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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You don't even know what the hell standing is- do you?

In order to sue- a person must have standing- which in my best laymen's understanding is that they have an immediate harm that can be remedied by the courts.
.

In order to have standing for a "civil rights" case, such as the Obergefell one, one has to belong to a minority. Behaviors cannot be a minority because there is no static identifier. People of all walks of life join the LGBT cult, and leave it...and rejoin again...and then leave it again. That is not a static class. So, Obergefell did not have standing for a civil rights complaint.

However, children DO have standing for violating their rights per the radical contract revision (they, thereafter, were institutionally deprived per contract of either a father or mother for life in "gay marriage") which they were mandated by law to have representation at last Spring...and did not. And the American public at large, any one of us, has standing to challenge that Hearing on the grounds that it happened in violation of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal (2009)... It was flatly a mistrial.

Wrong again.

The Constitution recognizes and protects the right of each American to make choices and decisions concerning his personal, private life free from unwarranted interference by government:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The right to choice, the right to self-determination, the right to define one's life as a free person and citizen of the United States is fundamental and inalienable, immune from attack by the state.

 

[Silhouette]

The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The right to choice, the right to self-determination, the right to define one's life as a free person and citizen of the United States is fundamental and inalienable, immune from attack by the state.

Yes, just like the liberty protected in the constitution allows bulimics the right to choose throwing up after they eat. But that doesn't mean that bulimics can go around suing for the right to have vomit urns at restaurant tables so they don't have to "be in the closet about their eating orientation" from "haters" who are "bulimiphobic".

See, we're talking about private behaviors. Nothing in Lawrence said that the public had to condone, play along with or allow that behavior to take over sacred institutions such as marriage...or people eating at cafes, being forced by law to watch someone puke...whatever the minority repugnant behavior might be that got it's "right to make that choice"...

The Opinion on Lawrence was to decriminalize....NOT to legitimize. Note the part in bold below referring to this not being a carte blanche for homosexuals to take over society at its core:.

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion unabashedly states that this decision elevates what the judges believe to be a “liberty interest” above the authority of the laws. Revealing obvious sympathy for the litigant, he proclaims that statutes such as the one addressed here “seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. “ Lawrence v. Texas

The "...or not..." part of that bold print is up to society; not five people in DC. And that point will be revisited since marriage and how its defined affects all of us in our formative years. Where the institutionalized stripping of a child's right to both a mother and father in marriage was a crucial point given a complete pass by the deliberations in Obergefell... Children had a right to representation at that Hearing on the proposed radical revision Hearing (Obergefell). They were not represented and, since the revision stood to harm them the most, the revision was illegal without their assent.

Just because children are underaged, does not mean they are barred from representation of the revision of a contract that they implicitly enjoy rights to. Especially when their share of enjoyments of that contract was the reason the contract was drawn up and created in the first place....and has stood that way to their enjoyment for THOUSANDS OF YEARS with billions of people assenting to that contract as valid...until June 2015..by the Will and Command of just five people in this little window of time in human civilization...

 

[Silhouette]

It would be like having a hearing on revising a military contract with a private contractor, without the military being present or having representation.

In other words yes, the private contractors would like all sorts of terms to benefit them, but they can't revise the contract to that effect without first getting the permission of the military for whom military contracts were drawn up to represent in the first place..

 

[Silhouette]

View attachment 57890

I'd forgotten almost about the 2013 "States' Choice" Decision pitted against the 2015 "Feds' mandate" Decision..

 

[Silhouette]

Ever notice how the LGBT bloggers show up en masse at a thread like this one and then disappear en masse as well at a given point (usually when they can't defend something so ominous that they flee as a group)? Something about this thread's OP scares them. Bad. I wonder why?

