Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

[Syriusly]

You know, if just one of the people who voted "yes" on the 1, 2, 3 part of the poll is a sharp attorney who's practice is contract laws and infants, you're essentially in deep snow..

Because there is such a market for 'sharp attorney's to work representing infants'......

Who hires the attorney's for infants?

An infant can't hire an attorney- can't hire anyone.

The parents? Which parents of an infant would be suing to say that their infant wasn't represented- so has suffered harm? Clearly not the gay parents of the infant- so who?

 

[Silhouette]

You know, if just one of the people who voted "yes" on the 1, 2, 3 part of the poll is a sharp attorney who's practice is contract laws and infants, you're essentially in deep snow..

Because there is such a market for 'sharp attorney's to work representing infants'......Who hires the attorney's for infants?...An infant can't hire an attorney- can't hire anyone....The parents? Which parents of an infant would be suing to say that their infant wasn't represented- so has suffered harm? Clearly not the gay parents of the infant- so who?

So, your position is, "It's OK we violated infants' rights to the marriage contract because we have them in a buckle because nobody will represent them.." Marriage and children's rights to it to you can be boiled down to " a market". A commodity.

Duly noted: the LGBT compassion for the plight of children re; marriage... Let's just say your position doesn't shock me. Your hope being that nobody will represent an infant or the rights of infants in general to the marriage contract. I'd say a state as a custodian of all its infants could have standing. Also, an adoption agency fighting having to release little boys & girls to gay men or lesbians would also have standing..

 

[Syriusly]

You know, if just one of the people who voted "yes" on the 1, 2, 3 part of the poll is a sharp attorney who's practice is contract laws and infants, you're essentially in deep snow..

Because there is such a market for 'sharp attorney's to work representing infants'......Who hires the attorney's for infants?...An infant can't hire an attorney- can't hire anyone....The parents? Which parents of an infant would be suing to say that their infant wasn't represented- so has suffered harm? Clearly not the gay parents of the infant- so who?

So, your position is, "It's OK we violated infants' rights to the marriage contract because we have them in a buckle because nobody will represent them.." Marriage and children's rights to it to you can be boiled down to " a market". A commodity.
.

So, your position is "It's OK to kick puppies to death because we can blame it on homosexuals"

If you are going to lie about what I post- I am more than willing to post equally idiotic crap and claim that is what you said.

You want to actually respond to my actual post- let me know- otherwise explain why you think it is okay to kick puppies to death.

 

[rightwinger]

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Children have never been parties to a marriage contract

Nor does 'all children' not having 'representation' at a USSC hearing result in a 'mistrial'. A hearing isn't a trial. Making Sil's gibberish a physical impossibility. There's no such requirement that 'children' have a 'representative' As specific individuals are represented in a hearing. Not an age group.

Sil has utterly idea what she's talking about, making up her pseudo-legal jibber jabber as she goes along.

Divorced parents remarry and children have no legal standing in the new marriage
A couple getting divorced has no legal obligation to consult their children
Same sex couples generally have no children when they marry

 

[Skylar]

3. Neither children nor their attorneys were present at the Obergefell Hearing. Children are implicit parties to a marriage contract. Any contract standing for revision requires the presence of all parties to said contract.

Children have never been parties to a marriage contract

Nor does 'all children' not having 'representation' at a USSC hearing result in a 'mistrial'. A hearing isn't a trial. Making Sil's gibberish a physical impossibility. There's no such requirement that 'children' have a 'representative' As specific individuals are represented in a hearing. Not an age group.

Sil has utterly idea what she's talking about, making up her pseudo-legal jibber jabber as she goes along.

Divorced parents remarry and children have no legal standing in the new marriage
A couple getting divorced has no legal obligation to consult their children
Same sex couples generally have no children when they marry

And if you never get married, you're still obligated to care for your children. Parenthood creates the obligation.

Not marriage. As the obligation continues even after the marriage ends, even when there never was a marriage. And as you so aptly pointed out, if you remarry ...your new spouse isn't responsible for your children if that second marriage ends.

Which has been explained to Sil before. She just ignores it. And then ignoring it, pretends that the courts are required to ignore it too.

Laughing....nope!

 

[Silhouette]

This isn't about just caring for children. It's about a child's right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract as appropriate mentors for their gender, and for the opposite gender to be present to teach them to learn how to interact socially with the opposite gender of their own.

 

[Skylar]

This isn't about just caring for children. It's about a child's right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract as appropriate mentors for their gender, and for the opposite gender to be present to teach them to learn how to interact socially with the opposite gender of their own.

There's no such thing as a ' right to opposite sex parents'. You've made it up. And your imagination isn't the law.

Worse, denying same sex parents marriage doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It only guarentees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts children by the tens of thousands.

And doesn't help a singe child. Which, of course, you know. But you're more than willing to hurt any number of children...if it will let you hurt gays.

No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no such thing as a ' right to opposite sex parents'.

Yes, the right is implicit and over a thousand years old. Again, good luck..

 

[Skylar]

There's no such thing as a ' right to opposite sex parents'.

Yes, the right is implicit and over a thousand years old. Again, good luck..

Nope. That's you offering us your imagination as law again.

The funny part is how confused and confounded you get when the courts follow the *actual* law rather than whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you make up.

Get used to being confused.

 

[Silhouette]

Creating a new class for the Constitution, one based on just some of the Court's favorite minority deviant sex behaviors, outside the permission of Congress is not *actual* law. Neither is barring children from any revision proposed on a contract they implicitly enjoyed rights to for over a thousand years.

