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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

codswallop.

I love it!! Never heard that before. Made my day You do know that dealing with that one is a waste of time. S/he is, well.......wackadoo.

 

[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?

Just repeating the question because you didn't answer it dragonlady.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

Just repeating the question because you didn't answer it dragonlady.

I did answer the question. No.

I won’t be contributing further to this thread.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, no reply to that. I thought as much. Say Dragonlady, 1. do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? 2. 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?

Just repeating the question because you didn't answer it dragonlady.

I did answer the question. No.

I won’t be contributing further to this thread.

Well now see that's interesting. Because it tells me that you may be associated closely with the case and that the questions highlighted above is one your side doesn't want answered honestly, from a purely objective legal standpoint. Because we both know the answers are 1."Yes" & 2. "Yes".

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Talking to yourself again Silhouette?

Probably just as fruitful as all of the discussion with the voices in your head.

 

[Syriusly]

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

And of course the thing is that it isn't relevant what the voices in your head are telling you.

No judge- no court- no lawyer- has ever accepted your crazy interpretations of any law.

This case will not be any different.

Not one of your loony theories will be presented- and both sides will deal with the merits of the case.

 

[Syriusly]

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. .

And this post just illustrates how far down the rabbit hole Silly has gone.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Why would she- or anyone- believe any of these lunacies that the voices in your head are telling you?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Thank you for sharing your story.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, no reply to that. I thought as much. Say Dragonlady, 1. do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? 2. 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?

Just repeating the question because you didn't answer it dragonlady.

I did answer the question. No.

I won’t be contributing further to this thread.

Well now see that's interesting. Because it tells me that you may be associated closely with the case and that the questions highlighted above is one your side doesn't want answered honestly, from a purely objective legal standpoint. Because we both know the answers are 1."Yes" & 2. "Yes".

No- that is just you and the voices in your head talking.

No one else.

 

[Silhouette]

Doubly piqued about dragonlady not answering the question AND Syriusly stepping in so manifestly evident in spamming the previous page into oblivion. Something is up for sure. So I'll repost the question here:

1. do you believe that at any point in time, children should've had separate counsel briefing the courts about these "gay marriage/adoption" cases? 2. 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?

Been browsing a brief in favor of keeping faith-based adoption agencies and the children they help as "legally dominant" to "gay rights" re: Obergefell. (that's how the brief boils down at the bottom of the pan essentially)

https://adflegal.blob.core.windows....iend-of-the-court-brief.pdf?sfvrsn=cfba8175_4

Don't know how effective it will be because at the end of the day, that little separation of church and state thingy is going to get in the way. However, the judge may find that Catholic adoption agencies have every right to deny contractually-fatherless-for-life homes (lesbian "marrieds") the "right" to force a child into father-deprivation for life. But the judge will have no choice but to find that a faith-based adoption agency may not impose it's religion up on the lesbians & still receive state funding. So that blow directly translates in to child-harm.

However, in so doing, the judge (if he does not examine the false premise of LGBT = behaviors NOT a static state of being), will be essentially favoring one cult over the other and in essence telling Catholic adoption agencies "When it comes to the most vulnerable children in our country, I am elevating a deviant sex cult's value system above your beliefs". How about that?

This is why the false premise of "LGBT Americans" (who are really just regular men and women doing weird, shifting, and questionably permanent...dildos with lesbians... things in their bedrooms...oh and in public in front of kids at gay pride parades... with their bodies) MUST be exposed. If faith cannot dictate to a state, then that includes ALL faiths, not just Catholics. All dogma, including deviant sex cult dogma.

So since the lesbians know that the judge will likely and only strip Catholic faith adoption agencies of funding, which DIRECTLY harms children (thank you Syriusly). And it affects them in a huge way, because Catholics are deep and always have been in perfecting the safety and guardianship of orphans since forever. This is why the court allowed the orphans to intervene I'm sure.

So this shitty shitty cult knows it won't stop Catholics from denying them adoption because of the contractually-fatherless home issue, and direct commandments from God in Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ. They just want to hurt them. That's all this suit is about. Dragonlady said as much. Rendered down, the cult of LGBT thinks nothing of proximally (not indirectly) hurting children in order to send a message to other people who might deny their collective values of BEHAVIORS (see: "false premise"). Dumont is really a shot across the bow to those who will not bend to the incessant litigious-evangelizing this cult is shoving down the nation's throat.

More evidence they don't care about children and want to hurt them? The fact that they won't answer the question at the top of this page. It means they don't want it known that their position is "we actually want children to not have separate counsel briefing the courts in matters of family law where kids share the marriage contract's benefits (the contract itself therefore) with adults when we propose to radically-revise one of the key benefits (a father under their roof) kids got from that contract for thousands of years". That's the answer dragonlady and Syriusly both would give if they were given truth serum.

 

[Silhouette]

OK Judge Borman, find for the dogma of the Catholic faith handling orphans or find for these values in BEHAVIORS from the LGBT cult?