a father or mother missing for the kids?

The potential for a step father or boyfriend molesting the kids?

 

[Silhouette]

I see we got the thread dungeoned.

Are we talking about which demographic shows a propensity towards deviant sex or domestic violence? I mean, we could go there if you want. My issue here is forcing kids into contracts that deprive them of a necessity.

 

[Dragonlady]

I see we got the thread dungeoned.

Are we talking about which demographic shows a propensity towards deviant sex or domestic violence? I mean, we could go there if you want. My issue here is forcing kids into contracts that deprive them of a necessity.

You tried that spurious argument before complete with links to phony studies which were easily discredited. We didn’t buy it then, we won’t buy it now.

There is no “promise” of an opposite gender parent in a single family home. None. There is a possibility but not a promise. There is no “promise” that the parent will marry or bring a partner into the house.

Just as there is no promise that a lesbian couple won’t split up and the custodial parent won’t enter into a heterosexual relationship. Anne Heche is a prime example. It does happen.

Last but not least, you cannot ask gay parents to guarantee an opposite sex parent in the home, when no such stipulation is placed on straight parents.

If having two opposite sex parents in the home is so critical to a child’s development, parents should not be allowed to divorce, because of the risks involved to the children. Couples must stay together for the sake of the children.

 

[Silhouette]

I see we got the thread dungeoned.

Are we talking about which demographic shows a propensity towards deviant sex or domestic violence? I mean, we could go there if you want. My issue here is forcing kids into contracts that deprive them of a necessity.

You tried that spurious argument before complete with links to phony studies which were easily discredited. We didn’t buy it then, we won’t buy it now.

Well see the thing is that it isn't important if you buy it or not. Maybe; though to the judge in this case it is important re: the briefs of the orphans he most recently granted a motion to intervene in this case to. Maybe the judge takes contracts that kids share with adults seriously, while other courts tried to pretend that there are no laws whatsoever governing that arrangement. We'll see. Glad he allowed kids to intervene in this case though. Aren't you?

 

[Dragonlady]

I see we got the thread dungeoned.

Are we talking about which demographic shows a propensity towards deviant sex or domestic violence? I mean, we could go there if you want. My issue here is forcing kids into contracts that deprive them of a necessity.

You tried that spurious argument before complete with links to phony studies which were easily discredited. We didn’t buy it then, we won’t buy it now.

Well see the thing is that it isn't important if you buy it or not. Maybe; though to the judge in this case it is important re: the briefs of the orphans he most recently granted a motion to intervene in this case to. Maybe the judge takes contracts that kids share with adults seriously, while other courts tried to pretend that there are no laws whatsoever governing that arrangement. We'll see. Glad he allowed kids to intervene in this case though. Aren't you?

The briefs you’re talking about are the briefs of children who have been helped by the Catholic agency that the want to continue to receive funding because of all of their good works on behalf of orphans.

The judge isn’t reviewing briefs on whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, but rather whether a Catholic agency which refuses to place children with gay couples should continue to receive public funding.

You’re dreaming in technicolor if you think the judge is ruling on gay adoption.

 

[Silhouette]

The briefs you’re talking about are the briefs of children who have been helped by the Catholic agency that the want to continue to receive funding because of all of their good works on behalf of orphans.

The judge isn’t reviewing briefs on whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, but rather whether a Catholic agency which refuses to place children with gay couples should continue to receive public funding.

You’re dreaming in technicolor if you think the judge is ruling on gay adoption.

Do you suppose that any of those defendants might include language (that might pass before the judge's eyes) in their pleadings about fathers from marriage becoming irrelevant to orphaned boys (or girls)? Not one peep of that do you suppose?

The pleadings from the plaintiffs are solely seeking to financially-gut institutions that help children? Don't you think the judge might take a dim view of that as a targeted assault from the LGBT cult against religion? He indicated as much by allowing the orphans to intervene on behalf of saving funding from state to the adoption agencies who happen to be Catholic. Though if leaning against the Catholics, the issue of forcing kids into fatherless (contractually for life) homes, religious convictions or not, might be one that saves the day for the defendants. I've urged them as much in private communication and I hope they listen.

 

[Dragonlady]

The briefs you’re talking about are the briefs of children who have been helped by the Catholic agency that the want to continue to receive funding because of all of their good works on behalf of orphans.

The judge isn’t reviewing briefs on whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, but rather whether a Catholic agency which refuses to place children with gay couples should continue to receive public funding.

You’re dreaming in technicolor if you think the judge is ruling on gay adoption.

Do you suppose that any of those defendants might include language (that might pass before the judge's eyes) in their pleadings about fathers from marriage becoming irrelevant to orphaned boys (or girls)? Not one peep of that do you suppose?

