Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

[Silhouette]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

Three issues.
1. That same-sex couples did not have standing to challenge the majority rule (minority behaviors cannot have special Constitutional protections)

2. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan were mandated to recuse themselves from the Obergefell Hearing. (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

1. The trouble with deeming a minority behavior that is repugnant to the majority a "protected class" is all the other minority behaviors that are repugnant to the majority that are currently being discriminated against... What makes practitioners of gay sex so important over other acts the majority rejects? Really? Specifically (legally, in the purest sense of fairness and equality) how is this one behavior set above all others?

They will have their day in court too.. There was no protection for human behavior written into the Constitution. Particularly those behaviors repugnant to the majority. The right to kill out of anger, etc. etc. etc. would be a Constitutional right then. Penal and civil laws would cease to have meaning if minority behaviors have protected status.

People are a different matter. But the Justices refusal to see WHAT was petitioning them for "gay marriage" was their critical error in premise. Was it a static legal entity like a race or a gender? Or was it a cult loosely knit around sexual fetish behaviors? There is no binding element to "gays" other than what they do in their bedrooms. Men are friends with and love other men. Women are friends with and love other women. The ones who do this and also opt to have "sex" with the same gender, are engaging in a behavior that the majority finds repugnant, and the majority found certainly not worthy of the sublime endorsement of "marriage"..

The static vs ephemeral legal status on standing was an error I contend that's due to unravel American law at its foundation. And an error, given

2. Capterton v A.T. Massey Coal (2009), can be reversed inasmuch as two of the Justices responsible for this bungle on American law's bedrock were mandated to recuse themselves from the 2015 gay marriage Hearing. in 2009 Ginsburg herself voted in favor of of any judge, anywhere, anytime, being mandated to recuse themselves from a hearing if they had or displayed a vested interest in the outcome of that Hearing. Both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan presided publicly over gay weddings as Justice of the Peace AS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER STATES ON GAY MARRIAGE WAS PENDING.

As the embodiment of the federal government, even though they presided in states where gay marriage was voted in by the majority, their presence officiating over a gay wedding would cause anyone in the world, anywhere, to absolutely be able to predict how their vote would be cast in the pending Obergefell Hearing. This means re the language and Finding of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, that they were mandated to have recused themselves from the Obergefell Hearing. Which they did not do. Therefore, the Hearing was a mistrial.

3. In the proposed revision of any contract, including the one of marriage, all parties to the contract must be present and sign off on any new revisions. This is particularly true when the revisions are radical and stand to harm especially any missing party to that revision hearing. There is no legal expert that exists on the face of the earth who could successfully argue that children are not implicit sharers in the marriage contract. The marriage contract was born from their interests way back in time immemorial and has persisted for their interests ever since, through multiple millennia up to 2015.

Yet, at the Obergefell Hearing, no attorney for the interest of children to the proposed contractual-revision was present. Children were flatly ignored as to the revision. And this is particularly onerous given that the revision institutionalized motherless or fatherless "marriages" where a child would suffer that loss without hope of the future holding the promise of a mother or father...ever... Single hetero homes at least hold that promise coming. A gay home; particularly a gay married home guarantees the child that deprivation for life.

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN
Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:
[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family....the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children. American College of Pediatricians on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling: ‘A Tragic Day for America’s Children’ - Breitbart

Modifying a Contract after Signing It
Once a contract has been signed, then it typically cannot be changed unless all parties to the contract agree to the modifications....If the contract doesn't address the issue of changes, you'll need to talk to the other parties to the contract, make sure that they agree to the changes, then, to be on the safe side, add a rider (additional section) to the contract that addresses the changes. This rider should be signed by each party to the original contract....There may be instances where all parties to a contract are unable to come to agreement on changes. If that happens, you'll have to live with the original signed agreement, walk away from the contact... Contract Modification

The binding force of a contract is based on the fact that it evinces a meeting of minds of two parties in Good Faith. A contract, once formed, does not contemplate a right of a party to reject it. Contracts that were mutually entered into between parties with the capacity to contract are binding obligations and may not be set aside due to the caprice of one party or the other unless a statute provides to the contrary.... Implied contracts are as binding as express contracts. An implied contract depends on substance for its existence; therefore, for an implied contract to arise, there must be some act or conduct of a party, in order for them to be bound. implied contracts

