The Latest In the Landmark Court Case the LGBT Would Rather You Not Remain Current On..

[Silhouette]

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

I'd like to start out this thread by reminding that "Current Events" are for those things that are current that people are monitoring in a general way. Since the thread linked below this paragraph was dungeoned into "Law and Justice" subforum, people stopped hearing about it. Mission accomplished?

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

In any event, some interesting things have been happening since it was put out of sight, so to speak. And, they are current and ongoing. Most importantly the impact of how this case is decided literally could be the official case law that sends both fathers and mothers as unique irreplaceable roles (think about that folks who are in custody battles..) as "irrelevant". That isn't just a garden variety "Law and Justice" matter. It's an area of social impact the magnitude of something we've never seen before in the history of human civilization....

...Think about that for a minute...

 

[Silhouette]

Now, onto the case... Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

When we last discussed, Michigan orphans were allowed to join the suit, (as all children should have separate counsel advising on any legal matter involving the tweaking of family law, particularly marriage and adoption where they share the contracts with adults: see: Infancy Doctrine). Good, finally the courts are recognizing which parties to a shared contract were barred from briefing previous multiple cases in these family law matters...

Now, the orphans who joined the suit and Catholic Charities were allowed to file "additional pages". Seems boring at first glance, but what that means is, they're fine-tuning their arguments. That happened May 1, 2018. I believe its surrounding a motion to dismiss the suit; which actually should happen and here's why...

The lesbians who brought the suit (and dragonlady confirmed here in post #473 of the other thread herein linked above) not to really make Catholic charities adopt out boys to fatherless marriage contracts (for life) they'd be forced to share with adults (illegal per the infancy doctrine). They know that Catholics may do as they please with their orphanages so long as they self-fund. 1st Amendment protections are stiff for religious objections. The lesbians know they have other choices besides Catholic Charities to try to pry away boys (and little girls) to take home to their fatherless-for-life contractual-guarantee.

No...what the lesbians want in Dumont vs Lyon is to strip Catholic Charities of money they vitally need for the massive numbers of orphans they care for in the State of Michigan. You see, the LGBT wants to use the whip of "separation of church and state" TO PUNISH the Catholic Charities which will result (as they well know beforehand) in the direct proximal harm to orphaned children in the State of Michigan.

Here's what dragonlady said in her post 473 here: Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

The briefs you’re talking about are the briefs of children who have been helped by the Catholic agency that the want to continue to receive funding because of all of their good works on behalf of orphans.

The judge isn’t reviewing briefs on whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, but rather whether a Catholic agency which refuses to place children with gay couples should continue to receive public funding.

Dragonlady, LGBT apologist and fierce advocate here at USMB and I suspect professionally elsewhere, says in an unapologetic tone "yeah, the LGBT is seeking to take the main lifeblood away that feeds and cares for the bulk of Michigan orphans from people who have traditionally cared for these poor children for millennia now. LGBT wants these vulnerable kids to be corralled in secular non-moral pens for equal and unquestioned distribution based on what the adults want."

I can guarantee you that if you applied to adopt a child anywhere and said "yeah, I'm gonna deprive this kid of clothing or food or shelter for life", you'd be denied. But apparently the cult of LGBT thinks with the shoehorn they got outside of due process (Obergefell 2015) that this means they can waltz into an adoption agency and demand they disgorge children, even when they announce to the adoption agent by their very physical arrangement "we intend to deprive this child of a father for life using binding contractual terms we'll force this kid to share with us."

Sinister enough, right? But actually there's a root in the muck even deeper than that (are you listening NAMBLA?) It's that the cult of LGBT wants ALL vulnerable children now technically available to "marrieds" (though the test of fatherless and motherless contracts still can save the day) to be coughed up on demand just because they have these contracts: all in the name of "equality!". And so, we have arrived at the real reason for the push on gay marriage where civil unions were sufficing just fine for the LGBTs to share bank accounts, hospital visits and the like The one thing they couldn't get with mere civil unions is a guaranteed access to our nation's most vulnerable little kids to bring home behind closed doors...

