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

[Silhouette]

Also, gays can marry and adopt in every state in the nation. You don't like that fact, but tough shit.

Which is exactly why homo marriage should not be a legal construct.
Family structure depletion has been at the core of social demise -- especially among blacks, post 1960's -- and homo marriage adoption only contributes to that problem.

Wow, someone edited my post for me. That's a first at USMB.

What I said was that gay marriage upon its face is a banishment of any children implicity involved from either a mother or father for life. Which is a violation if the Infancy Doctrine and contracts with children re: necessities.

So, any court that finds in favor of Dumont lesbians has to have in its judicially-legislated Opinion, language that says "fathers and mothers are no longer psychological necessities for boys and girls". Which flies in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

So, will 300 million Americans sit back and watch a tiny panel of unelected lawyers in Michigan or eventually 5 unelected lawyers in DC legislate fathers and mothers into irrelevance? I'm 85% sure they won't. Follow this link to the poll here at USMB that sampled evenly across the entire political spectrum in favor of fathers and mothers being important: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

Specifically: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Also, gays can marry and adopt in every state in the nation. You don't like that fact, but tough shit.

Which is exactly why homo marriage should not be a legal construct.
Family structure depletion has been at the core of social demise -- especially among blacks, post 1960's -- and homo marriage adoption only contributes to that problem.

Wow, someone edited my post for me. That's a first at USMB.

What I said was that gay marriage upon its face is a banishment of any children implicity involved from either a mother or father for life. Which is a violation if the Infancy Doctrine and contracts with children re: necessities.

So, any court that finds in favor of Dumont lesbians has to have in its judicially-legislated Opinion, language that says "fathers and mothers are no longer psychological necessities for boys and girls". Which flies in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

So, will 300 million Americans sit back and watch a tiny panel of unelected lawyers in Michigan or eventually 5 unelected lawyers in DC legislate fathers and mothers into irrelevance? I'm 85% sure they won't. Follow this link to the poll here at USMB that sampled evenly across the entire political spectrum in favor of fathers and mothers being important: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

Specifically: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

???

 

[Silhouette]

I had done a complete post and when I pressed "refresh" a few minutes later, the quotes were there from the post I was responding to, but my entire reply was gone.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I had done a complete post and when I pressed "refresh" a few minutes later, the quotes were there from the post I was responding to, but my entire reply was gone.

That happened twice to me today. Probably just a glitch.

 

[Silhouette]

I had done a complete post and when I pressed "refresh" a few minutes later, the quotes were there from the post I was responding to, but my entire reply was gone.

That happened twice to me today. Probably just a glitch.

You and I have the same position on this topic. So perhaps it's not a glitch after all.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I had done a complete post and when I pressed "refresh" a few minutes later, the quotes were there from the post I was responding to, but my entire reply was gone.

That happened twice to me today. Probably just a glitch.

You and I have the same position on this topic. So perhaps it's not a glitch after all.

It's possible. I would hope that wouldn't be the case.

 

[Silhouette]

the Infancy Doctrine- which says that a child cannot be held to a contract signed on its behalf by his or her parents?

Exactly how do you think a child could get out of a marriage contract- that it was never part of?

How many times have you signed a contract when you went to sit down and eat in a restaurant that said "I agree to pay for the food after my meal was satisfactorily served to me"? Yet every time you walk in a restaurant, that actual contract not only exists implicitly, and with equal force and effect as a written document, but also you must abide by it or you will be in breach...without ever speaking a word or putting pen to paper. Marriage comes with a license and spoken vows that must bear a witness. That's more than required at a notary public even.

This is how the courts see the world. No lawyer, not even the LGBT cult lawyers would dare argue that the marriage contract "isn't a contract really"... They won't. A judge would laugh them out of the courtroom and have them disbarred for gross incompetence.

And, no lawyer will argue that marriage contracts don't anticipate children. And no lawyer will argue that children aren't part of that contract because of the extensive attention and preservation of their benefits even after the contract is dissolved (divorce)..proving they not only are partners to that contract but indeed dominant partners to it.

So all your clever slicks in suits have left to argue is that "either a mother or father is not important for the duration of a child's upbringing as a minor". Because as we all know by now, any contracts that children are involved with with adults cannot contain terms that ban them from a psychological necessity for life. And that's what "gay marriage" contracts do upon their face.

Big problem.

Gets to writin' those arguments about "how fathers or mothers aren't important in a child's life"...

 

[Syriusly]

the Infancy Doctrine- which says that a child cannot be held to a contract signed on its behalf by his or her parents?

Exactly how do you think a child could get out of a marriage contract- that it was never part of?

How many times have you signed a contract when you went to sit down and eat in a restaurant that said "I agree to pay for the food after my meal was satisfactorily served to me"? ..

How many times have you gone into a restaurant- and told the restaurant owner that the dinner tonight was not only a contract between him and yourself- but any future children you may or may not have?

The Infancy doctrine says that a child can get out of a contract that a parent signed him up for. It does not prevent any contracts from being signed. IF it applied to marriages- it would mean that kids could opt out of the marriage contract.

But it doesn't.

The Marriage contract- is between two people- and two people only- the couple getting married.

You just lie about both the Infancy Doctrine and the marriage contract.

 

[Syriusly]

Also, gays can marry and adopt in every state in the nation. You don't like that fact, but tough shit.

Which is exactly why homo marriage should not be a legal construct.
Family structure depletion has been at the core of social demise -- especially among blacks, post 1960's -- and homo marriage adoption only contributes to that problem.

Wow, someone edited my post for me. That's a first at USMB.

What I said was that gay marriage upon its face is a banishment of any children implicity involved from either a mother or father for life. Which is a violation if the Infancy Doctrine and contracts with children re: necessities.