The "act or conduct" is for thousands of years marriage originated and existed to provide boys and girls with both a mother and father as mentors to fledge them into society. Society is bound by this act and conduct to provide both a mother and father to children unless children say and agree otherwise (see below * )

More from that same link:

*
Infants An infant is defined as a person under the age of 18 or 21, depending on the particular jurisdiction. A contract made by an infant is voidable but is valid and enforceable until or unless he or she disaffirms it. He or she may avoid the legal duty to perform the terms of the contract without any liability for breach of contract. Infants are treated in such a way because public policy deems it desirable to protect the immature and naive infant from liability for unfair contracts that he or she is too inexperienced to negotiate on equal terms with the other party.

So, with marriage contracts, we have a contract created originally and cemented for millennia for the benefit of children. Children had no voice at the revision table that just dissolved that enjoyment without their permission or input. Children did not disaffirm the marriage contract as majority-regulated "man/woman". For that matter, if a gay marriage was ratified in a state without the input of children in some legal forum to disaffirm their enjoyment of having both a mother and father, then those laws are also invalid because of contract law.

So which attorney reading this has the balls to argue that the implied condition of marriage was somehow not to provide children with both a mother and father?

The Obergefell Hearing was the worst type of Kangaroo Court in regards to all of 1, 2 and 3. As to the contract modification, the change was radical and sought to fundamentally deprive one of the key parties to the creation of the contract in the first place of the necessary elements for the very reason the contract was conceived of in the beginning: to provide boys and girls with both mother and father. Not only were the children not invited to the revision table, even when they tried to voice their concerns with amicus briefs, those concerns were wholly ignored and unmentioned. In previous comments from the Justices, "the welfare of children" was conspicuously noted of record and in written Opinion. Yet in the Obergefell Opinion, not a whit of their concern was addressed. This was done as a convenience to gays whom the Court's majority knew could not and would not provide children with what they fundamentally need: BOTH a mother and father in life.

For this purposeful omission of consideration as a politically-expedient favor to the potent and aggressive gay lobby in just Obergefell, where the Justices' "concern for children's wellbeing" went missing, all five of these Justices should be impeached. At the very least, Obergefell should be reheard with a team of attorneys present to represent the rights of children as to the marriage contract.

For more on what happens to children without regular contact with either a mother or father, read this survey, the largest of its kind on youth adjusting to the adult world: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[Skylar]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

Three issues.
1. That same-sex couples did not have standing to challenge the majority rule (minority behaviors cannot have special Constitutional protections)

2. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan were mandated to recuse themselves from the Obergefell Hearing. (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

1. The trouble with deeming a minority behavior that is repugnant to the majority a "protected class" is all the other minority behaviors that are repugnant to the majority that are currently being discriminated against... What makes practitioners of gay sex so important over other acts the majority rejects? Really? Specifically (legally, in the purest sense of fairness and equality) how is this one behavior set above all others?

They will have their day in court too.. There was no protection for human behavior written into the Constitution. Particularly those behaviors repugnant to the majority. The right to kill out of anger, etc. etc. etc. would be a Constitutional right then. Penal and civil laws would cease to have meaning if minority behaviors have protected status.

People are a different matter. But the Justices refusal to see WHAT was petitioning them for "gay marriage" was their critical error in premise. Was it a static legal entity like a race or a gender? Or was it a cult loosely knit around sexual fetish behaviors? There is no binding element to "gays" other than what they do in their bedrooms. Men are friends with and love other men. Women are friends with and love other women. The ones who do this and also opt to have "sex" with the same gender, are engaging in a behavior that the majority finds repugnant, and the majority found certainly not worthy of the sublime endorsement of "marriage"..

The static vs ephemeral legal status on standing was an error I contend that's due to unravel American law at its foundation. And an error, given

2. Capterton v A.T. Massey Coal (2009), can be reversed inasmuch as two of the Justices responsible for this bungle on American law's bedrock were mandated to recuse themselves from the 2015 gay marriage Hearing. in 2009 Ginsburg herself voted in favor of of any judge, anywhere, anytime, being mandated to recuse themselves from a hearing if they had or displayed a vested interest in the outcome of that Hearing. Both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan presided publicly over gay weddings as Justice of the Peace AS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER STATES ON GAY MARRIAGE WAS PENDING.

