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

[Silhouette]

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

A type of contract is still a contract. The unique properties of the marriage contract was that it was originated to provide children with both a mother and father in their home. And this definition stood for over a thousand years, until June 2015. When that crucial revision occurred, children had no representation at the Hearing and even while they protested and (at least) cast a shadow of doubt over the new revision in their amicus briefs (read my signature) the doubtful new arrangement was found in favor of the adults sharing that implicit contract with children. Which defies ancient infants and contract law. If any doubt is present as to the contract providing a necessity (see: "necessities" "infants" and "contracts"), the doubt goes to the necessity remaining as an enjoyment the child still has. Any attempts to alter a contract shared implicitly with a child or children in general, that strips them of a necessity isn't just voidable, it is ALREADY VOID upon its face.

As such, gay marriage is VOID in all 50 states.

 

[Skylar]

Depending on who you ask, marriage is a type of contract, just one with some unique properties which isn't treated entirely like other contracts.

A type of contract is still a contract.

There's no contract that says that children are married to their parents. You made that up. Killing your entire argument. As your imagination isn't the law.

When that crucial revision occurred, children had no representation at the Hearing and even while they protested and (at least) cast a shadow of doubt over the new revision in their amicus briefs (read my signature) the doubtful new arrangement was found in favor of the adults sharing that implicit contract with children.

There's no such requirement that 'children' in general have a 'representative' at the hearing lest there is a 'mistrial'.

You made that up too. See above for why that kills your argument yet again.

There's no shadow. There's no doubt. There's just you making up non-existent 'rights', imaginary 'contracts that marry children to their parents' and non-existent 'requirements' for USSC hearings.

Its all pseudo-legal gibberish, signifying nothing. As the courts are bound to the actual law. Not whatever hapless nonsense you make up. Remember......you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Contract law states that if a contract strips a child of a necessity they previously implicitly enjoyed, that contract isn't merely voidable, it is VOID already.

Infants and contract laws have ancient chains. You might want to look into them sometime..

 

[Skylar]

Contract law states that if a contract strips a child of a necessity they previously implicitly enjoyed, that contract isn't merely voidable, it is VOID already.

No law, no court, no state, no one....recognizes that a child is married to their parents.

Making all your pseudo-legal gibberish more meaningless babble.

 

[Silhouette]

No law, no court, no state, no one....recognizes that a child is married to their parents.

Making all your pseudo-legal gibberish more meaningless babble.

The question isn't whether or not children are "married to" their parents. The question is "what is marriage contract and who all enjoys it in total?" The answer, of course, is not limited to "just the adults involved" because for thousands of years children enjoyed rights to a mother and father in the marriage contract. And here's the clincher that's going to sink this particular argument of yours: The marriage contract which provided a child or children with both a mother and father was created as such and for their benefit at the very get-go. Children are the reason marriage exists in the first place. And that was sustained as a given implicit right of children to the marriage contract for thousands of years right up until June 2015....and before in some states.

ANY contract that deprives a child of a necessity he once enjoyed implicitly from that contract is VOID upon its face if it deprives a child of that necessity. Read it and weep bro.. All gay "marriages" are VOID in all 50 states according to infants and contract law. Boys and girls NEED, MUST HAVE, REQUIRE AS VITAL both a mother and father in marriage. Because boys need fathers and girls need mothers. And boys need to learn the cues of women from their mother. And girls need to learn the cues of men from their father. There is NO SUBSITUTE for these vital psychological and social necessities for children involved directly in marriage.

Prince's Trust 2010 Survey : PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[Montrovant]

No law, no court, no state, no one....recognizes that a child is married to their parents.

Making all your pseudo-legal gibberish more meaningless babble.

The question isn't whether or not children are "married to" their parents. The question is "what is marriage contract and who all enjoys it in total?" The answer, of course, is not limited to "just the adults involved" because for thousands of years children enjoyed rights to a mother and father in the marriage contract. And here's the clincher that's going to sink this particular argument of yours: The marriage contract which provided a child or children with both a mother and father was created as such and for their benefit at the very get-go. Children are the reason marriage exists in the first place. And that was sustained as a given implicit right of children to the marriage contract for thousands of years right up until June 2015....and before in some states.

ANY contract that deprives a child of a necessity he once enjoyed implicitly from that contract is VOID upon its face if it deprives a child of that necessity. Read it and weep bro.. All gay "marriages" are VOID in all 50 states according to infants and contract law. Boys and girls NEED, MUST HAVE, REQUIRE AS VITAL both a mother and father in marriage. Because boys need fathers and girls need mothers. And boys need to learn the cues of women from their mother. And girls need to learn the cues of men from their father. There is NO SUBSITUTE for these vital psychological and social necessities for children involved directly in marriage.

I like when you talk about what marriage has been for thousands of years, as though the institution of marriage has remained the same in all societies over all that time.

Children continue to have a mother or father whether their parents are married or not. Any right to a mother and father (which, of course, you have simply made up) is unaffected by the marital status of a child's parents. The way you describe it, divorce would be illegal for any couple with underage children, since such a divorce would strip them of a right. Perhaps even remarriage would be a legal requirement for widows and widowers.

The reality, instead, is that marriage exists and has existed with or without children. Children have not had the same rights in various societies over the thousands of years that marriage has existed in one form or another. But you seem to hope that if you make your claims as though they are accepted facts, they will be believed to be such. 'Make your claims as though they are accepted facts.' Is that gaslighting tip #174.7?

 

[Silhouette]

Children continue to have a mother or father whether their parents are married or not. Any right to a mother and father (which, of course, you have simply made up) is unaffected by the marital status of a child's parents. The way you describe it, divorce would be illegal for any couple with underage children, since such a divorce would strip them of a right. Perhaps even remarriage would be a legal requirement for widows and widowers.

You are citing exceptions to the marriage contract. I'm talking about the marriage contract. Do try to keep up.. A widow or widower could still marry and bring back the missing gender for the children in their home. Same with a single hetero parent. Gays can never provide this for children in a home where the marriage contract presides over. You need to understand that the marriage contract was created for children, to bind a mother and father in a reliable home for them to flourish best in. All your exceptions are merely exceptions. They have nothing to do with the marriage contract. A widow can't control that her husband died. A single parent can't control that they were dumped. Marriage exists to entice, to bring these wayward folks back into the best arrangement for children. Gays can NEVER, EVER provide that arrangement for kids. So they are disqualified and their "marriage" contracts are VOID upon their face because they deprive children of a necessity they enjoyed per contract for thousands of years.

 

[Skylar]

No law, no court, no state, no one....recognizes that a child is married to their parents.

Making all your pseudo-legal gibberish more meaningless babble.

The question isn't whether or not children are "married to" their parents. The question is "what is marriage contract and who all enjoys it in total?"

Laughing...and a few days ago you were insisting that it was about how children were married to your parents. That this was the basis of the marriage contract. Now you've abandoned the claim, insisting its something else.

Sil, you're just making this shit up as you go along. With this thread a wasteland of the pseudo-legal horseshit you've thrown against the barn wall, praying something would stick. And you abandoning it when it becomes obvious you have no idea idea what you're talking about.

Given that every example of 'contract law' involve children in explicit contracts for their services, like child actors....the fact that children play no such role in marriage is immediately relevant.

The answer, of course, is not limited to "just the adults involved" because for thousands of years children enjoyed rights to a mother and father in the marriage contract. And here's the clincher that's going to sink this particular argument of yours: The marriage contract which provided a child or children with both a mother and father was created as such and for their benefit at the very get-go. Children are the reason marriage exists in the first place. And that was sustained as a given implicit right of children to the marriage contract for thousands of years right up until June 2015....and before in some states.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us anywhere in any law or court ruling that finds that marriage is a 'minor contract' as you've claimed, or that children are 'married to their parents', as you've claim.

You can't. None of your pseudo-legal gibberish has anything to do with the law. You're citing your imagination on what you think the law is. While ignoring what it actually is. And seem confused and confounded

ANY contract that deprives a child of a necessity he once enjoyed implicitly from that contract is VOID upon its face if it deprives a child of that necessity. Read it and weep bro.. All gay "marriages" are VOID in all 50 states according to infants and contract law.

Yawning....Nope. More meaningless nonsense. As your 'right to opposite sex parents' is your imagination. Again, Sil.....none of your imagination has the slightest thing to do with anyone's marriage or the outcome of any court ruling.

As demonstrated by 50 of 50 States recognizing same sex marriage as legal and valid. Something you insist can never happen. And shocker, your legal predictions continue their perfect record of failure.

 

[Silhouette]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. It was the reason the marriage contract was conceived of initially and maintained that way for thousands of years. I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Children IN FACT share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly. Their rights cannot be brushed away by contemporary conveniences to adult whims. Children's rights in contract law trump adults. THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

 

[mdk]

All gay "marriages" are VOID in all 50 states according to infants and contract law.

Let me check here...nope, gay marriage is still legal in all 50 states.

Better luck tomorrow.

 

[Skylar]

Children continue to have a mother or father whether their parents are married or not. Any right to a mother and father (which, of course, you have simply made up) is unaffected by the marital status of a child's parents. The way you describe it, divorce would be illegal for any couple with underage children, since such a divorce would strip them of a right. Perhaps even remarriage would be a legal requirement for widows and widowers.

You are citing exceptions to the marriage contract. I'm talking about the marriage contract.

More accurately, you're citing yourself on what you *imagine* marriage is. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

As demonstrated by the fact that no law, no court, nor any of your *own* sources on 'contract law' recognize marriage as a 'minor contract', or marrying any child to their parents. That's just you, citing you.

Which has no legal relevance. Do try and keep up.

Gays can never provide this for children in a home where the marriage contract presides over.

Says you. Citing yourself. The Supreme Court clearly disagrees. As demonstrated by both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling in which they found that marriage for same sex parents benefits their children. While denying marriage to same sex parents harms their children.

Quite literally the oppose of your claims.

Predictably, your argument has degenerated into ignoring anything the USSC has found on the topic and imagining your own version of the law which you laughably insist the USSC is bound to.