 

[Silhouette]

On contract law and "Infants" re: Obergefell Infants = minors under the legal age of emancipation in any given state. http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf (pages 2-3)
*******
With little exception, an infant does not have the capacity to bind himself or herself by contract. The infant's contracts are voidable at the infant's election, whether executed or executory. The rationale is that an infant is regarded as not having sufficient capacity to understand and pass upon questions involving contractual rights. Therefore, a person dealing with an infant does so at his or her peril and subject to the right of the infant to avoid the contract. Moreover, and contrary to commonly held beliefs, even approval of the contract by the parent or guardian of an infant does not bind the infant. However, the ratifying party will be bound.

Common law traditionally held that "where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." The modern view is that an infant's contract is voidable by the infant, regardless of whether it appears (at least in part) to be beneficial to the infant...."
*******
We have the gay lobby claiming that married gays provide a necessity to adoptable infants. The Prince's Trust begs to differ (see OP for link). Here is the New York requirement where an adult claims they provide a necessity to an infant, where that infant is bound to the adult's "contract" with them for that alleged necessity.

The contracts of minors or infants are not void, but voidable at the infant’s election. 66 N.Y. Jur. 2d § 7 (2000). While contracts made by an infant are ordinarily voidable at his or her election, contracts for necessities are excepted from this rule. In an action against an infant upon a contract made by the infant allegedly for necessities, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that what he or she agreed to provide to the infant was a necessity. 66 N.Y. Jur. 2d § 20 (2000). Service Contracts with Minors

Bear in mind here that if there is a question, like depriving a child of a mother or father for life with the radical contract revision that Obergefell was on marriage and adoption rights re marriage specifically, the burden is upon that adult or those adults who claim the child is bound to that (brand new) contract because they allege it provides a necessity to them.

However, it will be a cold day in hell when you find a court or tribunal finding that depriving a child of either a father or mother for life constitutes "a necessity" to that child. Read more on that failed argument here: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

In any event, that argument, which should have been had at Obergefell Hearing, did not happen. Instead we find that five people ripped away an infant's right to disaffirm or to not disaffirm to their benefit, the original meaning of the word "marriage" for their benefit. Which, as I remind the readers here again, existed to their benefit for THOUSANDS of years with BILLIONS of people assenting and confirming its validity. All that benefit and enjoyment of a contract originally conceived of directly to place children with the social advantage of having BOTH a mother AND a father, was ripped away without infants' input as a contemporary favor to the loud and pernicious gay lobby in June 2015 BY JUST FIVE PEOPLE. No burden was placed upon the gays seeking to deprive the absent party to the marriage contract of how a radical revision provided a "necessity" to them.

And for that reason alone, among the other two noted in the OP, the Obergefell Hearing was a mistrial purely on violation of contract law as to infants.

 

[mdk]

Ever notice how the LGBT bloggers show up en masse at a thread like this one and then disappear en masse as well at a given point (usually when they can't defend something so ominous that they flee as a group)? Something about this thread's OP scares them. Bad. I wonder why?

Oh, please. When people respond to your threads you whine, when people don't respond you whine.

There is nothing to be scared about b/c your delusional gibberish doesn't have the slightest bearing on the law. Meanwhile, gays continue to marry/raise families and all you can do is stomp your feet. Despair in knowing that your crusade against gay people has been an utter and massive failure.

 

[Syriusly]

You don't even know what the hell standing is- do you?

In order to sue- a person must have standing- which in my best laymen's understanding is that they have an immediate harm that can be remedied by the courts.
.

In order to have standing for a "civil rights" case, such as the Obergefell one, one has to belong to a minority. .

False.

God you have no clue what the law is.

 

[Syriusly]

Just like those opposed to equal rights for minorities have not given up. Doesn't put you on the right side of history, tho.

How is a behavior a minority? .

A behavior is not a minority- no one claims that but you.

 

[Syriusly]

On contract law and "Infants" re: Obergefell Infants = minors under the legal age of emancipation in any given state. http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf (pages 2-3)
*******
With little exception, an infant does not have the capacity to bind himself or herself by contract. The infant's contracts are voidable at the infant's election, whether executed or executory. The rationale is that an infant is regarded as not having sufficient capacity to understand and pass upon questions involving contractual rights. Therefore, a person dealing with an infant does so at his or her peril and subject to the right of the infant to avoid the contract. Moreover, and contrary to commonly held beliefs, even approval of the contract by the parent or guardian of an infant does not bind the infant. However, the ratifying party will be bound.