I always have to bring up gay pride parades at this point because if this is what they flaunt in public as a uniquely cohesive group (have you ever heard of any LGBT person being against these parades in a public way? And if so, what percentage of their cult do you think they represent? Maybe .0000000001%?) then WHAT ARE THEY DOING around kids, especially those not technically related to them by blood, behind closed doors?? The nation's most vulnerable children now stand poised to be legally forced into these homes:

 

[Silhouette]

The reason why the suit should be dismissed is because in shows malicious prosecution with the intent to harm defendants; without any real direct benefit to the litigants. And is shows malice of forethought.

1. The lesbians cannot make Catholic Charities defy their faith and disgorge kids into forbidden homes of contractual-perversion. That ain't gonna happen.

2. The lesbians know of other agencies they can go to which unfortunately seem to have no knowledge of the Infancy Doctrine and contracts (outside religious objections).

3. They are seeking to use Dumont v Lyon to A. Send a financial-pain message and B. provide a stepping stone to rip away all children in every state (Do you think they don't mean to take this to apply across all 50 states at the USSC?) currently and lovingly cared for by moral institutions and "turn them to the wolves" so to speak...where access to them is infinitely more streamlined, greased and easier based on clinical technicalities of secular "equality". And, BTW, there is no language in the Constitution that gives a guarantee of privileges and immunities based on what regular men and women DO with their genitals. Otherwise we'd have to grant same rights to "Cleptomaniac Americans" and "Drunk Driving Americans" if they (subjectively) feel they were "born that way" in compulsive acquired habits...

4. Look again at the photo in post #2 of what they do in public in front of kids and then ask yourselves "why do they want the morality part of orphan-adoption eliminated...?"

If the lesbian litigants are citing Obergefell profusely as their justification, I as the judge in the case, would simply ask "who was counsel for children in Obergefell?" And, if they cannot cite the vital missing party to that suit, I would disallow it as case law inasmuch as the decision was improperly arrived at.

That would open up Obergefell for being overturned as Dumont makes its way to the USSC. The USSC would then HAVE TO revisit Obergefell to see if indeed was missing any counsel to the contract revision of marriage known for millennia to be beneficial to parties to it (averred within Obergefell's Opinion Itself, page 15) by providing BOTH a irreplaceable father or mother under the roof with children to raise.

Single parents do not possess a contract, but instead the hope that the missing parent will arrive...

 

[Silhouette]

The nature of the suit is named as "civil rights". Again, no such rights exist because if they did based on what regular men and women habitually DO, then those "rights" would have to extend to all habitual things that men and women DO.

To prove that the habitual preference to have sex with the same gender (while the women wear dildos and adopt other trappings of men to attract their female partners?? ) they'd have to prove these behaviors are concrete and innate. Which of course they cannot do.

 

[Silhouette]

And from the looks of things, Oklahoma has its eye on the Dumont case over in Michigan. Many states are still in awe and shock that Obergefell cited Windsor that said 56 times "marriage is solely up to the states to define" to justify its opinion. Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..

That and the complete lack of having a children's advocate counsel separately briefing the courts all the way up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the law does not make moms and pops "irrelevant."

Sil is not telling you that SCOTUS overrides the states when they violate the civil rights ot those getting married.

 

[Silhouette]

No, the law does not make moms and pops "irrelevant."

Sil is not telling you that SCOTUS overrides the states when they violate the civil rights ot those getting married.

What about states violating the civil rights of orphans whose previous benefits from the marriage contract they share always included BOTH vital mother and father? I mean you just said mother's and fathers play vital roles and won't become irrelevant.

Remember, Obergefell stripped those benefits without any separate counsel briefing on behalf of children's unique interests in the marriage contract, that Obergefell itself averred on page 15 of the Opinion, they share with adults. Barring a party from a contract-revision hearing is a violation of their civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, SCOTUS ruled against your type of thinking.

SCOTUS does not, will not, interpret Obergefell as you do.

You will fail here on this argument as you have for years now.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, SCOTUS ruled against your type of thinking.

SCOTUS does not, will not, interpret Obergefell as you do.

You will fail here on this argument as you have for years now.

What do you think, not SCOTUS? Do you believe it is proper to shut out any party to a contract at a contract revision hearing?

This judge in Dumont allowed orphans to join the suit to plead their unique interests via counsel briefing. Do you suppose if this judge writes any language into a decision that elevates children as separate essential legal entities in these family law cases that their absence in other cases will shed a new light on them?

You understand how precedent works, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I support SCOTUS.

Your opinion is in the so very small minority, as you well know

 

[Pete7469]

Sexual deviants have no business with children.

Period.


.

 

[Silhouette]

I support SCOTUS.

Your opinion is in the so very small minority, as you well know

Really? My opinion, reflected in case law FACT, that all parties to a contract must be present at a contract-revision hearing is "a very small minority"? Or are you saying that people concerned with mothers or fathers as unique important entities to daughters and sons are "a very small minority"?

Care to test that last one in the Rust Belt this election year?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, no, your opinion does not reflect case law fact.

SCOTUS does, and that is the end of it.

 

[Syriusly]

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

I'd like to start out this thread by reminding that "Current Events" are for those things that are current that people are monitoring in a general way. Since the thread linked below this paragraph was dungeoned into "Law and Justice" subforum, people stopped hearing about it. Mission accomplished?

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

In any event, some interesting things have been happening since it was put out of sight, so to speak. And, they are current and ongoing. Most importantly the impact of how this case is decided literally could be the official case law that sends both fathers and mothers as unique irreplaceable roles (think about that folks who are in custody battles..) as "irrelevant". That isn't just a garden variety "Law and Justice" matter. It's an area of social impact the magnitude of something we've never seen before in the history of human civilization....

...Think about that for a minute...

Really?

A thread about your own thread?

LOL

Silhouettes 'war' on gays and their children continues.

 

[Syriusly]

Sexual deviants have no business with children.

Period.


.

Bigots have no business with children.

Period.

 

[Syriusly]

I support SCOTUS.

Your opinion is in the so very small minority, as you well know

Really? My opinion, reflected in case law FACT,

Your opinion is nothing more than your twisted opinion and has nothing to do with actual case law.

Which is why no attorney- anywhere- is using your opinion in any argument before any court.

 

[Syriusly]

No, the law does not make moms and pops "irrelevant."

Sil is not telling you that SCOTUS overrides the states when they violate the civil rights ot those getting married.

Remember, Obergefell stripped those benefits without any separate counsel briefing on behalf of children's unique interests in the marriage contract, that Obergefell itself averred on page 15 of the Opinion, they share with adults. Barring a party from a contract-revision hearing is a violation of their civil rights.

Except of course Obergefell did no such thing.

What Obergefell noted is that what you argue for- banning gay marriages- harms children of gays with children.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil does not care about children at all if they allow her to get at gays.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil does not care about children at all if they allow her to get at gays.

Well I'm not suing Catholic Charities to strip them of the lifeblood $$ they use to directly care for orphans because I refuse to go to secular adoption agencies to try my luck. You know, punishing children proximally because their adult guardians won't surrender them to a depraved behavioral-lifestyle. See page #1 for photo details.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, no, your opinion does not reflect case law fact.

SCOTUS does, and that is the end of it.

Well actually other challenges like Dumont v Lyon also reflect case law fact. That being said, how to you feel about a judge in the appeal system finally inviting (allowing) children's concerns to be briefed separately in these family law cases? Might shed light on the fact that that counsel has been glaringly missing in cases like Obergefell.

And you know what they call a case with vital counsel missing? A mistrial of facts since many facts are missing.