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

[Silhouette]

It seems unlikely that the 'ban children from a mother or a father' argument has much merit. As it didn't play a single role in the Obergefell decision. If it was going to be a significant legal issue, it would have been there. It simply never came up.

That's because all required counsel were not present at Obergefell. If there was the required separate competent counsel for children's unique interests present in that family law/contract law case, you'd better damn well believe that the mother & father issue would've come up. That is in fact why the activist court system did not command that counsel to be there. They knew precisely what a child's attorney would argue at a gay marriage hearing. That doesn't erase the fact that due process was not followed as required by case law supporting the Infancy Doctrine's findings that children require separate counsel in weighty civil cases where they have a stake in the outcome; especially family/contract law where they share terms and benefits with adults.

Would a child's competent attorney have brought up reams of evidence supporting that sons need fathers and daughters need mothers in his/her briefs? You bet they would. And that argument would've confounded the Court no end. So that discussion was neatly (and illegally) omitted from ALL gay marriage hearings by simply not inviting all counsel required to brief the courts.

 

[Moonglow]

It's a constitutional issue not a religious/social issue...

 

[Moonglow]

No child is part of the marriage contract because the marriage doesn't involve a third party to the marriage.. The kids are called dependents and have not been emancipated by law...

 

[Silhouette]

It's a constitutional issue not a religious/social issue...

It is in fact a family law case. And a case involving a contract where both children and adults share terms and benefits.

 

[Silhouette]

No child is part of the marriage contract because the marriage doesn't involve a third party to the marriage.. The kids are called dependents and have not been emancipated by law...

This is a case involving ADOPTION. Not marriage. As such it most certainly does involve third parties, the most important parties to the case: children. Therefore, the court is required by law to have separate counsel briefing the court on behalf of children's unique interests in the precedent Dumont v Lyon seeks to set on behalf of all children in Michigan.

 

[Moonglow]

No child is part of the marriage contract because the marriage doesn't involve a third party to the marriage.. The kids are called dependents and have not been emancipated by law...

This is a case involving ADOPTION. Not marriage. As such it most certainly does involve third parties, the most important parties to the case: children. Therefore, the court is required by law to have separate counsel briefing the court on behalf of children's unique interests in the precedent Dumont v Lyon seeks to set on behalf of all children in Michigan.

That's right it is and still the adopted child is not part of the marriage contract..

 

[badger2]

#103: The marriage does involve a third party to legalize it, either the State agent or the theologian.

 

[Moonglow]

#103: The marriage does involve a third party to legalize it, either the State agent or the theologian.

But that third party is not part of the family unit..

 

[Silhouette]

#103: The marriage does involve a third party to legalize it, either the State agent or the theologian.

But that third party is not part of the family unit..

And yet Obergefell defined in its third tier of rationale, that children are direct beneficiaries of the marriage contract. Therefore, they are implicit partners thereof. And since this case is about adoption, even moreso. Unless the couple are suing to adopt other adults.

 

[badger2]

#108 The third party is part of the family unit if the family unit is a recognized as a legal family unit. The family unit does not get to be recognized as legal until those third-party representatives give it legality.

 

[badger2]

'The Colonizer says "Your father is your father and nothing else." ' (Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia)

 

[Silhouette]

#108 The third party is part of the family unit if the family unit is a recognized as a legal family unit. The family unit does not get to be recognized as legal until those third-party representatives give it legality.

Don't forget that children are also parties to marriage. Obergefell said so, that they get benefits from and share of the contract. As such, particularly in this case about adoption, children are required to have separate counsel representing their unique interests briefing the court in Dumont v Lyon. Separate interests such as being handed over to a home that has a contract banishing them from a father for life.

 

[Syriusly]

The simple immutable fact is, all parties identified (as children were in Obergefell itself, page 15) to a case/contract revision are required to have unique separate counsel briefing. .

There is virtually not a single true thing in that statement.

Not one.

You almost have to try to manage to get every single thing wrong like you have.

So you are asserting that a person who is clearly identified as a party to a case can be shut out of having counsel briefing the court on that case? Did I get that right?

I am asserting that everything in your post was false- either because you are delusional- or because you are lying.

Or both.

That is what I was asserting- and am still asserting.

Why do you keep advocating for what you know will harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

Hon. Judge Paul Borman presides over Dumont v Lyon. His court staff can be reached at:
Address:
Theodore Levin US Courthouse
231 West Lafayette Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48226
United States

Phone: 1-313-234-5005
Fax: -
Web url: United States District Court -- Eastern Michigan District

If anyone wants to ask who the separate counsel is briefing the court on children's unique interests with regards to being placed in a home with a contract that banishes them for life from either a mother or father.

Let us know what you hear from the court.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court isn't 'infalliible'- but their judgements are legally binding.

Until they are overturned. I can think of one way to overturn a USSC judgment. Prove that a vital party to a case did not have counsel briefing the Court(s) (all along since these cases began). Prove that = mistrial(s).

Fine- show us an example- in the history of the Supreme Court- of a decision being 'overturned' because "a vital party to a case did not have counsel briefing the Court"

And for giggles- show us an example- in the history of the Supreme Court of ANY decision ever being called a 'Mistrial.

Spoiler alert: neither has ever happened

 

[Syriusly]

I hope the court in Michigan won't ban children from having unique representation as required on such a question concerning all children via precedent. .

We all know you hope that the courts will somehow recognize your bizarre theories as fact.

I am going to say confidently right now- that the courts will never do so.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not just a case that's being decided. LGBT cult has taught us that we'd better pay attention to the precedent they're after.

And the precedent that gay couples are after?

Giving children who have no parents, legal parents who want them to be their forever children.

Silhouette wants prevent that.

 

[jillian]

LOL Silhouette is spamming her own thread!

OCD... spammer.

 

[jillian]

I hope the court in Michigan won't ban children from having unique representation as required on such a question concerning all children via precedent. At the very least I hope they'll read these studies before forcing adoption agencies to place boys or girls in a home where either the father or mother are banished for life by a contract: Importance of fathers: fatherhood.pdf Importance of fathers to sons and mothers to daughters: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

I notice there was a motion to dismiss and a response filed this month on the 6th. It's inching along. I've asked the court to provide me with the name of the attorney(s) briefing the court on behalf of children's unique interests in the precedent being considered. I'll post the names here if the court wises up and follows due process as required.

what are you blathering about?

 

[Silhouette]

And the precedent that gay couples are after?

Giving children who have no parents, legal parents who want them to be their forever children.

They may not be after placing children in homes where there are contracts banishing them from a father for life. But that's exactly what the precedent will be nevertheless. Nice spam job. Something about the post on the top of this page that you want to bury?