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

[Dragonlady]

Adoption doesn’t guarantee anyone two opposite parents for the rest of their lives. You’re demanding preconditions to adoptions by gays that aren’t imposed on single parent adoptees or straight couple adoptions

Ah, but what single parents don't impose upon adopted children is a contract they share with them that says "for life you will have no father". "Married" lesbians impose that ban using a contract. There's the key difference. Contract law where adults share benefits and terms with children. Obergefell said in their third tier of rationale (Page 15 of the Opinion) that children share benefits of the marriage contract. ergo, they are implicit partners to that contract.

Imagine an adoption agency placing a boy saying to him "as a result of this placement, you can eradicate any hope of having a father, for life". That's child abuse.

Sorry. Try again.

Adoption agencies do that all of the time and no it’s not child abuse.

My father was dying when he adopted me. My mother would never remarry. I knew all of that when they adopted me and I didn’t care. I knew I would never have to worry about my biological mother taking me away from the family who raised me.

My sister, who had both a mother and a father, is the one who was abused.

You are deranged on the topic of gay adoption. And you’re wrong. Adoptees want families. They want to know they have a forever home with adults who care about them.

Nobody gets a perfect home. Everyone has issues.

 

[Silhouette]

Nobody gets a perfect home. Everyone has issues.

True, but only some homes have a contract guaranteeing the absence of one or the other missing gender of parent. We haven't gender-blended to the point of where fathers do no longer provide a unique and essential form of guidance to sons, nor mothers to daughters. All the other scenarios you mentioned aren't under contractual bind. They come with hope. Lesbian "marriages" are under contract and they promise no hope of a father in the home. None. For life. Guaranteed. So they're a different kind of law: contract law, shared with children with the de facto intent to deny.

It's a brand new proposition to use a marriage contract to deny a child a father or mother for life as a promise. So this case needs briefing from orphans and children in general, or it's a mistrial. It may be found that this or that or the other scenario involving lesbian or gay male "marriage" may qualify to adopt no matter what. But the children impacted by the precedent sought MUST, absolutely MUST brief the court on what uniquely will be lost to them with such a precedent.

 

[Dragonlady]

Nobody gets a perfect home. Everyone has issues.

True, but only some homes have a contract guaranteeing the absence of one or the other missing gender of parent. We haven't gender-blended to the point of where fathers do no longer provide a unique and essential form of guidance to sons, nor mothers to daughters. All the other scenarios you mentioned aren't under contractual bind. They come with hope. Lesbian "marriages" are under contract and they promise no hope of a father in the home. None. For life. Guaranteed. So they're a different kind of law: contract law, shared with children with the de facto intent to deny.

It's a brand new proposition to use a marriage contract to deny a child a father or mother for life as a promise. So this case needs briefing from orphans and children in general, or it's a mistrial. It may be found that this or that or the other scenario involving lesbian or gay male "marriage" may qualify to adopt no matter what. But the children impacted by the precedent sought MUST, absolutely MUST brief the court on what uniquely will be lost to them with such a precedent.

You keep moving the goal posts because it’s not about having two opposite sex parents in the home, it about keeping children from being adopted. That is the result of your wishes. Fewer children will find forever homes.

It is hard enough to find anyone who wants to adopt under any circumstances, much less take an older child who has already been damaged by abuse or neglect, which comes with rafts of issues built in, and all your proposals do is to reduce the already small number of homes available to these children.

As one of those children, whose life was literally saved by my parents adoption, I say a pox on you and everyone like you who would keep us from finding a loving home.

You’re not helping children, you’re punishing gays.

 

[Silhouette]

You keep moving the goal posts because it’s not about having two opposite sex parents in the home, it about keeping children from being adopted. That is the result of your wishes. Fewer children will find forever homes.

Talk about moving the goal posts! I was discussing a contract that banishes children involved with adults from a father in their home for life. Which is FAR different than adopting out to single parents or married hetero parents. Vastly different. Fundamentally different.

You're saying "well we should adopt out as many orphans as we can into any situation". That would include pedophiles no? Or other undesirables. I mean we could really ship out a bunch of orphans for that matter if we just dropped the adoption application process altogether, right?