 

[Silhouette]

Worse, denying same sex parents marriage doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It only guarentees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts children by the tens of thousands.

That's not what these amicus briefs said: ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

 

[Syriusly]

This isn't about just caring for children. It's about a child's right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract as appropriate mentors for their gender, and for the opposite gender to be present to teach them to learn how to interact socially with the opposite gender of their own.

But children have no such right.

Which is demonstrated by no-fault divorce.

And parents who never get married.

And single mom's.

 

[Syriusly]

Worse, denying same sex parents marriage doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It only guarentees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts children by the tens of thousands.

That's not what these amicus briefs said: ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

However it is what Justice Kennedy said- that preventing gay marriage only ensures that the children of gay parents will not have married parents- and that is a clear harm to children.

Which of course- you don't care about.

 

[Syriusly]

Creating a new class for the Constitution, one based on just some of the Court's favorite minority deviant sex behaviors, outside the permission of Congress is not *actual* law. Neither is barring children from any revision proposed on a contract they implicitly enjoyed rights to for over a thousand years.

There is not one actual true statement in your post.

 

[Skylar]

Worse, denying same sex parents marriage doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It only guarentees that these children never have married parents. Which hurts children by the tens of thousands.

That's not what these amicus briefs said: ‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit

Not one of these children said that they benefited because there parents weren't married. Nor that they were hurt because there parents were married. Nor that marriage would have made their same sex parents into opposite sex parents.

You're railing against gay *parenthood*. Which begs the question you refuse to answer: do you call for children to be taken from their same sex parent?

And of course, there were many, many more amicus briefs filed in favor of same sex parenthood with dozens of accounts from the children of same sex parents:

‘BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, FAMILY EQUALITY COUNCIL

With other briefs filed in other same sex marriage cases filed that add their voices to the choir, with children of same sex parents coming out in support of marriage for same sex couples:

Amici Curiae from Friend and Family of Lesbians and Gays

With other briefs filed for the Windsor case with testimony from even more children:

Testimony of children of same sex parents in support of same sex marriage

With child after child of same sex parents coming out in support of their parents having the right to marry:

The Outspoken Generation - Family Equality Council



With even constitutional scholars specializing in the constitutional rights of children recognizing same sex marriage as benefiting their children:


Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in support of their petitioners

Which you should pay special attention to as it cited directly in the Obergefell decision.

Amici are scholars of family law and the law of equal protection. Amici submit this brief to: (1) draw attention to this Court’s precedent unequivocally establishing that states may not punish children based on matters beyond their control and (2) demonstrate
that state marriage bans inevitably and necessarily perform exactly this impermissible function because they deprive children of same-sex couples legal, economic and social benefits associated with the institution of marriage.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Obergef..._of_the_Constitutional_Rights_of_Children.pdf

And the Supreme Court apparently found the accounts of these children and constitutional scholars compelling. As they recognized the harm that denying marriage to same sex parents causes their children:

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the 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.....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. "

And again in Obergefell, paying special note one of their sources, the Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children.

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.” 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.

That you personally disagree with the Supreme Courts conclusions is legally irrelevant. Especially when you're citing your imagination as the law, while ignoring the actual law.

 

[rightwinger]

This isn't about just caring for children. It's about a child's right to both a mother and father in the marriage contract as appropriate mentors for their gender, and for the opposite gender to be present to teach them to learn how to interact socially with the opposite gender of their own.

The marriage takes place before children enter it

An as yet, unconceived child has no rights in which people are allowed to be its parents

 

[Skylar]

Creating a new class for the Constitution, one based on just some of the Court's favorite minority deviant sex behaviors, outside the permission of Congress is not *actual* law. Neither is barring children from any revision proposed on a contract they implicitly enjoyed rights to for over a thousand years.

Save that none of that actually happened. As gays and lesbians aren't a 'new class'. They're merely Americans. And as Americans they have the right to due process and equal protection. Any law that denies them this is unconstitutional.

Your argument has devolved into you ignoring the Supreme Court and insisting any hapless, pseudo-legal horseshit you make up is the law.

Nope. It isn't. You can't get around that.

 

[Syriusly]

Creating a new class for the Constitution, one based on just some of the Court's favorite minority deviant sex behaviors, outside the permission of Congress is not *actual* law. Neither is barring children from any revision proposed on a contract they implicitly enjoyed rights to for over a thousand years.

Save that none of that actually happened. As gays and lesbians aren't a 'new class'. They're merely Americans. And as Americans they have the right to due process and equal protection. Any law that denies them this is unconstitutional.

Your argument has devolved into you ignoring the Supreme Court and insisting any hapless, pseudo-legal horseshit you make up is the law.

Nope. It isn't. You can't get around that.

But the voices in her head keep telling her that she can- she can!

 

[Skylar]

Creating a new class for the Constitution, one based on just some of the Court's favorite minority deviant sex behaviors, outside the permission of Congress is not *actual* law. Neither is barring children from any revision proposed on a contract they implicitly enjoyed rights to for over a thousand years.

Save that none of that actually happened. As gays and lesbians aren't a 'new class'. They're merely Americans. And as Americans they have the right to due process and equal protection. Any law that denies them this is unconstitutional.

Your argument has devolved into you ignoring the Supreme Court and insisting any hapless, pseudo-legal horseshit you make up is the law.

Nope. It isn't. You can't get around that.

But the voices in her head keep telling her that she can- she can!

Lets hope for her sake that the voices don't start telling her she can fly by flapping her arms.

 

[Silhouette]

Let's see if Skylar can get through one page without resorting to ad hominems and insults as a substitute for lucid rebuttal.