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

[Aba Incieni]

Single parents don't possess a contract banishing children involved from the missing gendered parent for life. Gay marriage does this.

It isn't a matter of "outlawing". Infancy Doctrine deals with contracts that can or cannot exist with respect to children. Gay marriage contracts cannot exist because their terms banish children who are anticipated contractual beneficiaries, from something vital to them.

Also the Infancy Doctrine mandates that at any civil hearing in which children have a weighty stake, they must have separate counsel briefing the court on their unique interests. That never happened at Obergefell.

Therefore, Obergefell was a mistrial and isn't even worth the paper it was written on.

"banish children who are anticipated contractual beneficiaries, from something vital to them." Like a single parent does.

Children are a huge consideration in all divorce proceedings. Rather than being banished, they are the main consideration.

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

 

[Silhouette]

Children are a huge consideration in all divorce proceedings. Rather than being banished, they are the main consideration.

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

This is a debate that was mandated to be briefed in excruciating detail at Obergefell by a childrens' separate counsel. That never happened. Obergefell was a mistrial.

 

[Silhouette]

Unless fathers and mothers are legally found to be irrelevant to boys and girls, Obergefell required separate child-advocate briefing on the impact of deprivation of either father or mother to children in these completely brand new and fundamentally odd/antithesis "marriage" contracts.

That counsel was not present. Obergefell can be overturned by producing the minutes & roll call of the Hearing..."Counsel for children?" "Not present your honors". "Case delayed until such time as all required counsel are present. Court adjourned".

 

[Taz]

"banish children who are anticipated contractual beneficiaries, from something vital to them." Like a single parent does.

Children are a huge consideration in all divorce proceedings. Rather than being banished, they are the main consideration.

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

 

[Taz]

Children are a huge consideration in all divorce proceedings. Rather than being banished, they are the main consideration.

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

This is a debate that was mandated to be briefed in excruciating detail at Obergefell by a childrens' separate counsel. That never happened. Obergefell was a mistrial.

Poor you. Say hi to your 2 mommies for me.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Children are a huge consideration in all divorce proceedings. Rather than being banished, they are the main consideration.

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

 

[Taz]

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

Neither do single parent children in your world. But I know, you're a homophobe, usually because you have those feelings and it scares you. Don't worry, it'll be alright.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

Neither do single parent children in your world. But I know, you're a homophobe, usually because you have those feelings and it scares you. Don't worry, it'll be alright.

Single parent children is not the ideal situation. And your heterophobia is quite common among your people.

#HeteroPride.

 

[Taz]

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

Many do. Children with gay parents don't.

Neither do single parent children in your world. But I know, you're a homophobe, usually because you have those feelings and it scares you. Don't worry, it'll be alright.

Single parent children is not the ideal situation. And your heterophobia is quite common among your people.

#HeteroPride.

I'm not gay, sorry to burst your bubble. But I have no problem at all with gays. Unlike you. Pity.

 

[Syriusly]

Unless fathers and mothers are legally found to be irrelevant to boys and girls, Obergefell required separate child-advocate briefing on the impact of deprivation of either father or mother to children in these completely brand new and fundamentally odd/antithesis "marriage" contracts.

That counsel was not present. Obergefell can be overturned by producing the minutes & roll call of the Hearing..."Counsel for children?" "Not present your honors". "Case delayed until such time as all required counsel are present. Court adjourned".

As usual- when Silhouette writes out Obergefell you can be certain that nothing in her post will actually represent reality.

Her post just represents what the voices in her head keep telling her.

 

[Syriusly]

"banish children who are anticipated contractual beneficiaries, from something vital to them." Like a single parent does.

Children are a huge consideration in all divorce proceedings. Rather than being banished, they are the main consideration.

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

Yet our system doesn't require your 'ideal' for children.

Or my ideal- 'loving parents who are able to emotionally and financially support their children'.

Basically right now two teens fumbling in the backseat of the car get to become parents whether they intended to or not, whether they can support them or not.

Personally I prefer loving parents that are committed to raising their children, and responsible enough to do the job.

I don't care what their gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation is- just take care of your kids.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage is a contract that cannot legally exist. Obergefell went into great detail about how children are intrinsic to (the) marriage (contract). Yet foolishly none of the Justices were versed on the Infancy Doctrine

Of course it can- your fantasies have nothing to do with the law.

Remember- marriage is not required for children and children are not required for marriage.

Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't magically provide two straight parents for any child- but it does prevent children of gay couples from having married parents.

Why would anyone want to harm those children?

 

[Silhouette]

Remember Obergefell went into great detail in its third area of rationale on marriage being inclusive to children. And Obergefell rendered a fundamental change to their benefits thereof without being separately briefed by child representative counsel.