From your point of view, two lesbians with a contract they'll share with children, which said contract banishes them for life from a father, is "not undesirable". From a child's point of view, especially a boy, he may not agree. In fact, society doesn't agree. If you tell me that men don't have a problem becoming legally-irrelevant as fathers, then I'll laugh in your face. In fact, many women also believe that men are essential as fathers in a boy's life. This is why you cannot ever claim that society has your back on this one. They flatly do NOT. You see, as you know, there's more to this precedent than just shuttling out as many orphans as possible to...whoever..whatever..

And that's what this case is about, besides the losing argument of religious rights. A matador's cape I hope the defense doesn't rely 100% on charging while they get gaffed.

What you keep dancing around, evading and slipping away from, is that children, particularly the orphans of Michigan MUST be able to brief the court on their own behalf; of whether or not boys might not want to share a contract that promises them they'll never have a father in their home.

You're a lawyer I believe. I know you know the difference. This involves a contract shared between adults and kids; and a such, kids MUST brief the court.

Agree or disagree on that last point? Rhetorical question I know. In fact, this is the entire crux of a very grave error courts have made since day one in this marathon of family law cases coming from the cult of LGBT. It's like the courts have had a gentleman's agreement all along "you know those short people that also have a stake in the game? Yeah, we'll just not invite them to this little discussion. They don't need to worry their pretty little heads about it. Kids do what adults tell them, no matter what injuries they sustain. They don't have a voice in this."

Only, they do, and always have. Mistrial after mistrial after mistrial...

This is why the Infancy Doctrine was created: to protect children in contractual binds with adults from the machinations of scheming adults to their demise, without their having a voice....

 

[Silhouette]

^^ dragonlady?

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody gets a perfect home. Everyone has issues.

True, but only some homes have a contract guaranteeing the absence of one or the other missing gender of parent.

As I have repeatedly pointed out and you repeatedly ignore- that is another of your bald faced lies.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

As I have pointed out repeatedly- I personally know a couple that adopted kids (mother was an addict and a criminal, father unable financially or emotionally able to care full time for his kids) and invited the father to be part his kids lives.
He saw them several times a week and volunteered at their school.

You are just lying in order to harm children.

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody gets a perfect home. Everyone has issues.

True, but only some homes have a contract guaranteeing the absence of one or the other missing gender of parent. We haven't gender-blended to the point of where fathers do no longer provide a unique and essential form of guidance to sons, nor mothers to daughters. All the other scenarios you mentioned aren't under contractual bind. They come with hope. Lesbian "marriages" are under contract and they promise no hope of a father in the home. None. For life. Guaranteed. So they're a different kind of law: contract law, shared with children with the de facto intent to deny.

It's a brand new proposition to use a marriage contract to deny a child a father or mother for life as a promise. So this case needs briefing from orphans and children in general, or it's a mistrial. It may be found that this or that or the other scenario involving lesbian or gay male "marriage" may qualify to adopt no matter what. But the children impacted by the precedent sought MUST, absolutely MUST brief the court on what uniquely will be lost to them with such a precedent.

You keep moving the goal posts because it’s not about having two opposite sex parents in the home, it about keeping children from being adopted. That is the result of your wishes. Fewer children will find forever homes.

It is hard enough to find anyone who wants to adopt under any circumstances, much less take an older child who has already been damaged by abuse or neglect, which comes with rafts of issues built in, and all your proposals do is to reduce the already small number of homes available to these children.

As one of those children, whose life was literally saved by my parents adoption, I say a pox on you and everyone like you who would keep us from finding a loving home.

You’re not helping children, you’re punishing gays.

All of these threads by Silhouette are part of her obsession to harm gays- and harm children raised by gays.

That this particular thread also would harm children by denying them parents doesn't matter to Silhouette.

 

[Syriusly]

[
This is why the Infancy Doctrine was created: to protect children in contractual binds with adults from the machinations of scheming adults to their demise, without their having a voice....

No- and again- you are lying about the Infancy Doctrine again.

Do you really believe that a child can 'disaffirm' their own adoption?

If the Infancy Doctrine applied to adoption- literally that is what it would mean for adoption.

Again- you are just lying about what the Infancy Doctrine is.

