Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #101
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.