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. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    48,596
    Thanks Received:
    6,197
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +18,754
    Yes- and you want to take those protections away from the children of gay parents.

    Why do you advocate for harming children?
     
  2. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    23,554
    Thanks Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,597
    Why do you want to harm children keeping their counsel away from briefing in Dumont? Because you believe adults doing gay stuff have superior demographic "rights" that dominate anything a child would want and need from placement in a marriage contract. You know, like a father. Or not being banished from even the hope of a father for life. Especially boys.

    Why do you advocate gagging and harming children?
     
  3. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    23,554
    Thanks Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,597
    Motion to intervene filed by Catholic charities & heard March 7, 2018. Yesterday.

    Wonder why they want to join the lawsuit? Perhaps as guardians of the orphans of the State of Michigan? :popcorn:

    The dykes tried to oppose it. Didn't want guardians of orphans having a say in court probably.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2018
  4. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +2,276
    The plaintiff's didn't oppose intervention by St. Vincent Catholic Charities, the opposed intervention by volunteers who might not be able to volunteer if St. Vincent doesn't receive taxpayer funding. See link below, opening paragraphs.

    Dumont v. Lyon - Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene


    Even Catholic Charities is ignoring your rants about acting as "guardians" of the children under the Infancy Doctrine and "contracts". The basis for their motion to intervene is for dismissal based on plaintiffs (a) lack of standing, (b) failed establishment clause claim, (c) failed equal protection claim, and (d) granting relief would violate the defendants 1st Amendment right under religious freedom,

    Not a peep about infancy doctrine and contracts with children. See link below.

    Dumont v. Lyon - Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene



    >>>>
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. AvgGuyIA
    Offline

    AvgGuyIA Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    15,670
    Thanks Received:
    2,590
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Davenport, IA
    Ratings:
    +11,270
    Pedophiles too, I bet.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    23,554
    Thanks Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,597
    Well for one, in order for there to be a peep about the Inf Doct., the court would be entertaining new counsel joining. Because those "peeps" are one and the same.

    (c) failed equal protection claim is interesting. That's a direct challenge to Obergefell's conclusions. Hmmm. This game isn't over yet. This seems to be a case that has the potential to directly challenge Obergefell.

    From your second link:

    "
    LEGAL STANDARDS
    The Individual Movants seek to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), which provides that, “[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)

    ***
    So would that include the orphans of the State of Michigan having a stake in being placed in a home with a contract that banishes them for life from a father?

    You say the Catholic charities are only about their right to religious freedom to object. Obviously the dykes are only about the access to kids they want, nevermind the lack of a father for life via contract. But the orphans themselves, especially boys, are not being represented to brief the court on behalf of their desire to have a father; or at least not to be legally bound away from one for life. Where is their intervention in the court?

    Based on the strictest legal interpretation of motion to intervene, should not the orphans themselves, with their separate and compelling interests also have a foothold in that courtroom? Who is there advocating for orphaned boys not to be bound away from a father for life? Or at least DISCUSSING IT openly before a decision is made?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2018
  7. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    23,554
    Thanks Received:
    1,664
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,597
    Glad to see the defense wasting time on non-entities having a stake in the game. Maybe if they realized that boys in their care shouldn't be contractually banned for life from a father, their case would take on more teeth. Hopefully the stupid will be cured soon in their legal defense team. Putting all their eggs in the religion basket while a whole other party with a much more compelling (supportive to defense) argument remains muted, is a bit daft IMHO.

    Who are the attorneys for the defense?
     
  8. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    48,596
    Thanks Received:
    6,197
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +18,754
    Who are you talking to Silhouette? Yourself?

    Remember you are the only one advocating policies that the courts have specifically stated harm children.

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

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    48,596
    Thanks Received:
    6,197
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +18,754
    The Infancy Doctrine has nothing to do with adoption. Nor does the Infancy Doctrine require any counsel.
     
  10. badger2
    Offline

    badger2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,960
    Thanks Received:
    183
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +441
    Ín accord with a suggestion of Freud's American society -- the industrial society with anonymous management and vanishing personal power, etc. -- is presented to us as a resurgence of the "society without the father." Not surprisingly, the industrial society is burdened with the search for original modes for the restoration of the equivalent -- for example, the astonishing discovery by Mitscherlich that the British Royal family, after all, is not such a bad thing.....Freud never managed to escape the world of the father, or of guilt. While offering the possibility of constructing a logic of the relation to the father, he was the first to open the way for a release from the father's hold on man. The possibility of living (beyond [italics]) the father's law, beyond all law, is perhaps the most essential possibility brought forth by Freudian psychoanalysis. But paradoxically, and perhaps because of Freud, everything leads us to conclude that this release made possible by psychoanalysis, will be achieved, is already being achieved, outside it.

    We cannot, however, share either this pessimism or this optimism. For there is much optimiwsm in thinking psychoanalysis makes possible a veritable solution to Oedipus: Oedipus is like God; the father is like God; the problem is not resolved until we do away with (both the problem and the solution [it.]) It is not the purpose of schizoanalysis to resolve Oedipus, it does not intend to resolve it better than Oedipal psychoanalysis does. Its aim is to de-oedipalize the unconscious in order to reach the real problems. Schizoanalysis proposes to reach those regions of the orphan unconscious -- indeed "beyond all law" -- where the problem of Oedipus can no longer even be raised.'
    (Deleuze G, Guattari F, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, pp. 81-2)
     

Share This Page