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

[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.

Like you lie about what the Infancy Doctrine says.

Like you lie about what Obergefell says.

You know what's funny about you calling me a liar about those sites? I include direct quotes with links that readers can double check on their own to verify that they're true. You provide nothing but ad hominem.

Once again, what the Infancy Doctrine has to say about children having counsel in weighty civil cases in which they have a stake. Obergefell quotes above clearly tie children fast and hard to both the entire concept of marriage and the benefits of the contract which they share and derive:

Here's the quote about what the Infancy Doctrine requires (note both the direct quote and the link provided, and specific time-saving directions to exact quote location within the lengthy document, to double-check veracity):

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.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You have it backwards. Because marriage affords stability to children does not mean that marriage was created for the benefit of children. Of course marriage was not, ever, created for the benefit of children. It was originally a contract for possession of property and diplomatic treaty.

 

[Silhouette]

You have it backwards. Because marriage affords stability to children does not mean that marriage was created for the benefit of children. Of course marriage was not, ever, created for the benefit of children. It was originally a contract for possession of property and diplomatic treaty.

For inheritance to and placement of children, since adults were short lived. Do your history homework a little better and get back to us when you've educated yourself a little more. In caveman days, "marriage" meant a man to provide meat/fathering skills and a woman to provide nurturing/mother skills for sons and daughters to come. The tribe learned early on that even non-status fatherless sons and motherless daughters were a liability to the entire social system. As they are today. Proven by peer-reviewed studies, one atop the other.

None of which were ever briefed to the court on this pivotal question. Which is not due process. And, therefore, mistrials in each and every case.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

Like you lie about what the Infancy Doctrine says.

Like you lie about what Obergefell says.

You know what's funny about you calling me a liar about those sites? I include direct quotes with links that readers can double check on their own to verify that they're true. You provide nothing but ad hominem.

Once again, what the Infancy Doctrine has to say about children having counsel in weighty civil cases in which they have a stake. Obergefell quotes above clearly tie children fast and hard to both the entire concept of marriage and the benefits of the contract which they share and derive:

Here's the quote about what the Infancy Doctrine requires (note both the direct quote and the link provided, and specific time-saving directions to exact quote location within the lengthy document, to double-check veracity):

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.

Counsel in a civil or criminal case does not apply to children that are merely stakeholders but contracting parties. Look at page 50. The infancy doctrine means that contracts are voidable at the discretion of the minor except in cases of necessities.

A minor could not exercise that discretion and end his parent's marriage based on his being a stakeholder. The minor is not a party to that marriage.

On what basis do you imagine yourself being such a fine legal scholar, more than all the judges and lawyers?

 

[mdk]

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?

I find your delusions and wild application of the law to be funny. Sue me.

 

[Silhouette]

On what basis do you imagine yourself being such a fine legal scholar, more than all the judges and lawyers?

The ability to read. Obergefell said children share benefits of the marriage contract. Ergo they are parties to that contract with adults. So the infancy doctrine applies. Further, the Infancy Doctrine says that in contracts involving children, necessities may not be abolished either by the adults or the children themselves. Unless you're arguing that fathers to sons and mothers to daughters "aren't necessities" anymore? Further, the ID considers that in any criminal case (which isn't about necessities per se) that a child is accused of, they MUST have legal counsel. Also, in weighty civil cases (such as Obergefell) case law says they MUST have counsel representing their unique interests in said hearing(s) as well. The ID considers this legal representation a necessity, not an option. Unless you're arguing that using a contract children share with adults (see above) that newly proposes contractually-banishing said children for life from either a mother or father "isn't a weighty civil case" with regards to children.

 

[Syriusly]

^^. 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.

No court has ever- ever- stated that children are partners in the marriage contract.

As always- you are just lying.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I am paid half as much for my posts as you are for your anti- gay posts.

Meanwhile- we just keep pointing out your lies intended to harm gays and their children.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

We make fun of your lies.

Unlike you, we don't advocate anything that is intended to harm children.

As the court recognized in Obergefell, denying gay parents marriage harms their children.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[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.

No court has ever- ever- stated that children are partners in the marriage contract.

As always- you are just lying.

the obsessed loon has repeatedly made that wacko claim.

 

[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). 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.

Like you lie about what the Infancy Doctrine says.

