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

[Skylar]

Its the same post, spammed over and over in multiple threads. And its the same bullshit each time. The Prince Trust study simply doesn't say anything you claimed it did. It never even mentions mothers or fathers. Nor does it measure the effects of any kind of parenting. And the Prince's Trust explcitly contradicts your assumption that ONLY a mother or father can be a good same sex role model.

As they run an extensive mentoring program to provide such role models to kids.

So why keep misrepresenting the study? Again, we've all read it. And we all know it doesn't say what you claim it does. And you know we're going to call you out for misrepresenting the study.

Making your recitation of the same lie so....pointless.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh you are able to find websites- and post links.

But once again- you imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

If a hearing was had to revise a contract of which children were an implicit part thereof, and enjoyed implicit rights thereto, and children were not represented at that hearing, the hearing and the revision of that contract is void. Read the laws again Syriusly. I didn't say the Obergefell hearing was void. The laws of infants and contract law say it is void.

From ancient law and law on the books today concerning contracts (including the marriage contract):

..."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

Now, go find a lawyer for your cult who will successfully argue that the removal of either a mother or father (for life, without infants' expressed assent) from the marriage contract was for the "benefit" of children. Good luck!

Well feel free to tell us about such a 'hearing' and such a 'contract'.

You haven't mentioned any such hearing yet.

I just did. That you left it out of my quote was telling. I specifically mentioned the Obergefell hearing and specifically mentioned the marriage contract of which children are implicitly part of...and who were left out of the revision thereof....against the law.

Specific enough?

Skylar, the Prince's Trust Survey says this in the link I'll provide here: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

"Young people with no role models of the same gender in their lives score a total of 65 in the well-being index compared with a score of 74 for young people with these role models .... ....... young people’s happiness and confidence both seem to be affected by the addition of a role model of the same gender."

A "marriage" that fundamentally deprives a child of either a mother or father by its very new structure, is a contractual revision a child would suffer from. So, the revision, particularly without their having representation at the (Obergefell) Hearing was illegal. It was outside the law of contracts and infants.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh you are able to find websites- and post links.

But once again- you imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

I didn't say the Obergefell hearing was void. The laws of infants and contract law say it is void.

Yes- you are the one making the nutty claim that the ruling of the Supreme Court is void.

It is you- with your bizarre pseudo legal mumbo jumbo.

The Supreme Court was ruling on the Constitutionality of state laws regarding marriage- not contract law.

And the Supreme Court is not bound by contract law- when ruling on the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, you have it bass ackwards.

 

[Skylar]

Oh you are able to find websites- and post links.

But once again- you imagining an illegal hearing doesn't make it real.

If a hearing was had to revise a contract of which children were an implicit part thereof, and enjoyed implicit rights thereto, and children were not represented at that hearing, the hearing and the revision of that contract is void. Read the laws again Syriusly. I didn't say the Obergefell hearing was void. The laws of infants and contract law say it is void.

Wow.

First off, marriage isn't a 'law of infants'. Killing your entire argument.

Second, you didn't cite marriage law or ancient law. You just cited ENTERTAINMENT law, regarding child ACTORS;

..."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

Which has nothing to do with Obergefell, marriage, or any of the nonsense you've claimed.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Making your pseudo-legal babble about the 'foundation of law', the 'death of law', and Obergefell more ignorant gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

The laws regarding infants and contracts are elaborated on in the entertainment industry. But for ages they were drawn from laws regarding infants and contracts in general.

However, those laws in NY and CA regarding kids and the entertainment contracts they enter can be tapped in argument for childrens' rights per the marriage contract.

Marriage is a contract previously up to states to define; for the benefit of all involved: parents and children. That contract was revised this year in June without the participation of children. And it was revised to childrens' detriment without their permission. This is expressly prohibited in contract law.

If it remains to be seen that depriving children of either a mother or father for life by sanctioning 'gay marriage' is a 'benefit' to the child, the child still has the option to say "no" and the burden is upon those theorizing the new "benefit" to prove it out before the change is made to that contract. The amicus briefs from adult children who wrote about suffering the institutional deprivation of either a mother or father in the gay homes they were raised in, as well as the Prince's Trust Survey of 2010 will make it exceedingly difficult for the adults wishing to revise the marriage contract to "prove that out"... (see the link in my signature for what adult kids raised in a gay home have to say about "the benefits to children of the revision of the marriage contract to bifurcate them from either a mother or father as an institution" (paraphrased).

Here's a quote from that link:

Lopez said that he has spoken to dozens of other adult children of homosexuals, and that many of them have similar stories of pain and damage inflicted by the absence of a biological parent and the unwanted “step-parent” type relationship demanded by their homosexual parents’ lovers. Lopez included testimonies from nine of them in his brief, but said there were many more who were afraid to speak out for fear that the homosexual lobby would target them for harassment like they have Lopez himself.

 

[Skylar]

The laws regarding infants and contracts are elaborated on in the entertainment industry. But for ages they were drawn from laws regarding infants and contracts in general.

However, those laws in NY and CA regarding kids and the entertainment contracts they enter can be tapped in argument for childrens' rights per the marriage contract.

More pseudo-legal gibberish. As the entertainment law is for children entering contracts themselves as child actors.

A child isn't entering into a contract when two adults get married. Killing your entire line of pseudo-legal babble.

Remember....and this point is fundamental: You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know the first thing about law. You have no idea what the 'foundation of law' is. Your claims are gloriously irrelevant to the actual law.

