Bermuda Becomes First Country to Repeal Same-Sex Marriage After Widespread Criticisms

[Silhouette]

Pay attention to the underlined below and the fact that Obergefell itself said that children are integral to the concept of marriage as a whole. This of course is upheld in divorce proceedings which take into account children's needs first and adults secondary to them in the dissolving of the contract: which is not wholly dissolved until the children have derived their entire benefits from it (contact with both mother and father). There can be no more extraordinary circumstance to a child than a civil court preparing to ratify a contract which banishes them from either a father or mother for life (gay marriage). Nothing is more compelling to a child than that.

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(Page 8 of PDF Page 53 of actual document; at the bottom paragraph)

..Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well.

^^ who voted this as "funny" on the previous page? Explain yourself. Do you think that Obergefell & the cases leading up to it were not proposing an extraordinary revision from children's point of view & their share of contractual benefits? Do you have argument that fathers aren't vital to sons & mothers aren't vital to daughters?

 

[Silhouette]

The infancy doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or the agreements between spouses. Nothing. The infancy doctrine reserves to a minor the power to disaffirm a contract to which the minor is a party. Naturally a minor cannot disaffirm a marriage since the minor is not a spouse. To disaffirm the contract, the minor must return any goods or property received as a contractual benefit. Marriage is neither goods or property. If the minor has paid any amount of money toward to purchase of such goods or property the minor gets his or her money back.

Except that the Court itself in Obergefell explained that children are intrinsic to the whole idea of marriage (and its contractual bonds thereby). So it was outside due process to hold a contract revision hearing, revising the very terms upon which children have relied for millenia, without their, as partners to it, having unique representation briefing each and every hearing upon said proposed radical revision:

Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

(Page 14-15) A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See Pierce v.Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: “[T]he right to ‘marry, establish a home and bring up children’ is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 38 (quoting Meyer, supra, at 399). Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows 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.”

Do you think that the Court there ^^ finds children outside the benefits of the marriage contract or within those benefits?

More...

(page 15) ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22-27.

Think there's ^^ a lack of emphasis on how important the marriage contract is to kids or that they derive benefits from that contract (are implicit parties to it)??

What follows here is the proof that the Court was acting outside required briefing by separate child counsel, required in such a civil case by the protections and backing case law of the Infancy Doctrine:

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at____(slip op., at 23).

^^ But there was absolutely no discussion whatsoever in opposing form how the contract proposed (gay marriage) ERADICATES FOR LIFE a mother for a daughter or a father for a son or vice versa (harms them, for which there are thousands of peer reviewed studies proving). No discussion. No briefing. Those vital roles to children derived from marriage contracts, since time immemorial, were swept away WITHOUT BRIEFING the impact thereof. Five non-psychologist unelected lawyers unilaterally denied children representation on this radical revision of the contract they enjoyed forever, indeed for whom the contract was created for since ancient times specifically to provide sons with fathers and daughters with mothers....POOF...These five just disappeared the kingpin upon which our entire human civilization was built upon . And all without inviting children to have separate briefing on their behalf.

The Court of five arbitrarily concluded that having two mommies (therefore binding contractual banishment for life from daddy) "does not harm children" without any briefing on said topic whatsoever from separate child counsel. That is illegal because those five people were not qualified to pull guesswork off the top of their head on vital psychological and social phenomenon.

There is no clearer case of mistrials on these hearings that anyone could find in years of searching.

 

[Silhouette]

Here is a link which provides opposing viewpoints to those of the court. Many based and referencing scientific data supporting their view. This type of conversation belonged in the courts being briefed. The conspicuous absence of such briefing, or even mention of any facet of this compelling opposing view on behalf of children's well being is a mistrial in each and ever gay marriage hearing. http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/Vie...EJ3010014234&userGroupName=viva2_tcc&jsid=d04

 

[Syriusly]

^^ you purposefully left out the

You purposefully didn't use the reply button because you are hoping I wouldn't see your reply.

I cite Obergefell- you make crap up about Obergefell

Citing Obergefell:
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples

 

[Syriusly]

Why should whether one considers something nasty be the "judge" to what freedoms we should have?

I think lesbians are fucking bulldykes but I also believe in freedom. so,

Do you believe that kids should have had separate counsel briefing the courts on motherless/fatherless (gay) marriage? Because that's what the law says had to happen...but didn't.

Just because the voices in your head tell you what the law is, doesn't make it the law.

 

[Syriusly]

The infancy doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or the agreements between spouses. Nothing. The infancy doctrine reserves to a minor the power to disaffirm a contract to which the minor is a party. Naturally a minor cannot disaffirm a marriage since the minor is not a spouse. To disaffirm the contract, the minor must return any goods or property received as a contractual benefit. Marriage is neither goods or property. If the minor has paid any amount of money toward to purchase of such goods or property the minor gets his or her money back.

Except that the Court itself in Obergefell explained that children are intrinsic to the whole idea of marriage (and its contractual bonds thereby)..

Except of course you are lying.

Obergefell never says any such thing.

Here is what is says about children and marriage

By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows 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.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

 

[Silhouette]

What I read tells me & others what the law is. That's why I include links to actual law, unlike you.

 

[Syriusly]

Here is a link which provides opposing viewpoints to those of the court. Many based and referencing scientific data supporting their view. This type of conversation belonged in the courts being briefed. The conspicuous absence of such briefing, or even mention of any facet of this compelling opposing view on behalf of children's well being is a mistrial in each and ever gay marriage hearing. http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&zid=a9764475de34e422c34761f9631ce865&action=2&catId&documentId=GALE|EJ3010014234&userGroupName=viva2_tcc&jsid=d04

You do realize there is not such thing a 'mistrial' of a Supreme Court decision.