Like you lie about what Obergefell says.

You know what's funny about you calling me a liar about those sites? I include direct quotes with links that readers can double check on their own to verify that they're true. You provide nothing but ad hominem.

Once again, what the Infancy Doctrine has to say about children having counsel in weighty civil cases in which they have a stake. Obergefell quotes above clearly tie children fast and hard to both the entire concept of marriage and the benefits of the contract which they share and derive:e]

Obergefell clearly states that preventing gay couples from marrying harms their children.

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]

On what basis do you imagine yourself being such a fine legal scholar, more than all the judges and lawyers?

The ability to read. Obergefell said children share benefits of the marriage contract. n.

No- that is not what Obergefell said- once again quoting the actual language of 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


As always- you are just lying.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Children have no legal standing in divorce proceedings

Why would yet to be born children have legal standing?

 

[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?

Children have no legal standing in divorce proceedings

Why would yet to be born children have legal standing?

Children have guardians ad litem in divorce proceedings. (separate counsel briefing the court on their unique benefits and needs from the marriage proposed to be dissolved) And, the divorce isn't final until the children's needs and vital necessities have been attended to. More evidence is that the marriage continues from a child's perspective (both mother & father contact regularly, and necessary interaction in delivery to and fro) until the child is of age. This proves that children not only have standing in divorce proceedings, but in fact are the paramount parties in said proceedings...delaying actual true and complete divorce until THEIR needs from the marriage contract have been met.

Try again.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If every judge, every lawyer and every ruling doesn't recognize your interpretation, the problem is your interpretation.
Iike, it's wrong.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

Children have no legal standing in divorce proceedings

Why would yet to be born children have legal standing?

Children have guardians ad litem in divorce proceedings. (separate counsel briefing the court on their unique benefits and needs from the marriage proposed to be dissolved) And, the divorce isn't final until the children's needs and vital necessities have been attended to. More evidence is that the marriage continues from a child's perspective (both mother & father contact regularly, and necessary interaction in delivery to and fro) until the child is of age. This proves that children not only have standing in divorce proceedings, but in fact are the paramount parties in said proceedings...delaying actual true and complete divorce until THEIR needs from the marriage contract have been met.

Try again.

Not even close to being true. How many divorces have you litigated?

Divorces are finalized every day without the needs of children even being recognized. Children in divorce proceedings do not get a guardian ad litem. They are not parties to the proceedings. A child may get a court appointed advocate. I was one. Children are never parties to a divorce. In most divorces they are excluded from attending proceedings and are not available to be called as witnesses.

 

[mdk]

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?

Children have no legal standing in divorce proceedings

Why would yet to be born children have legal standing?

Children have guardians ad litem in divorce proceedings. (separate counsel briefing the court on their unique benefits and needs from the marriage proposed to be dissolved) And, the divorce isn't final until the children's needs and vital necessities have been attended to. More evidence is that the marriage continues from a child's perspective (both mother & father contact regularly, and necessary interaction in delivery to and fro) until the child is of age. This proves that children not only have standing in divorce proceedings, but in fact are the paramount parties in said proceedings...delaying actual true and complete divorce until THEIR needs from the marriage contract have been met.

Try again.

 

[impuretrash]

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

Remember, polls were dead wrong when it came to predicting the outcome of the presidential election.

 

[jillian]

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

Remember, polls were dead wrong when it came to predicting the outcome of the presidential election.

no, they weren't. she got the national vote predicted by the polls.

and there was no reason for the polls to contemplate the possibility of comey making his bizarre statement 10 days before the election.

but nice try. I'm always amused when trumptards play that card and the "fake news" card.

 

[impuretrash]

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

Remember, polls were dead wrong when it came to predicting the outcome of the presidential election.

no, they weren't. she got the national vote predicted by the polls.

and there was no reason for the polls to contemplate the possibility of comey making his bizarre statement 10 days before the election.

but nice try. I'm always amused when trumptards play that card and the "fake news" card.

Baloney. Polls predicted a landslide victory for Clinton, and the pollsters are still scratching their heads as to what went wrong. But let's not derail this thread. I think the levels of American support for gay marriage sited in that poll is greatly exaggerated, for the same reasons the presidential polls were wrong. 1. they weren't polling a diverse group 2. people were scared to answer honestly