As the embodiment of the federal government, even though they presided in states where gay marriage was voted in by the majority, their presence officiating over a gay wedding would cause anyone in the world, anywhere, to absolutely be able to predict how their vote would be cast in the pending Obergefell Hearing. This means re the language and Finding of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, that they were mandated to have recused themselves from the Obergefell Hearing. Which they did not do. Therefore, the Hearing was a mistrial.

3. In the proposed revision of any contract, including the one of marriage, all parties to the contract must be present and sign off on any new revisions. This is particularly true when the revisions are radical and stand to harm especially any missing party to that revision hearing. There is no legal expert that exists on the face of the earth who could successfully argue that children are not implicit sharers in the marriage contract. The marriage contract was born from their interests way back in time immemorial and has persisted for their interests ever since, through multiple millennia up to 2015.

Yet, at the Obergefell Hearing, no attorney for the interest of children to the proposed contractual-revision was present. Children were flatly ignored as to the revision. And this is particularly onerous given that the revision institutionalized motherless or fatherless "marriages" where a child would suffer that loss without hope of the future holding the promise of a mother or father...ever... Single hetero homes at least hold that promise coming. A gay home; particularly a gay married home guarantees the child that deprivation for life.

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN
Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:
[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family....the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children. American College of Pediatricians on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling: ‘A Tragic Day for America’s Children’ - Breitbart

Modifying a Contract after Signing It
Once a contract has been signed, then it typically cannot be changed unless all parties to the contract agree to the modifications....If the contract doesn't address the issue of changes, you'll need to talk to the other parties to the contract, make sure that they agree to the changes, then, to be on the safe side, add a rider (additional section) to the contract that addresses the changes. This rider should be signed by each party to the original contract....There may be instances where all parties to a contract are unable to come to agreement on changes. If that happens, you'll have to live with the original signed agreement, walk away from the contact... Contract Modification

The binding force of a contract is based on the fact that it evinces a meeting of minds of two parties in Good Faith. A contract, once formed, does not contemplate a right of a party to reject it. Contracts that were mutually entered into between parties with the capacity to contract are binding obligations and may not be set aside due to the caprice of one party or the other unless a statute provides to the contrary.... Implied contracts are as binding as express contracts. An implied contract depends on substance for its existence; therefore, for an implied contract to arise, there must be some act or conduct of a party, in order for them to be bound. implied contracts

The "act or conduct" is for thousands of years marriage originated and existed to provide boys and girls with both a mother and father as mentors to fledge them into society. Society is bound by this act and conduct to provide both a mother and father to children unless children say and agree otherwise (see below * )

More from that same link:

*
Infants An infant is defined as a person under the age of 18 or 21, depending on the particular jurisdiction. A contract made by an infant is voidable but is valid and enforceable until or unless he or she disaffirms it. He or she may avoid the legal duty to perform the terms of the contract without any liability for breach of contract. Infants are treated in such a way because public policy deems it desirable to protect the immature and naive infant from liability for unfair contracts that he or she is too inexperienced to negotiate on equal terms with the other party.

So, with marriage contracts, we have a contract created originally and cemented for millennia for the benefit of children. Children had no voice at the revision table that just dissolved that enjoyment without their permission or input. Children did not disaffirm the marriage contract as majority-regulated "man/woman". For that matter, if a gay marriage was ratified in a state without the input of children in some legal forum to disaffirm their enjoyment of having both a mother and father, then those laws are also invalid because of contract law.

So which attorney reading this has the balls to argue that the implied condition of marriage was somehow not to provide children with both a mother and father?

The Obergefell Hearing was the worst type of Kangaroo Court in regards to all of 1, 2 and 3. As to the contract modification, the change was radical and sought to fundamentally deprive one of the key parties to the creation of the contract in the first place of the necessary elements for the very reason the contract was conceived of in the beginning: to provide boys and girls with both mother and father. Not only were the children not invited to the revision table, even when they tried to voice their concerns with amicus briefs, those concerns were wholly ignored and unmentioned. In previous comments from the Justices, "the welfare of children" was conspicuously noted of record and in written Opinion. Yet in the Obergefell Opinion, not a whit of their concern was addressed. This was done as a convenience to gays whom the Court's majority knew could not and would not provide children with what they fundamentally need: BOTH a mother and father in life.

Another thumbsucker thread?

We've already established that you don't know shit about the law, the courts, precedent, or how any ruling is going to play out. As you demonstrated elegantly for us with your elaborate pseudo-legal gibberish before the Obergefell ruling and laughably inaccurate predictions on how the court would rule.

You've never once managed to provide an accurate prediction of any court ruling. You've been wrong *every* time you've made up. And yet despite your perfect record of failure, here you are again making *new* predictions and offering us more pseudo-legal gibberish?

So, um...how's that working out for you?

For this purposeful omission of consideration as a politically-expedient favor to the potent and aggressive gay lobby in just Obergefell, where the Justices' "concern for children's wellbeing" went missing, all five of these Justices should be impeached. At the very least, Obergefell should be reheard with a team of attorneys present to represent the rights of children as to the marriage contract.

Denying marriage to same sex parents don't magically make them opposite sex parents. All it does it guarantee that their children will never have married parents. Which hurts those children (as the Windsor and Obergefell Courts both found). While helping no child.

Your proposal only hurts kids. It helps none. No thank you.

For more on what happens to children without regular contact with either a mother or father, read this survey, the largest of its kind on youth adjusting to the adult world: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Except of course, the study you're citing doesn't mention mothers. Or fathers. Or measure the effects of any kind of parenting. It speaks of good same sex role models. With the Prince's Trust having established elaborate mentoring programs to provide youth with just such good same role models.

Utterly destroying your argument about gays and their children.

Which you already know. But really hope we don't. Your argument, as always, relies on an ignorant audience.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

Three issues.
1. That same-sex couples did not have standing to challenge the majority rule (minority behaviors cannot have special Constitutional protections)

2. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan were mandated to recuse themselves from the Obergefell Hearing. (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.
Y

Just a rehashing of your usual fictional legal arguments.

1) Same Sex couples did have standing- that was decided repeatedly- because unlike you the courts can recognize the issue was marriage- not behavior.
2) The only persons who can decide whether a Justice needs to recuse him or herself is the Justice him or herself. While you may believe that the Justices should have recused themselves, your opinion has no legal standing or recourse.
3) Children had not sued the state. Once again you display your fundamental contempt for our legal system- children were not a party in any of the suits. However, children on both sides of the issue did provide their comments, and of course as we all know the Justices were very concerned about the injustice done to children of gay couples who were injured by their parents not being able to be married.

Of course any courts decision can be reversed- but this court will not be the court reversing itself.

 

[mdk]

This thread is like Sil's greatest hits for the year: The Prince's Trust, static legal entities, Massey Coal, fake concern for children, whines about how Obergefell will be reheard...

Too funny.

 

[Skylar]

Yes yes, gay marriage again. But this thread is more than that. It is a legal discussion of premise. It is a legal logical argument of "If...then..." which any lawyer would understand.

Three issues.
1. That same-sex couples did not have standing to challenge the majority rule (minority behaviors cannot have special Constitutional protections)

They did have standing. You have no idea how our legal system works. A state can't create laws that abrogate rights. Per your nonsense reasoning, no one who had their rights violated by a law could have standing to oppose it.

Back in reality, those who had their rights violated by a law are exactly the folks that have standing.

Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about.

2. Justices Ginsburg and Kagan were mandated to recuse themselves from the Obergefell Hearing. (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

Nope. In Caperton the judge in question had received significant amount of money for a releection campaign from one of the litigants in a case he adjudicated.

Neither Ginsburg nor Kagan have releection campaigns. They received no financial compensation for any litigant. Destroying your argument.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Children were immediately considered in the Windsor and Obergefell rulings. And the courts found that denying marriage to same sex parents hurt and humiliated their children.

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law
in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security."