You have said that over and over- still doesn't change the fact that it is a lie.

Marriage- between any two people- neither presumes children- nor involves children.

If there are children in a marriage the Infancy Doctrine doesn't apply- unless you want 5 year olds to be able to be get out of the family.

As far as 'necessities'- parents are obliged to provide their kids with 'necessities'- and in the case of adoption- their parents have abandoned them- and certainly failed them there.

A couple that volunteers and wants to be a parent- is obliging themselves to provide the actual necessities- food, shelter, education, health care- and hopefully good parenting- but again that is subjective- and not required.

You would abandon the same kids other heterosexuals have abandoned- all in your quest to harm homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ spammed another page to its end..

 

[Silhouette]

The Marriage contract- is between two people- and two people only- the couple getting married.

You just lie about both the Infancy Doctrine and the marriage contract.

Oh OK. First you say "there is no marriage contract". Then when I point out that any lawyer arguing that would be disbarred for gross incompetence, you switch over to "well...marriage contracts don't include anticipated children sharing the benefits". To which I say again any lawyer arguing that would be disbarred for gross incompetence seeing as how children of divorce (dissolving the contract) continue to enjoy their dominant benefits while the two parents have to just suck it.

Like I said, the ONLY hope your lawyers have is to argue that either a mother or father are "not important". Taking it further, a court judicially-legislating for the 300 million would have to conclude in writing that "there's no intrinsic difference between men and women or fathers and mothers when it comes to raising children". (you know, boys and girls, not "androgynous kid units")

Annnnnnnnndddd. Good luck!

 

[Syriusly]

The Marriage contract- is between two people- and two people only- the couple getting married.

You just lie about both the Infancy Doctrine and the marriage contract.

Oh OK. First you say "there is no marriage contract". !

No- you are just lying again.

There is a marriage contract- between the couple marrying.

Not a single other person- imaginary or other.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ spammed another page to its end..

Well done.

 

[Silhouette]

There is a marriage contract- between the couple marrying.

Not a single other person- imaginary or other.

No, you said there was no marriage contract. Now you're admitting there is one. How will your story change again tomorrow? And why do children get to see both their mother and father after divorce, unless a safety issue comes up with either one? Both adults want nothing to do with each other after that. The kids should therefore be awarded like a couch or a big screen TV, one or the other adult's possession. But that's not what happens is it?

 

[Silhouette]

About two weeks ago a response to the lesbians' motion to intervene was submitted by St. Vincent Catholic Charities et al. Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

I assume the motion to intervene means they want to force the Catholic adoption people to give them a child before the case is heard so that the child can be attached and they can set the precedent for forced-adoption/child attachment before justice has run its course?

That's usually the LGBT way of getting what they want: ramrodding with pity-tactics, getting their toe irreversibly in the door so that it doesn't even matter how the judges would've deliberated blindly, the scales are already tipped in the LGBT favor and they "must have what they forcibly got". Just like Obergefell when the one gay judge in California overturned the law and vote of tens of millions and then quickly retired as he knew his colleagues in the 9th circuit would rubber stamp that move...and their in-pocket USSC Justices, declaring how they would case openly before the Obergefell hearing (at least one did in word and deed, the other in deed).

If anyone wants to pay to see the actual motion or go to the courthouse and get a copy, please print it here or host it with a link?

 

[Silhouette]

Tuesday this week, January 30. 2018 Michigan Senator Arlan Meekhof made a motion for leave to file an amicus brief to Dumont v Lyon. He is a republican state senator famous for his conservative views.

You can sign up with this link to review the document. Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

I haven't seen the amicus brief but if they're relying on making this an argument about how religion should receive any government funding to stay open, they're going to lose. If they make this an argument about the vital nature of fathers to boys or mothers to girls & about contracts applying for adoption that ban children from either a mother or father for life, they'll win.

Hope they keep the chatter about faith to a minimum.

 

[Skylar]

Tuesday this week, January 30. 2018 Michigan Senator Arlan Meekhof made a motion for leave to file an amicus brief to Dumont v Lyon. He is a republican state senator famous for his conservative views.

You can sign up with this link to review the document. Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

I haven't seen the amicus brief but if they're relying on making this an argument about how religion should receive any government funding to stay open, they're going to lose. If they make this an argument about the vital nature of fathers to boys or mothers to girls & about contracts applying for adoption that ban children from either a mother or father for life, they'll win.

Hope they keep the chatter about faith to a minimum.

It seems unlikely that the 'ban children from a mother or a father' argument has much merit. As it didn't play a single role in the Obergefell decision. If it was going to be a significant legal issue, it would have been there. It simply never came up.

Your legal predictions are usually quite inaccurate because you mistake your own personal opinions for a sound legal argument. Like your bizarre interpretation of the 'infancy doctrine', your opinions generally have nothing to do with the actual law.

Religious freedom seems the only rout they can plausibly use, building on the Hobby Lobby ruling.

 

[Syriusly]

There is a marriage contract- between the couple marrying.

Not a single other person- imaginary or other.

No, you said there was no marriage contract. Now you're admitting there is one.

There is a marriage contract between the two people in the marriage.

Not with their imaginary future children. Not with their in-laws. Not with their brothers and sisters. Nor anyone else you have created an imaginary marriage contract to include.

 

[Silhouette]

Every marriage contract anticipates children, whether or not they arrive. Just as every business contract anticipates profits whether or not they arrive.

Marriage was and is a word created from its inception to be a contract to benefit children the world agrees are anticipated to arrive.

 

[Silhouette]

Does anyone know which (mandatory) attorney is briefing the court on behalf of children's stake in marriage/adoption in Dumont v Lyon? I'd like to send him an email.