 

[Silhouette]

Let's see, three posts in a row, all responding to the same poster. As usual, content-less veiled or outright ad hominems. ...

I think what I'll do is save post #284 if Syriusly bleeds another page out, and repost it awaiting DRAGONLADYS reply.

 

[mdk]

Let's see, three posts in a row, all responding to the same poster. I think what I'll do is save post #284 and repost it awaiting DRAGONLADYS reply.

Why? You’ve demonstrated time again that facts and logic are irrelevant in your obsessive anti-gay crusade.

 

[Silhouette]

You keep moving the goal posts because it’s not about having two opposite sex parents in the home, it about keeping children from being adopted. That is the result of your wishes. Fewer children will find forever homes.

Talk about moving the goal posts! I was discussing a contract that banishes children involved with adults from a father in their home for life. Which is FAR different than adopting out to single parents or married hetero parents. Vastly different. Fundamentally different.

You're saying "well we should adopt out as many orphans as we can into any situation". That would include pedophiles no? Or other undesirables. I mean we could really ship out a bunch of orphans for that matter if we just dropped the adoption application process altogether, right?

From your point of view, two lesbians with a contract they'll share with children, which said contract banishes them for life from a father, is "not undesirable". From a child's point of view, especially a boy, he may not agree. In fact, society doesn't agree. If you tell me that men don't have a problem becoming legally-irrelevant as fathers, then I'll laugh in your face. In fact, many women also believe that men are essential as fathers in a boy's life. This is why you cannot ever claim that society has your back on this one. They flatly do NOT. You see, as you know, there's more to this precedent than just shuttling out as many orphans as possible to...whoever..whatever..

And that's what this case is about, besides the losing argument of religious rights. A matador's cape I hope the defense doesn't rely 100% on charging while they get gaffed.

What you keep dancing around, evading and slipping away from, is that children, particularly the orphans of Michigan MUST be able to brief the court on their own behalf; of whether or not boys might not want to share a contract that promises them they'll never have a father in their home.

You're a lawyer I believe. I know you know the difference. This involves a contract shared between adults and kids; and a such, kids MUST brief the court.

Agree or disagree on that last point? Rhetorical question I know. In fact, this is the entire crux of a very grave error courts have made since day one in this marathon of family law cases coming from the cult of LGBT. It's like the courts have had a gentleman's agreement all along "you know those short people that also have a stake in the game? Yeah, we'll just not invite them to this little discussion. They don't need to worry their pretty little heads about it. Kids do what adults tell them, no matter what injuries they sustain. They don't have a voice in this."

Only, they do, and always have. Mistrial after mistrial after mistrial...

This is why the Infancy Doctrine was created: to protect children in contractual binds with adults from the machinations of scheming adults to their demise, without their having a voice....

******
DRAGONLADY (and ONLY DRAGONLADY....or others not spamming to bury the post)

Your thoughts?

 

[mdk]

You keep moving the goal posts because it’s not about having two opposite sex parents in the home, it about keeping children from being adopted. That is the result of your wishes. Fewer children will find forever homes.

Talk about moving the goal posts! I was discussing a contract that banishes children involved with adults from a father in their home for life. Which is FAR different than adopting out to single parents or married hetero parents. Vastly different. Fundamentally different.

You're saying "well we should adopt out as many orphans as we can into any situation". That would include pedophiles no? Or other undesirables. I mean we could really ship out a bunch of orphans for that matter if we just dropped the adoption application process altogether, right?

From your point of view, two lesbians with a contract they'll share with children, which said contract banishes them for life from a father, is "not undesirable". From a child's point of view, especially a boy, he may not agree. In fact, society doesn't agree. If you tell me that men don't have a problem becoming legally-irrelevant as fathers, then I'll laugh in your face. In fact, many women also believe that men are essential as fathers in a boy's life. This is why you cannot ever claim that society has your back on this one. They flatly do NOT. You see, as you know, there's more to this precedent than just shuttling out as many orphans as possible to...whoever..whatever..

And that's what this case is about, besides the losing argument of religious rights. A matador's cape I hope the defense doesn't rely 100% on charging while they get gaffed.

What you keep dancing around, evading and slipping away from, is that children, particularly the orphans of Michigan MUST be able to brief the court on their own behalf; of whether or not boys might not want to share a contract that promises them they'll never have a father in their home.