Which is an explicit contradiction of your assertions. With your proposal *harming* children.

All of which you know. But hope we don't. And even more laughably, you ignored the court on the very issue you insist they didn't take into account.

Please see above about you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

This thread is like Sil's greatest hits for the year: The Prince's Trust, static legal entities, Massey Coal, fake concern for children, whines about how Obergefell will be reheard...

Too funny.

Don't forget Sil's myopic obsession with anal sex.

 

[mdk]

This thread is like Sil's greatest hits for the year: The Prince's Trust, static legal entities, Massey Coal, fake concern for children, whines about how Obergefell will be reheard...

Too funny.

Don't forget Sil's myopic obsession with anal sex.

I also missed blaming gays for Roof and Mercer. Perhaps those are on The B Side? lol

 

[Skylar]

This thread is like Sil's greatest hits for the year: The Prince's Trust, static legal entities, Massey Coal, fake concern for children, whines about how Obergefell will be reheard...

Too funny.

Don't forget Sil's myopic obsession with anal sex.

I also missed blaming gays for Roof and Mercer. Perhaps those are on The B Side? lol

Wasn't Sil's batshit that Roof and Mercer WERE gay? Because of Sil's 'gaydar'? 'Gaydar' that led Sil to believe that the former Marine who was gut shot *fighting* Mercer was gay?

Sil's insanity is often just an incomprehensible mess of long vowel sounds and clicking noises .

 

[Silhouette]

Sil's insanity is often just an incomprehensible mess of long vowel sounds and clicking noises .

So are contract law and Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 also incomprehensible messes of long vowel sounds and clicking noises?

 

[Skylar]

Sil's insanity is often just an incomprehensible mess of long vowel sounds and clicking noises .

So are contract law and Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 also incomprehensible messes of long vowel sounds and clicking noises?

You don't understand contract law, Caperton, or any portion of the law. For example, in this thread alone you've argued that those harmed by an unconstitutional law have NO standing in challenging it.

Which is quite literally the opposite of the truth. As those being harmed by an unconstitutional law are *exactly* who have standing.

Sil....who is this pseudo-legal gibberish for? You know you're full of shit. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know you're full of shit. So.....what's the point? This is just another thumbsucker thread. Where you self sooth by telling yourself the same useless, debunked lies.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil's insanity is often just an incomprehensible mess of long vowel sounds and clicking noises .

So are contract law and Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 also incomprehensible messes of long vowel sounds and clicking noises?

You don't understand contract law, Caperton, or any portion of the law. For example, in this thread alone you've argued that those harmed by an unconstitutional law have NO standing in challenging it.

Which is quite literally the opposite of the truth. As those being harmed by an unconstitutional law are *exactly* who have standing.

Sil....who is this pseudo-legal gibberish for? You know you're full of shit. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know you're full of shit. So.....what's the point? This is just another thumbsucker thread. Where you self sooth by telling yourself the same useless, debunked lies.

Yes, children have and had standing to be present at or have representation present at the Obergefell Hearing's proposed radical revision of the contract they implicitly have rights to..

You sound a little agitated about the OP. Care to talk about the real reason?

 

[Skylar]

Sil's insanity is often just an incomprehensible mess of long vowel sounds and clicking noises .

So are contract law and Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 also incomprehensible messes of long vowel sounds and clicking noises?

You don't understand contract law, Caperton, or any portion of the law. For example, in this thread alone you've argued that those harmed by an unconstitutional law have NO standing in challenging it.

Which is quite literally the opposite of the truth. As those being harmed by an unconstitutional law are *exactly* who have standing.

Sil....who is this pseudo-legal gibberish for? You know you're full of shit. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know you're full of shit. So.....what's the point? This is just another thumbsucker thread. Where you self sooth by telling yourself the same useless, debunked lies.

You sound a little agitated about the OP. Care to talk about the real reason?

I sound like I've heard all this nonsense before.

You're just recycling the same debunked nonsense. And you already know why none of it works, why your proposals hurt kids, why the court has rejected arguments like yours.

Which makes this thread utterly pointless.

 

[mdk]

Sil's insanity is often just an incomprehensible mess of long vowel sounds and clicking noises .