Common law traditionally held that "where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." The modern view is that an infant's contract is voidable by the infant, regardless of whether it appears (at least in part) to be beneficial to the infant...."
*******
We have the gay lobby claiming that married gays provide a necessity to adoptable infants. The Prince's Trust begs to differ (see OP for link).

No- we have you attacking homosexuals.

And lying about the Prince's Trust.

 

[Syriusly]

[
To a lawyer, yes. But probably not to you. People in cults tend to not be able to think in a logical or deductive way.

There is not a lawyer in the United States that agrees with you.

 

[Silhouette]

There is not a lawyer in the United States that agrees with you.

Really? When you did your survey recently of every single lawyer in the United States as to whether or not they agree with "me" (what the OP say and has links to in real law), did you let them read this post and its links? It seems at least that the states of California and New York agree with infants and contract law, as depicted in the OP, and below...

Realizing of course that if one single lawyer agrees with me, or maybe five or twenty, your cult could have a real problem on its hands. If a child, advocate of a child, or guardian of a child or children (orphans) (like a State acting as their custodian or any other custodian) sues for childrens' rights to have been represented at the Obergefell Hearing, you'd better hope your sweeping gaslighting untruth "not a lawyer.." is true.

On contract law and "Infants" re: Obergefell Infants = minors under the legal age of emancipation in any given state. http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf (pages 2-3)
*******
With little exception, an infant does not have the capacity to bind himself or herself by contract. The infant's contracts are voidable at the infant's election, whether executed or executory. The rationale is that an infant is regarded as not having sufficient capacity to understand and pass upon questions involving contractual rights. Therefore, a person dealing with an infant does so at his or her peril and subject to the right of the infant to avoid the contract. Moreover, and contrary to commonly held beliefs, even approval of the contract by the parent or guardian of an infant does not bind the infant. However, the ratifying party will be bound.

Common law traditionally held that "where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." The modern view is that an infant's contract is voidable by the infant, regardless of whether it appears (at least in part) to be beneficial to the infant...."
*******
We have the gay lobby claiming that married gays provide a necessity to adoptable infants. The Prince's Trust begs to differ (see OP for link). Here is the New York requirement where an adult claims they provide a necessity to an infant, where that infant is bound to the adult's "contract" with them for that alleged necessity.

The contracts of minors or infants are not void, but voidable at the infant’s election. 66 N.Y. Jur. 2d § 7 (2000). While contracts made by an infant are ordinarily voidable at his or her election, contracts for necessities are excepted from this rule. In an action against an infant upon a contract made by the infant allegedly for necessities, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that what he or she agreed to provide to the infant was a necessity. 66 N.Y. Jur. 2d § 20 (2000). Service Contracts with Minors

Bear in mind here that if there is a question, like depriving a child of a mother or father for life with the radical contract revision that Obergefell was on marriage and adoption rights re marriage specifically, the burden is upon that adult or those adults who claim the child is bound to that (brand new) contract because they allege it provides a necessity to them.

However, it will be a cold day in hell when you find a court or tribunal finding that depriving a child of either a father or mother for life constitutes "a necessity" to that child. Read more on that failed argument here: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

In any event, that argument, which should have been had at Obergefell Hearing, did not happen. Instead we find that five people ripped away an infant's right to disaffirm or to not disaffirm to their benefit, the original meaning of the word "marriage" for their benefit. Which, as I remind the readers here again, existed to their benefit for THOUSANDS of years with BILLIONS of people assenting and confirming its validity. All that benefit and enjoyment of a contract originally conceived of directly to place children with the social advantage of having BOTH a mother AND a father, was ripped away without infants' input as a contemporary favor to the loud and pernicious gay lobby in June 2015 BY JUST FIVE PEOPLE. No burden was placed upon the gays seeking to deprive the absent party to the marriage contract of how a radical revision provided a "necessity" to them.

