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

[Syriusly]

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.

All of the required counsel was present.

Remember- Obergefell was merely the 4th marriage State law that the Supreme Court has overturned as unconstitutional.

None of them had counsel representing children.

According to Silhouette's bizarre their Loving v. Virginia was never actually decided- because children were not represented by counsel.

 

[jillian]

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.

she's a bizarre, delusional, obsessive homophobe and really should seek help.

 

[Silhouette]

what are you blathering about?

Children's mandatory representation briefing the court in Dumont v Lyon. If you consider due process "blathering"..

 

[jillian]

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?

you sound insane. the courts have already recognized same sex adoption. you're late wackjob. you really should find something better to do with your time.

 

[jillian]

what are you blathering about?

Children's mandatory representation briefing the court in Dumont v Lyon. If you consider due process "blathering"..

I consider YOU blathering.

 

[Silhouette]

All of the required counsel was present.

Can you give me the name(s) of the counsel representing children's unique interests in Dumont v Lyon? This is a case of family law about adoption of children.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yet you keep referring to Obergefell- which was a case about marriage.

Dumont v. Lyon is a case about whether religious charties can refuse to let gay parents adopt children.

The plaintiffs are a gay couple that wants to adopt. The defendant is the State of Michigan.

Who is going to be hiring the counsel for the children that you believe is required to be there?

Who are the specific children the counsel will represent?

 

[Syriusly]

All of the required counsel was present.

Can you give me the name(s) of the counsel representing children's unique interests in Dumont v Lyon? This is a case of family law about adoption of children.

Fascinating I was just asking you that.

Can you give me the name of the child or children that you believe need to be represented in this case?

 

[Syriusly]

#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.

And again you are lying.

Obergefell said that when children are present, that preventing parents from marrying harms those children.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

Can you give me the name of the child or children that you believe need to be represented in this case?

All the children of the state of Michigan eligible for adoption. And if the precedent persists to the USSC, all the children of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

#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, t.

Let us review what Obergefell actually says again- shall we?

Oops- it doesn't say that children are parties to marriage- but it does say that preventing marriage harms children.

Why do you want to harm children?

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

 

[Silhouette]

And yet Obergefell defined in its third tier of rationale, that children are direct beneficiaries of the marriage contract.

And again you are lying.

You need the quote again, don't you?

The sad fact is that we are talking about Dumont v Lyon here where the direct question affects children. So, they must have counsel present. Why would you object to that if you're so secure in Obergefell protecting gays above children? Surely you want a fair hearing, and due process, right?

Or do you want to harm children by not letting them brief the courts?

 

[Syriusly]

Can you give me the name of the child or children that you believe need to be represented in this case?

All the children of the state of Michigan eligible for adoption. And if the precedent persists to the USSC, all the children of the United States.

Nope- unnamed and unidentified children are not involved in this case.

By that standard I guess that the all of the lawyers of the state of Michigan can be their counsel then.....

 

[Syriusly]

And yet Obergefell defined in its third tier of rationale, that children are direct beneficiaries of the marriage contract.

And again you are lying.

You need the quote again, don't you?

The sad fact is that we are talking about Dumont v Lyon here where the direct question affects children. So, they must have counsel present. Why would you object to that if you're so secure in Obergefell protecting gays above children? Surely you want a fair hearing, and due process, right?

Or do you want to harm children by not letting them brief the courts?

I don't object to children having counsel in any case that they are involved in.

As the court noted in Obergefell, preventing their parents from marrying harms children.

They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Why do you lie in order to harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

Nope- unnamed and unidentified children are not involved in this case.

Then if the children sought by the two lesbians have not been named, the lesbians cannot have standing either. Unless they're pushing for the availability of as yet unnamed children. Is the cult trying to have its cake and eat it too again?

The case is about setting a precedent of forcing adoption agencies to adopt out AS YET UNNAMED CHILDREN, IN QUANTITY, to a "married" home where there's a contract banishing said as yet unnamed children from a father for life.

You'd better believe as yet unnamed children have standing and a right to counsel briefing the court.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

LOL- coming from the SPAM Queen that is pretty hilarious. I am responding to your SPAM anti-gay posts. You don't like it- TS

The plaintiffs are two women who want to adopt children abandoned by their biological hetero parents.

You don't want these children to have parents- if it means having gay parents.

Because just like with gay marriage- this is all about you promoting issues to harm children and gays.

 

[Silhouette]

The plaintiffs are two women who want to adopt children abandoned by their biological hetero parents.

You don't want these children to have parents- if it means having gay parents.

Because just like with gay marriage- this is all about you promoting issues to harm children and gays.

The children's names please?

You don't want children unnamed to have representation at Dumont v Lyon. How oppressive of you.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope- unnamed and unidentified children are not involved in this case.

Then if the children sought by the two lesbians have not been named, the lesbians cannot have standing either. .

Like everything about the law- you are ignorant in the extreme.

The two women have standing because they can demonstrate actual harm- i.e. that the Catholic adoption agencies have refused to handle their adoptions because of their sexual orientation.

In order to have standing a person needs to have an actual harm.

You want to claim all children are being harmed by Catholic adoption agencies refusing to adopt to gays?

Really?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

All of the required counsel was present.

Can you give me the name(s) of the counsel representing children's unique interests in Dumont v Lyon? This is a case of family law about adoption of children.

The case goes a bit beyond family law. It governs child placement agencies. The agencies' placement decisions are based on meeting the needs of the children. As a fact, placement agencies do place adoptive children in single parent households and same sex households. The decision has nothing to do with what you purport to be saying. The agency's decision was not based on the needs of the child but on religious opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

The plaintiffs are two women who want to adopt children abandoned by their biological hetero parents.

You don't want these children to have parents- if it means having gay parents.

Because just like with gay marriage- this is all about you promoting issues to harm children and gays.

The children's names please? .

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.