So are contract law and Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 also incomprehensible messes of long vowel sounds and clicking noises?

You don't understand contract law, Caperton, or any portion of the law. For example, in this thread alone you've argued that those harmed by an unconstitutional law have NO standing in challenging it.

Which is quite literally the opposite of the truth. As those being harmed by an unconstitutional law are *exactly* who have standing.

Sil....who is this pseudo-legal gibberish for? You know you're full of shit. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know you're full of shit. So.....what's the point? This is just another thumbsucker thread. Where you self sooth by telling yourself the same useless, debunked lies.

Yes, children have and had standing to be present at or have representation present at the Obergefell Hearing's proposed radical revision of the contract they implicitly have rights to..

You sound a little agitated about the OP. Care to talk about the real reason?

I love that you are still throwing 'Hail Mary' passes in the end zone despite the fact the teams left the field months ago. lol.

I wallow in the fact that you can't do shit about gays getting married, save starting the same threads over and over again.

Maybe Santa will bring you a life this year?

 

[Silhouette]

You're just recycling the same debunked nonsense....

Who debunked it? You? Was there a legal challenge that a judge or justice settled the matter on contract law or Caperton v Massey Coal? Are US Supreme Court Justices exempt from appearance of bias or does Caperton apply to them also? Do contracts hold to law in all but marriage contracts? They are singularly exempt from contract law interpretation?

Were a whole host of new laws enacted to circumvent existing ones just so gay marriage could become "legal"? Please explain who debunked the points in the OP and where we can look for official transcripts on that debunking...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Those opposed to fagot marriage have not given up, folks.

If you think so, great, thats good news for the rest of us.

 

[Silhouette]

Those opposed to fagot marriage have not given up, folks.

If you think so, great, thats good news for the rest of us.

I think it's a bit distracting to call it "fagot marriage", don't you? I mean you're playing right into their sympathy ploy. It's comments like those that have gotten them the mileage they've got so far. Think about it. The infamous five on SCOTUS gave them an illegal right because they felt sorry for them...

 

[EverCurious]

This thread is like Sil's greatest hits for the year: The Prince's Trust, static legal entities, Massey Coal, fake concern for children, whines about how Obergefell will be reheard...

Too funny.

Don't forget Sil's myopic obsession with anal sex.

I also missed blaming gays for Roof and Mercer. Perhaps those are on The B Side? lol

Wasn't Sil's batshit that Roof and Mercer WERE gay? Because of Sil's 'gaydar'? 'Gaydar' that led Sil to believe that the former Marine who was gut shot *fighting* Mercer was gay?

Sil's insanity is often just an incomprehensible mess of long vowel sounds and clicking noises .

As I recall, Roof was clearly gay because he wore a wrist watch upside down. Yes?

 

[mdk]

Those opposed to fagot marriage have not given up, folks.

If you think so, great, thats good news for the rest of us.

I think it's a bit distracting to call it "fagot marriage", don't you? I mean you're playing right into their sympathy ploy. It's comments like those that have gotten them the mileage they've got so far. Think about it. The infamous five on SCOTUS gave them an illegal right because they felt sorry for them...

So now Jim is in on the conspiracy!? You're off your nut.

 

[mdk]

This thread is like Sil's greatest hits for the year: The Prince's Trust, static legal entities, Massey Coal, fake concern for children, whines about how Obergefell will be reheard...

Too funny.

Don't forget Sil's myopic obsession with anal sex.

I also missed blaming gays for Roof and Mercer. Perhaps those are on The B Side? lol

Wasn't Sil's batshit that Roof and Mercer WERE gay? Because of Sil's 'gaydar'? 'Gaydar' that led Sil to believe that the former Marine who was gut shot *fighting* Mercer was gay?

Sil's insanity is often just an incomprehensible mess of long vowel sounds and clicking noises .

As I recall, Roof was clearly gay because he wore a wrist watch upside down. Yes?

And a Gold's Gym tank top.

 

[Syriusly]

This thread is like Sil's greatest hits for the year: The Prince's Trust, static legal entities, Massey Coal, fake concern for children, whines about how Obergefell will be reheard...

Too funny.

It is her unified "Gay is Bad" theorem.