Laughing.....nope!

 

[Silhouette]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. It was the reason the marriage contract was conceived of initially and maintained that way for thousands of years. I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Children IN FACT share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly. Their rights cannot be brushed away by contemporary conveniences to adult whims. Children's rights in contract law trump adults. THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

Let me check here...nope, gay marriage is still legal in all 50 states.

Let me check here....nope, any revision of contract that deprives of a child of a necessity they once enjoyed is a contract that is VOID upon its face. A contract that strips a child of either a mother or father in the thousand-years-old description, is an illegal contract. So gay marriage is in fact illegal in all 50 states.

Which will win in this contest? ANCIENT infants and contract law, ingrained, pernicious, longstanding, or a recent whim of the LGBT cult? I know where my money's at..

 

[Syriusly]

[
As such, gay marriage is VOID in all 50 states.

But you have also told us that polygamy is now legal in all 50 states......

LOL.......

 

[Syriusly]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. It was the reason the marriage contract was conceived of initially and maintained that way for thousands of years. I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Children IN FACT share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly. Their rights cannot be brushed away by contemporary conveniences to adult whims. Children's rights in contract law trump adults. THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

Let me check here...nope, gay marriage is still legal in all 50 states.

Which will win in this contest?.

Americans- including the children whose parents are now able to get married.

We are all winners.

 

[mdk]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. It was the reason the marriage contract was conceived of initially and maintained that way for thousands of years. I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Children IN FACT share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly. Their rights cannot be brushed away by contemporary conveniences to adult whims. Children's rights in contract law trump adults. THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

That is only legal fact in your own imagination. You are free to frolic in Imaginationland until the cows come home but the rest of us are under no such obligations to join you.

 

[Skylar]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up.

Sil......no where in our law does it say that a child is married to their parents. Look it up. You're making that shit up as you go along with your claims and time lines changing from post to post. . And none of it has the slightest relevance to any law, any court decision, anything. It begins and ends inside your head.

Further, the USSC found that same sex marriage was constitutional, specifically citing its benefit to children. Explicitly contradicting you. And a USSC ruling trumps any pseudo-legal babble you imagine.

See how that works?

I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face.

I'm sorry, but you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. As gay marriage is still recognized as legal and valid in every state. And none of your pseudo-legal gibberish has the slightest relevance to the real world.

Get used to the idea.

 

[mdk]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. It was the reason the marriage contract was conceived of initially and maintained that way for thousands of years. I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Children IN FACT share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly. Their rights cannot be brushed away by contemporary conveniences to adult whims. Children's rights in contract law trump adults. THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

Let me check here...nope, gay marriage is still legal in all 50 states.

Let me check here....nope, any revision of contract that deprives of a child of a necessity they once enjoyed is a contract that is VOID upon its face. A contract that strips a child of either a mother or father in the thousand-years-old description, is an illegal contract. So gay marriage is in fact illegal in all 50 states.

Which will win in this contest? ANCIENT infants and contract law, ingrained, pernicious, longstanding, or a recent whim of the LGBT cult? I know where my money's at..

You are free to go broke making silly bets.

 

[Skylar]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. It was the reason the marriage contract was conceived of initially and maintained that way for thousands of years. I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Children IN FACT share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly. Their rights cannot be brushed away by contemporary conveniences to adult whims. Children's rights in contract law trump adults. THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

That is only legal fact in your own imagination. You are free to frolic in Imaginationland until the cows come home but the rest of us are under no such obligations to join you.

Exactly. Sil is once again presenting her imagination as 'fact'. And then insisting that all courts up to the USSC is bound to whatever pseudo-legal horseshit she makes up.

Nope. Her imagination obligates no one to do anything.

 

[Skylar]

Contracts that deprive a child of a necessity are void upon their face. Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. It was the reason the marriage contract was conceived of initially and maintained that way for thousands of years. I'm so sorry, but "gay marriage" deprives children of that necessity and therefore, all gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. Children IN FACT share the marriage contract's enjoyments implicitly. Their rights cannot be brushed away by contemporary conveniences to adult whims. Children's rights in contract law trump adults. THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

Let me check here...nope, gay marriage is still legal in all 50 states.

Let me check here....nope, any revision of contract that deprives of a child of a necessity they once enjoyed is a contract that is VOID upon its face.

Let me check.......nope, no law recognizes a child as being married to their parents. Nor recognizes your imaginary 'right to opposite sex parents'.

Rendering your entire argument more pseudo-legal nonsense. Signifying nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

Look it up. Mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to girls and boys. ..... THAT IS A LEGAL FACT.

Stop listening to the voices in your head. They are lying to you.

If Mothers and Fathers in marriage are a necessity- why is divorce permitted? Don't give me your crap about it being for the necessity of the children- you have just said that mothers and fathers are a necessity in marriage to boys and girls- if that is true- divorce would not be permitted- but parents can get divorced- irregardless of the needs or wishes of children.

And why are unmarried mothers and fathers not required to get married?

You making up this crap does not make it real- no matter what the voices in your head say.