You're a lawyer I believe. I know you know the difference. This involves a contract shared between adults and kids; and a such, kids MUST brief the court.

Agree or disagree on that last point? Rhetorical question I know. In fact, this is the entire crux of a very grave error courts have made since day one in this marathon of family law cases coming from the cult of LGBT. It's like the courts have had a gentleman's agreement all along "you know those short people that also have a stake in the game? Yeah, we'll just not invite them to this little discussion. They don't need to worry their pretty little heads about it. Kids do what adults tell them, no matter what injuries they sustain. They don't have a voice in this."

Only, they do, and always have. Mistrial after mistrial after mistrial...

This is why the Infancy Doctrine was created: to protect children in contractual binds with adults from the machinations of scheming adults to their demise, without their having a voice....

******
DRAGONLADY (and ONLY DRAGONLADY....or others not spamming to bury the post)

Your thoughts?

Children are not recognized parties to the marriage contract of their parents in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one. Nobody is bound by the legal delusions you pull out of your ass.

 

[Dragonlady]

You keep moving the goal posts because it’s not about having two opposite sex parents in the home, it about keeping children from being adopted. That is the result of your wishes. Fewer children will find forever homes.

Talk about moving the goal posts! I was discussing a contract that banishes children involved with adults from a father in their home for life. Which is FAR different than adopting out to single parents or married hetero parents. Vastly different. Fundamentally different.

You're saying "well we should adopt out as many orphans as we can into any situation". That would include pedophiles no? Or other undesirables. I mean we could really ship out a bunch of orphans for that matter if we just dropped the adoption application process altogether, right?

From your point of view, two lesbians with a contract they'll share with children, which said contract banishes them for life from a father, is "not undesirable". From a child's point of view, especially a boy, he may not agree. In fact, society doesn't agree. If you tell me that men don't have a problem becoming legally-irrelevant as fathers, then I'll laugh in your face. In fact, many women also believe that men are essential as fathers in a boy's life. This is why you cannot ever claim that society has your back on this one. They flatly do NOT. You see, as you know, there's more to this precedent than just shuttling out as many orphans as possible to...whoever..whatever..

And that's what this case is about, besides the losing argument of religious rights. A matador's cape I hope the defense doesn't rely 100% on charging while they get gaffed.

What you keep dancing around, evading and slipping away from, is that children, particularly the orphans of Michigan MUST be able to brief the court on their own behalf; of whether or not boys might not want to share a contract that promises them they'll never have a father in their home.

You're a lawyer I believe. I know you know the difference. This involves a contract shared between adults and kids; and a such, kids MUST brief the court.

Agree or disagree on that last point? Rhetorical question I know. In fact, this is the entire crux of a very grave error courts have made since day one in this marathon of family law cases coming from the cult of LGBT. It's like the courts have had a gentleman's agreement all along "you know those short people that also have a stake in the game? Yeah, we'll just not invite them to this little discussion. They don't need to worry their pretty little heads about it. Kids do what adults tell them, no matter what injuries they sustain. They don't have a voice in this."

Only, they do, and always have. Mistrial after mistrial after mistrial...

This is why the Infancy Doctrine was created: to protect children in contractual binds with adults from the machinations of scheming adults to their demise, without their having a voice....

Children always have a lawyer in an adoption. That lawyer confirms that the child will have a loving home. That there are no issues of pedophilia with the either of the prospective adoptees parents. This is a HUGE issue with heterosexual male adoptees since child abuse by male parents of girls with whom they do not share DNA is the real problem with child abuse and adoption. And very much kept under wraps by adoption agencies.

Any time very young girls are isolated from their biological parents with straight males they are not biologically related to, there are issues: Girls’ detention homes, women’s prisons, group homes.

There are children who have suffered mightily at the hands of father figures in their lives and who would prefer to be raised by lesbians.

For every argument against same sex couples adopting, I can give you strong examples of well adjusted young men raised by lesbian couples. Who had uncles, cousins, and other straight male family members and confidants who mentored their manliness. Who took them hunting and fishing. I had a older brother-in-law, who would have made someone a great Dad but it never happened for him, so I became the kid he never had.