And for that reason alone, among the other two noted in the OP, the Obergefell Hearing was a mistrial purely on violation of contract law as to infants.

 

[Silhouette]

Each and every single lawyer in the United States has completely assented with the LGBT blogger's position that infants do not have rights and did not have rights to the contractual enjoyment they shared called "marriage" at last Spring's Obergefell Hearing.

Remarkable!

Might want to revisit the laws concerning infants and contracts again, Syriusly, Seawytch, mdk, Joe, Montrovant, Skylar, Paintmyhouse, Luddly Neddite, JakeStarkey, frigidweirdo. Did I forget anyone?

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Are you saying here that an illegal Hearing on a contract revision is "good" even if key parties to the contract and their interests had no representation at the Hearing? Getting away with murder doesn't mean you're off the hook...Just as OJ. Civil retrials can be a bitch.

You act like the deal of gays adopting children was also mandated across the 50 states. That question is still under challenge and will overlap on the infant/contract issue... BTW, I used to watch a bit of football back in the day and have actually seen hail mary passes get caught and win the game. There's still a question of law pending: "Rodger that"...

 

[Syriusly]

There is not a lawyer in the United States that agrees with you.

Really? When you did your survey recently of every single lawyer in the United States as to whether or not they agree with "me" (what the OP say and has links to in real law), did you let them read this post and its links? It seems at least that the states of California and New York agree with infants and contract law, as depicted in the OP, and below...

Realizing of course that if one single lawyer agrees with me, or maybe five or twenty, your cult could have a real problem on its hands. .

LOL....'my cult'.....god you are an idiot.

No- Americans will not have a problem even if one nutty lawyer agreed with you- because there is no case- every point you made is legally ludicruous.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Are you saying here that an illegal Hearing on a contract revisionA]

You imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

 

[Silhouette]

You imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

I'm not imagining this. I really read this at a real legal website. Maybe they were lying? Maybe the laws regarding infants and contracts don't really exist and it's all one big quixotic windmill?

On contract law and "Infants" re: Obergefell Infants = minors under the legal age of emancipation in any given state. http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf (pages 2-3)
*******
With little exception, an infant does not have the capacity to bind himself or herself by contract. The infant's contracts are voidable at the infant's election, whether executed or executory. The rationale is that an infant is regarded as not having sufficient capacity to understand and pass upon questions involving contractual rights. Therefore, a person dealing with an infant does so at his or her peril and subject to the right of the infant to avoid the contract. Moreover, and contrary to commonly held beliefs, even approval of the contract by the parent or guardian of an infant does not bind the infant. However, the ratifying party will be bound.

Common law traditionally held that "where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." The modern view is that an infant's contract is voidable by the infant, regardless of whether it appears (at least in part) to be beneficial to the infant...."
*******

So you think the marriage contract is only "implied" to include children? And that implied contracts are not explicit ones? Think again:

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

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+contracts

 

[Syriusly]

You imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

I'm not imagining this. I really read this at a real legal website. e]

Oh you are able to find websites- and post links.

But once again- you imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh you are able to find websites- and post links.

But once again- you imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

If a hearing was had to revise a contract of which children were an implicit part thereof, and enjoyed implicit rights thereto, and children were not represented at that hearing, the hearing and the revision of that contract is void. Read the laws again Syriusly. I didn't say the Obergefell hearing was void. The laws of infants and contract law say it is void.

From ancient law and law on the books today concerning contracts (including the marriage contract):

..."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant."

Now, go find a lawyer for your cult who will successfully argue that the removal of either a mother or father (for life, without infants' expressed assent) from the marriage contract was for the "benefit" of children. Good luck!

 

[Syriusly]

Oh you are able to find websites- and post links.

But once again- you imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

If a hearing was had to revise a contract of which children were an implicit part thereof,

Well feel free to tell us about such a 'hearing' and such a 'contract'.

You haven't mentioned any such hearing yet.