I’ve read the briefs. They’re all about how wonderful the Catholic agency is. How much they helped these children. How they continue to provide ongoing help and assistance to families who adopt special needs kids. The gays have other agencies which will help them adopt. Don’t cut their funding.

Not one word about whether or not gays should adopt. Not one word.

Judges don’t go on fishing expeditions, raising issues that neither side has raised. And even if someone raised this issue in an amicus brief, the judge would toss it out because it isn’t germaine to the root case.

This case is about public funding for the Catholic adoption agency which refuses to place children with gay couples. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Silhouette]

I’ve read the briefs. They’re all about how wonderful the Catholic agency is. How much they helped these children. How they continue to provide ongoing help and assistance to families who adopt special needs kids. The gays have other agencies which will help them adopt. Don’t cut their funding....Not one word about whether or not gays should adopt. Not one word.

Judges don’t go on fishing expeditions, raising issues that neither side has raised. And even if someone raised this issue in an amicus brief, the judge would toss it out because it isn’t germaine to the root case.

This case is about public funding for the Catholic adoption agency which refuses to place children with gay couples. Nothing more, nothing less.

Too bad. Then the defendants have lost the case already and the motions are literally...going through the motions. Wonder why the defendants' attorneys are throwing the case? Are they plants from the ACLU or just incompetent?

I'm going to answer my own question here. If this is a political move via conservatives nudging attorneys for the defense to throw the case to spur "a sympathetic wave of GOP voting" this Fall, they are on a precarious mission. People tend to feel more apathetic and defeated in a situation such as that when they perceive impotency in their leaders to do better. Especially if the lesbian victory is seen as one in a wave of unstoppable judicial miscarriage that they feel powerless to stop...and are wondering why the GOP they voted for last time have limp dicks to stop it as well.

I think this could backfire on the GOP. And I hope their strategists are reading this right now if my hunch is correct.

 

[Dragonlady]

I’ve read the briefs. They’re all about how wonderful the Catholic agency is. How much they helped these children. How they continue to provide ongoing help and assistance to families who adopt special needs kids. The gays have other agencies which will help them adopt. Don’t cut their funding....Not one word about whether or not gays should adopt. Not one word.

Judges don’t go on fishing expeditions, raising issues that neither side has raised. And even if someone raised this issue in an amicus brief, the judge would toss it out because it isn’t germaine to the root case.

This case is about public funding for the Catholic adoption agency which refuses to place children with gay couples. Nothing more, nothing less.

Too bad. Then the defendants have lost the case already and the motions are literally...going through the motions. Wonder why the defendants' attorneys are throwing the case? Are they plants from the ACLU or just incompetent?

They’re not throwing the case. They’re responding to the filings as they should.

You don’t pile onto a case for the purpose of pushing a related political agenda. You ask for standing because your issue has already been raised in the original pleadings.

 

[Silhouette]

They’re not throwing the case. They’re responding to the filings as they should.

You don’t pile onto a case for the purpose of pushing a related political agenda. You ask for standing because your issue has already been raised in the original pleadings.

Nope, they're throwing the case if they are trying to justify denying pervert-marriage to adopt (contractual-deprivation of a father under the roof for life) based on religious objections while receiving public funds doing so. Definitely throwing the case. Never heard of a weaker defense. A retarded garden slug knows about separation of church and state..

And it makes me wonder...

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, no reply to that. I thought as much. Say Dragonlady, do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? In other words, do you believe that the USSC declared that children are co-beneficiaries (implicit partners in) the marriage contract that was up for radical revision as to children's main benefit....BOTH mother and father from marriage?

 

[Dragonlady]

I think all of your notions about adoption are completely whackadoodle and you need to drop your obsessions about gay adoption. They’re complete and utter codswallop.

As an adopted child, I had no counsel or rights when I was adopted. I was just grateful to be shed of my biological mother and any control she could have exercised in my life.

My father died within a year of my adoption. I knew he was dying when he adopted me. I didn’t care then and even though my mother and I had a financially difficult life after his death, I wouldn’t change a thing.

Had I been returned to my biological mother, I would have been beaten and raped by the pig she was married to at the time, just like my younger sister. You would have given me back to my mother to abuse as well because she had a home with two opposite sex parents.

It is better to have parents who love you, spend time with you and treat you well than it is to have parents of both sexes. Any fertile woman can have a baby and do what she wants with it until someone reports her and the authorities step in. She can marry a creep who abuses the child. It’s her right.

But in order to adopt, you have to prove you can provide a good home for the child. If you’re married, they check that your marriage is solid, neither of you are perverts and you can you support the child both financially and emotionally. There are no such restrictions on biological parents.