Oh wait- of course you don't.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

What I read tells me & others what the law is. That's why I include links to actual law, unlike you.

When you provide actual links- you lie about what the links say.

Like you lie about what the Infancy Doctrine says.

Like you lie about what Obergefell says.

 

[Silhouette]

What I read tells me & others what the law is. That's why I include links to actual law, unlike you.

When you provide actual links- you lie about what the links say.

Like you lie about what the Infancy Doctrine says.

Like you lie about what Obergefell says.

I've reported you for page-burying/spam replies to just one poster again.

 

[Syriusly]

What I read tells me & others what the law is. That's why I include links to actual law, unlike you.

When you provide actual links- you lie about what the links say.

Like you lie about what the Infancy Doctrine says.

Like you lie about what Obergefell says.

I've reported you for page-burying/spam replies to just one poster again.

Report away. I speak nothing but the truth.

Which is why of course you report me.

 

[mdk]

What I read tells me & others what the law is. That's why I include links to actual law, unlike you.

What you pretend the law says has zero bearing on any court proceedings. As always, your wild interpretations are irrelevant to the court.

 

[OnePercenter]

We would repeal it too...if we were free to do so like Bermuda. But our liberal overlords have overruled us, set aside our democratically passed laws, and dictated marriage between homosexuals from their benches.

You don't want same-sex marriage but you don't have a problem fellating your neighbor in the garage.

He may ass ram his neighbors dog but that has nothing to do with marriage. Your strawman is noted.

Marriage provides a mother & father to children the USSC said are intrinsic to the marriage contract. Removing either one of those vital benefits to kids without their having separate counsel briefing the courts was and is in violation of due process. All those hearings lacking proper representation were mistrials.

Nah. Those that have issues with social interchange more often than not tend to be hypocrites.

IMO, the real issue that those against gay marriage have is that they may have a less divorce rate than we hetero's have.

 

[jillian]

We would repeal it too...if we were free to do so like Bermuda. But our liberal overlords have overruled us, set aside our democratically passed laws, and dictated marriage between homosexuals from their benches.

no we wouldn't. but that's so funny... same deadender trumsters (32%) oppose gay marriage. but you think you're representative of the majority?

here is reality:

In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%.

Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. And today, support for same-sex marriage is at its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2017, a majority of Americans (62%) support same-sex marriage, while 32% oppose it.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

 

[jillian]

^^. See below vv

Children have the copyright.

We would repeal it too...if we were free to do so like Bermuda. But our liberal overlords have overruled us, set aside our democratically passed laws, and dictated marriage between homosexuals from their benches.

. A lawsuit on behalf of a child or children seeking to nullify a marriage contract that binds them away for life from either a mother or father is all it would take here. The Infancy Doctrine says children cannot be contractually bound away from a necessity.

that's already been laughed at by the court.

but thanks for the spew

 

[Silhouette]

^^. vv

^^. See below vv

Children have the copyright.

We would repeal it too...if we were free to do so like Bermuda. But our liberal overlords have overruled us, set aside our democratically passed laws, and dictated marriage between homosexuals from their benches.

. A lawsuit on behalf of a child or children seeking to nullify a marriage contract that binds them away for life from either a mother or father is all it would take here. The Infancy Doctrine says children cannot be contractually bound away from a necessity.

that's already been laughed at by the court.

but thanks for the spew

That's the problem, not your reassurance. The fact that the courts admitted children are intrinsic to & partners in the marriage contract, and that they had no unique counsel as required briefing those hearings on marriage's proposed radical revision, is a cause for your concern, not celebration.

 

[mdk]

^^. vv

^^. See below vv

Children have the copyright.

We would repeal it too...if we were free to do so like Bermuda. But our liberal overlords have overruled us, set aside our democratically passed laws, and dictated marriage between homosexuals from their benches.

. A lawsuit on behalf of a child or children seeking to nullify a marriage contract that binds them away for life from either a mother or father is all it would take here. The Infancy Doctrine says children cannot be contractually bound away from a necessity.

that's already been laughed at by the court.

but thanks for the spew

That's the problem, not your reassurance. The fact that the courts admitted children are intrinsic to & partners in the marriage contract, and that they had no unique counsel as required briefing those hearings on marriage's proposed radical revision, is a cause for your concern, not celebration.

These soothing lies you tell yourself may bring you comfort and hope in your obsessive crusade, but no one is else really gives shit.

Also, I am little surprised you haven't started a thread blaming gay marriage for the Florida high school shooting. You're slipping, old girl.

 

[jillian]

^^. vv

^^. See below vv

Children have the copyright.

We would repeal it too...if we were free to do so like Bermuda. But our liberal overlords have overruled us, set aside our democratically passed laws, and dictated marriage between homosexuals from their benches.

. A lawsuit on behalf of a child or children seeking to nullify a marriage contract that binds them away for life from either a mother or father is all it would take here. The Infancy Doctrine says children cannot be contractually bound away from a necessity.

that's already been laughed at by the court.

but thanks for the spew

That's the problem, not your reassurance. The fact that the courts admitted children are intrinsic to & partners in the marriage contract, and that they had no unique counsel as required briefing those hearings on marriage's proposed radical revision, is a cause for your concern, not celebration.

your unhealthy dishonest obsession is not our laws

 

[Silhouette]

Saying the courts were required to have separate counsel briefing on kids' behalf seems to be getting under the pay per post LGBT bloggers' skins.

 

[Silhouette]

Who wants to defend their marking of the courts' refusal to include mandatory child counsel briefing as "funny"? Your reasons for making fun of children not having the required representation at the hearings?