That is in violation of jurisprudence and as such was a mistrial. Your arguments may hold water, but not until the USSC is properly and comprehensively briefed. That never happened. So Obergefell never happened. You don't get a verdict from a hearing where all concerned parties did not have unique representation. Five non child psychologist lawyers are not qualified to both represent children's interests on the matter & decide it for them. That's not how court works.

 

[Silhouette]

Our system does require that children have separate unique representation in ANY civil hearing in which children have a weighty stake. Obergefell named/used children as intrinsic to marriage in its third rationale but failed to have their own counsel brief the court.

That's a mistrial defined.

 

[Silhouette]

Children are a huge consideration in all divorce proceedings. Rather than being banished, they are the main consideration.

Do you think that divorce is very hard on children? And that that's still better than having 2 mommies who love them?

Yes, no. It's hard on children but take a look at your black population to see what happens with absentee fathers.

Yes, but no all gay unions are living in poverty like the black single mother usually do. The child also won't feel abandoned by one parent, as single parent children can. And some single mothers have children with no intention of having the birth father involved, is that still better that a gay couple?

Bored with your situational ethics. The ideal for all children is a loving mother and father. All else fails in comparison.

Yet our system doesn't require your 'ideal' for children.

Or my ideal- 'loving parents who are able to emotionally and financially support their children'.

Basically right now two teens fumbling in the backseat of the car get to become parents whether they intended to or not, whether they can support them or not.

Personally I prefer loving parents that are committed to raising their children, and responsible enough to do the job.

I don't care what their gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation is- just take care of your kids.

The system does require an ideal where in any civil case where kids have a weighty stake, they must have their own counsel briefing the court. That never happened in Obergefell. Oopsies

 

[Silhouette]

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

We do live in a world though of civil due process. Children were declared as integral to the concept of marriage within the Obergefell Opinion itself. Yet they had no representation at the hearing briefing the court. The Infancy Doctrine mandates with supporting case law that any civil hearing in which children have a weighty stake, they must have separate counsel briefing the court. The Obergefell hearing was improper therefore and it's renderings cannot be applicable law.

Kangaroo hearings such as Obergefell do not have any power over anyone, much less the referendums of millions upon millions of voters. Any state so seeking to defy Obergefell may do so with appealable impunity.

 

[Taz]

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

We do live in a world though of civil due process. Children were declared as integral to the concept of marriage within the Obergefell Opinion itself. Yet they had no representation at the hearing briefing the court. The Infancy Doctrine mandates with supporting case law that any civil hearing in which children have a weighty stake, they must have separate counsel briefing the court. The Obergefell hearing was improper therefore and it's renderings cannot be applicable law.

Kangaroo hearings such as Obergefell do not have any power over anyone, much less the referendums of millions upon millions of voters. Any state so seeking to defy Obergefell may do so with appealable impunity.

So gays will go back to having children but not being married. Would that satisfy you?

 

[mdk]

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

We do live in a world though of civil due process. Children were declared as integral to the concept of marriage within the Obergefell Opinion itself. Yet they had no representation at the hearing briefing the court. The Infancy Doctrine mandates with supporting case law that any civil hearing in which children have a weighty stake, they must have separate counsel briefing the court. The Obergefell hearing was improper therefore and it's renderings cannot be applicable law.

Kangaroo hearings such as Obergefell do not have any power over anyone, much less the referendums of millions upon millions of voters. Any state so seeking to defy Obergefell may do so with appealable impunity.

You're citing an opinion you believe to be null and void as the reason it should be null and void.

 

[Silhouette]

We don't live in an ideal world. Now you know.

We do live in a world though of civil due process. Children were declared as integral to the concept of marriage within the Obergefell Opinion itself. Yet they had no representation at the hearing briefing the court. The Infancy Doctrine mandates with supporting case law that any civil hearing in which children have a weighty stake, they must have separate counsel briefing the court. The Obergefell hearing was improper therefore and it's renderings cannot be applicable law.

Kangaroo hearings such as Obergefell do not have any power over anyone, much less the referendums of millions upon millions of voters. Any state so seeking to defy Obergefell may do so with appealable impunity.

So gays will go back to having children but not being married. Would that satisfy you?

This is not a question of compassion for gays or the poor kids dragged into their lifestyles. It's a question of the relevance of fathers and mothers in the marriage contract. No counsel for children as required by the Infancy Doctrine in such a civil case was invited or present to brief the court on that relevance. So Obergefell was a mistrial.

 

[mdk]

This is not a question of compassion for gays or the poor kids dragged into their lifestyles. It's a question of the relevance of fathers and mothers in the marriage contract. No counsel for children as required by the Infancy Doctrine in such a civil case was invited or present to brief the court on that relevance. So Obergefell was a mistrial.

Not once was the Infancy Doctrine cited during legal arguments in the numerous cases surrounding gay marriage. Either all of those lawyers are incompetent or you don't know what you're talking about. My guess is the latter.