He took me fishing, with a stick, a safety pin and a worm, and then he taught me how to clean and fillet the fish we caught. To this day, I can do this.

My other brother-in-law taught me how to play baseball. He was a star player on our town’s travelling team. My two oldest brothers, were my two Dads.

I was 20 years younger than my youngest sister and 28 years younger than my oldest brother. I really grew up with three father figures who all lived within walking distance of my house.

My next door neighbour raised his granddaughter after her mother died. I taught her how to bake, and sew buttons on her clothes. Her mother’s sister took her shopping, invited her for weekends with her cousins.

It was good for both her and her grandfather even though it precluded her from having a mother under her roof. She had a male figure in her life with whom she shared DNA and family, friends, church members and teachers stepped in with support to both of them. That’s what communities do.

 

[Silhouette]

Children always have a lawyer in an adoption. That lawyer confirms that the child will have a loving home.

Another dodge...

This would be after-the-fact of unbearable precedent(s) set without children having a voice in said precedents. Those unbearable precedents set might be 1. That it's OK for children to share a contract with adults that banishes them for life from a father in their home and 2. That fathers are basically legal afterthoughts, irrelevant to orphans (and via precedent-extrapolation, any children), replaceable in whole by women. You can harp on and on with your bigoted chant "hetero men are child abusers!" until the cows come home. I could just as easily say two gay men seeking little boy vulnerable orphans are "child abusers!". Those aren't legal arguments representing an entire demographic. The VAST majority of men are good fathers. So your hatred of men is duly noted.

As to #1, the orphans of Michigan MUST have counsel present and briefing in Dumont or any decision pro-plaintiff in Dumont would be a clear mistrial. Decisions in court are legitimately made ONLY after ALL parties' counsel brief the court. We in America do not disinclude parties to a civil suit from being able to brief.

 

[Dragonlady]

Trotting out the same arguments that we’ve debunked time and time again, isn’t going to work. Lesbian couple breaks up. Mother of child marries a man. Now she’s gone from being in a same sex relationships to being in a hetero relationship. Anne Heche being another example.

We’ve also seen women go from hetero relationships to lesbian relationships after children are born. No prohibitions to prevent that from happening.

The focus SHOULD rightfully be on making sure that heterosexual male pedophiles are not adopting young girls to fuel their desire for very young pubescent and pre-pubescent girls. This is one of the main problems with the foster care systems, one need only look at the number of men who get involved with their step-daughters for proof this is an issue.

Let’s work on that one. Leave the gays alone and go after the REAL pedophilia problem in adoption.

 

[Silhouette]

So just heterosexual males are pedophiles?

Do you believe orphans should have counsel briefing Dumont?

 

[Dragonlady]

So just heterosexual males are pedophiles?

Do you believe orphans should have counsel briefing Dumont?

I haven’t read the case nor do I intend to. Peddle your false theories of gay adoption to someone who doesn’t recognize it for the bigotry and ignorance it’s based on.

You want to do something about child abuse and adoption, go after the straight make pedophiles. There’s more of them. .

 

[Silhouette]

Do you believe orphans should have counsel briefing Dumont?

I haven’t read the case nor do I intend to. Peddle your false theories of gay adoption to someone who doesn’t recognize it for the bigotry and ignorance it’s based on.

It isn't bigotry that the orphans of Michigan must have counsel at Dumont briefing the court. So, do you believe orphans should or should not separately brief the court in Dumont? The lesbians may prevail, but only after due process. Agree or disagree that all parties to a case should brief the court?

 

[Silhouette]

Yesterday, the court in Dumont issued a notice of redaction request on the transcripts for the motion to intervene. I'm wondering, how it is that parties who argued get to change what they said in court at the motion hearing? Any of you legal experts out there have any idea? I guess the only content allowed to be redacted would be private identities of parties to protect them. Surely the argumentative content cannot be changed. The transcripts will be available to the public to view this June.

 

[Silhouette]

Children are not recognized parties to the marriage contract of their parents in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one. Nobody is bound by the legal delusions you pull out of your ass.

The USSC in 2015 on page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion recognized that children share benefits of the marriage contract with adults. So in all US jurisdictions, this is enshrined.

They are implicit parties to the marriage contract.