Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)
Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.
The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.
Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.
Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.
Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.
Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw
In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right
Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.
The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.
Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.
Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.
A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).
Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.
Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw
Last edited: