Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

[Syriusly]

I think the Kleins won't even get to the Supreme Court.

So what you're actually saying is, that your cult has undermined the Constitution to such a degree, with help from activist judges in the appellate system, that a case where Christians were destroyed for refusing to promote/play along with another faith diametrically opposed to their beliefs and teachings (Church of LGBT), won't even see arguments at the Last Stop to see if this infringes on their 1st & 14th Amendment rights eh?

Thanks for showing your cards.

Btw Syriusly didn't say that it did.

Silhouette has never let the facts or the truth influence what she posts.

 

[Syriusly]

I think the Kleins won't even get to the Supreme Court.

So what you're actually saying is, .

No- I said I think that the Kleins won't even get to the Supreme Court- which is unrelated to your lies and gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood. And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future. In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.

That's why the Rule was set. And that is its function. No substitutes are acceptable for the Rule.

One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity. Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time. That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life. Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children. So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.

Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.

Each State of the United States is, upon notice herein, required as a matter of law to investigate my claims that gay marriage can wound children psychologically as a matter of binding contract....a contract whose onerous terms the children cannot escape for life. They don't have the luxury of saying "Oh Balderdash!" "Nonsense!" or "Frivolous!". Every State is required by law to err on the side of overkill in this one particular type of law involving children and abuse or neglect.

 

[Syriusly]

you have no idea what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to any law or any court.

Let's say an adult signed or assented to or spoke aloud in front of witnesses any contract involving children other than marriage that says "oh, and by the way, one of the terms of this contract is that the children involved currently or any that will be involved no longer have access or hope of access to either a mother or father for life."

We would not allow that contract.

Which of course is why we don't allow married parents to divorce........

 

[ogibillm]

you have no idea what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to any law or any court.

Let's say an adult signed or assented to or spoke aloud in front of witnesses any contract involving children other than marriage that says "oh, and by the way, one of the terms of this contract is that the children involved currently or any that will be involved no longer have access or hope of access to either a mother or father for life."

We would not allow that contract.

Which of course is why we don't allow married parents to divorce........

and why we require single parents to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood..

No- no it wasn't.

Marriage neither requires children, nor does raising children require marriage.

Single parents are not required to marry.
Married parents are not required to stay married.

Single mom raising her kids without another parent is raising the kids without a parent of the opposite gender
Two women, raising their kids without a parent of the opposite gender are doing the same thing.

You only oppose the situation where a child has two mom's- not the situation where the child is being raised by one mom.

 

[daws101]

you have no idea what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to any law or any court.

Let's say an adult signed or assented to or spoke aloud in front of witnesses any contract involving children other than marriage that says "oh, and by the way, one of the terms of this contract is that the children involved currently or any that will be involved no longer have access or hope of access to either a mother or father for life."

We would not allow that contract.

No one has ever or will ever say that .
Earth to silly wet. ..earth to silly wet. ...

 

[daws101]

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood. And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future. In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.

That's why the Rule was set. And that is its function. No substitutes are acceptable for the Rule.

One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity. Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time. That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life. Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children. So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.

Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.

Each State of the United States is, upon notice herein, required as a matter of law to investigate my claims that gay marriage can wound children psychologically as a matter of binding contract....a contract whose onerous terms the children cannot escape for life. They don't have the luxury of saying "Oh Balderdash!" "Nonsense!" or "Frivolous!". Every State is required by law to err on the side of overkill in this one particular type of law involving children and abuse or neglect.

False marriage was invented by the rich a powerful to secure property and money and more power.
Poor people rarely got married up until the 16 century.
Marriage has little if any effect on one parent families and has jackshit to to with your twisted fantasy.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage has little if any effect on one parent families and has jackshit to to with your twisted fantasy.

"My twisted fantasy"? You mean the 90% of people who feel it's important for children to have both a mother and father in marriage...that marriage in fact was invented to cure the woes of children not having both a mother and father? Do you consider the laws against child abuse and mental wounds also "twisted fantasy"?

 

[daws101]

Marriage has little if any effect on one parent families and has jackshit to to with your twisted fantasy.

"My twisted fantasy"? You mean the 90% of people who feel it's important for children to have both a mother and father in marriage...that marriage in fact was invented to cure the woes of children not having both a mother and father? Do you consider the laws against child abuse and mental wounds also "twisted fantasy"?

Stop the bullshit , it's already been explained to you why marriage was invented.
Marriage has never stopped kids from being abused or being parent less.
The 90% figure you keep yammering About is pulled piping hot from your ass.

 

[mdk]

Marriage has little if any effect on one parent families and has jackshit to to with your twisted fantasy.

"My twisted fantasy"? You mean the 90% of people who feel it's important for children to have both a mother and father in marriage...that marriage in fact was invented to cure the woes of children not having both a mother and father? Do you consider the laws against child abuse and mental wounds also "twisted fantasy"?

I must have missed the part in your poll that mentioned marriage. Either way, nobody is bound by some message board straw poll.

I bet you don't cosider it child abuse when children are raised in single parent homes without a mother or a father. Funny how the only people that have to live up these imaginary standards of yours are gay people.

 

[daws101]

Marriage has little if any effect on one parent families and has jackshit to to with your twisted fantasy.

"My twisted fantasy"? You mean the 90% of people who feel it's important for children to have both a mother and father in marriage...that marriage in fact was invented to cure the woes of children not having both a mother and father? Do you consider the laws against child abuse and mental wounds also "twisted fantasy"?

I must have missed the part in your poll that mentioned marriage. Either way, nobody is bound by some message board straw poll.

I bet you don't cosider it child abuse whe children are raised in single parent homes without a mother or a father. Funny how the only people that have to live up these imaginary standards of yours are gay people.

Standards he/she can't ever hope to measure up to.

 

[mdk]

Marriage has little if any effect on one parent families and has jackshit to to with your twisted fantasy.

"My twisted fantasy"? You mean the 90% of people who feel it's important for children to have both a mother and father in marriage...that marriage in fact was invented to cure the woes of children not having both a mother and father? Do you consider the laws against child abuse and mental wounds also "twisted fantasy"?

I must have missed the part in your poll that mentioned marriage. Either way, nobody is bound by some message board straw poll.

I bet you don't cosider it child abuse whe children are raised in single parent homes without a mother or a father. Funny how the only people that have to live up these imaginary standards of yours are gay people.

Standards he/she can't ever hope to measure up to.

She doesn't have to measure up to those standards. They only apply to homos. The instant it becomes inconvenient a new exemption is added.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage has little if any effect on one parent families and has jackshit to to with your twisted fantasy.

"My twisted fantasy"? You mean the 90% of people who feel it's important for children to have both a mother and father in marriage...that marriage in fact was invented to cure the woes of children not having both a mother and father? Do you consider the laws against child abuse and mental wounds also "twisted fantasy"?

I must have missed the part in your poll that mentioned marriage. Either way, nobody is bound by some message board straw poll.

I bet you don't cosider it child abuse whe children are raised in single parent homes without a mother or a father. Funny how the only people that have to live up these imaginary standards of yours are gay people.

Standards he/she can't ever hope to measure up to.

Standards she didn't live up to. As Sil was a single mother to a daughter.

Which explains why she gives single parents a pass. While holding gays to a standard even she ignores.

 

[Skylar]

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood. And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future. In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.

The fact is that you are ignoring your own standards. As when we're speaking of single parents, where a child is denied a 'mother and a father', you ignore it. Giving it a complete pass based on 'hope'.

'Hope' isn't a mother and a father. You've ignored your own standards, wiping your ass with your own rationale. And this despite single parenthood being orders of magnitude more common than same sex parenting. If even you are going to ignore your argument, surely you can understand why we don't have much use for it.

One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity. Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time. That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life. Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children. So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.

I believe you're referring to the Infancy Doctrine. And it says nothing you do. The Infancy Doctrine regards *explicit* minor contracts that bind children, like say a contract with a child actor. No court nor law recognizing marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children.

You do, citing your imagination. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

See, Sil....this, right here, is why your every legal prediction is wrong. You keep citing your imagination as the law, making up pseudo-legal gibberish that no law nor court recognizes. And then demanding that the actual courts abide your imagination while ignoring the law.

And they don't.

Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.

Says you. The Supreme Court is under no such burden, nor has any obligation to 'prove' anything to you. Their findings explicitly contradict you. So you ignore the Supreme Court.

Ignoring the Supreme Court is not a legal argument.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage has little if any effect on one parent families and has jackshit to to with your twisted fantasy.

"My twisted fantasy"? You mean the 90% of people who feel it's important for children to have both a mother and father in marriage...that marriage in fact was invented to cure the woes of children not having both a mother and father? Do you consider the laws against child abuse and mental wounds also "twisted fantasy"?

Who said this? If you're citing your poll, it never even mentions marriage. You just hallucinated that in your 'twisted fantasy'.

 

[daws101]

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.

"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

 

[Skylar]

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.

"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

I think that Ginsberg made the best argument on the matter. She argued that it was legal recognition of marital equality between men and women that made same sex marriage inevitable. Up until that recognition, marriage was a union of inequality where the man has more rights and privileges than a woman. Thus, same sex unions would be incompatible with unequal marriage as same sex marriage would always be a union of equals.

When opposite sex marriage became a union of equals.......same sex unions were immediately compatible with it.

 

[Silhouette]

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.

"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

Yes, its ancient roots were and are to provide children remedy for all the ills of not having a mother and father. That it was warped along the way is not the support for further warping when it comes to children. In fact it's the opposite. It is the argument for more stringent diligence against warping from its original purpose: to cure the ills children suffer when without both a mother and father...

The LGBT arguments for destroying marriage have always been "since it has hairline cracks everywhere, let's dispense with the glue, let's just take a hammer to it wearing a blindfold...the kids will just have to deal with the shattered bits because we say so!".. (and plus it gives them the last 'legal vestige' of formality to be able to sue adoption agencies for not ponying up the kids they want to bring into their lifestyles..while marriage itself in reality has ceased to exist..)

 

[ogibillm]

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.

"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

Yes, its ancient roots were and are to provide children remedy for all the ills of not having a mother and father.

According to whom?