 

[Silhouette]

Children IMPLICITLY share the marriage contract. In fact, it was created thousands of years ago FOR THEIR BENEFIT. They are the reason it existed in the first place. It was newly-revised to their predicted detriment in Obergefell 2015, without their participation, input or even representation.

Good luck with your "argument"..

Here's a quote from the beginning of the Obergefell Opinion from SCOTUS Itself:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf (page 1)
(1)
The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities

Here, the Court admits the longstanding historical terms of the marriage contract up for revision. All parties must be present for a contract to be revised. And even more pernicious to the adults involved is that children's voices are dominant to theirs in that if a revision is suspected or proven out to be to the child's detriment, the revision may not happen. Any revision under those circumstances is legally-void.

Also, one of the "responsibilities" of marriage is to provide the best environment for children, who share the marriage contract's enjoyments. The Court failed to include their assent to the new arrangement. However noble the Court felt it was being at the time, accommodating homosexual's wishes to revise the contract, it left one of the parties to the contract out of the revision deliberations. Which, again, is forbidden by Law.

 

[Skylar]

Children IMPLICITLY share the marriage contract.

There's no mention of children being part of any marriage contract in any of the entertainment law you've cited. The entertainment law you've cited is EXPLICIT contracts. A child actor being paid money for acting services.

A child is no part of a marriage contract of two adults. A child enters into no contract when two adults get married. Just destroying your latest piece of pseudo-legal gibberish.

Remember.....you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. Which is why your pseudo-legal gibberish is so gloriously irrelevant.

In fact, it was created thousands of years ago FOR THEIR BENEFIT. They are the reason it existed in the first place. It was newly-revised to their predicted detriment in Obergefell 2015, without their participation, input or even representation.

On the contrary, both Windsor and Obergefell explicitly took kids into account. And found that denying same sex parents marriage only harms their children.

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 familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to theirworkers’ 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.

Denying same sex parents marriage actually hurts kids according to the USSC. You ignore that portion of their ruling because its contradicts your nonsense.

Alas, you pretending it doesn't exist doesn't actually make it disappear.

Good luck with your "argument"..

Oh, my argument is fine. Its binding legal precedent. There's a reason why my argument is the law in 50 of 50 States. And your argument is gloriously irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a contract previously up to states to define; for the benefit of all involved: parents and children. ]

According to the voices in your head.

Not according to the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, avoid the ad hominems...OK?

 

[Silhouette]

Children IMPLICITLY share the marriage contract.
In fact, it was created thousands of years ago FOR THEIR BENEFIT. They are the reason it existed in the first place. It was newly-revised to their predicted detriment in Obergefell 2015, without their participation, input or even representation.

On the contrary, both Windsor and Obergefell explicitly took kids into account. And found that denying same sex parents marriage only harms their children.

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 familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to theirworkers’ 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.

Denying same sex parents marriage actually hurts kids according to the USSC. You ignore that portion of their ruling because its contradicts your nonsense.

Who were the attorneys in either Windsor or Obergefell for the interests of children? Because, as you know, a judge cannot both represent a party to a contract and preside over the decision on its new revision at the same time. You have heard me say that children were not REPRESENTED at any of the deliberations. Just because they were discussed offhandedly, doesn't mean they had advocates present. If you are trying to assert that the judges were both children's representatives AND judges at the Windsor or Obergefell Hearings, then BOTH hearings were a mistrial. And if I have to explain why that is to you, you wouldn't even pass the entrance exams for law school.

 

[Skylar]

Children IMPLICITLY share the marriage contract.
In fact, it was created thousands of years ago FOR THEIR BENEFIT. They are the reason it existed in the first place. It was newly-revised to their predicted detriment in Obergefell 2015, without their participation, input or even representation.

On the contrary, both Windsor and Obergefell explicitly took kids into account. And found that denying same sex parents marriage only harms their children.

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 familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to theirworkers’ 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.

Denying same sex parents marriage actually hurts kids according to the USSC. You ignore that portion of their ruling because its contradicts your nonsense.

Who were the attorneys in either Windsor or Obergefell for the interests of children? Because, as you know, a judge cannot both represent a party to a contract and preside over the decision on its new revision at the same time.

Save of course that a child isn't party to any marriage of adults.Adults marry each other. Not their children.

Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about. You actually cited *entertainment* law for child actors as marriage law. Demonstrating elegantly that you're gloriously clueless about anything you're discussing.

You have heard me say that children were not REPRESENTED at any of the deliberations. Just because they were discussed offhandedly, doesn't mean they had advocates present.

And by 'off handedly', you mean repeatedly, consistently, and in explicit contradiction of your pseudo-legal gibberish? With Obergefell citing safeguarding children and families as the 3rd of 4 fundamental tenets of the right to marry?

Must have forgotten that, huh. Unsurprisingly, the court didn't.

If you are trying to assert that the judges were both children's representatives AND judges at the Windsor or Obergefell Hearings, then BOTH hearings were a mistrial. And if I have to explain why that is to you, you wouldn't even pass the entrance exams for law school.

Obvious nonsense. As neither a USSC hearing nor ruling is a 'trial', making a 'mistrial' physically impossible. Remember, you're clueless. You have no idea what these terms mean, using them at random. You know nothing about the law. Your predictions on legal outcomes are perfectly wrong. Every single legal prediction you've made has been inaccurate.

Without exception.

And the USSC itself contradicted your assertions, finding the *exact opposite* of what you insist. Any contest between the USSC and you on what the law says has the same winner.

Not you.

 

[Silhouette]

1. On the contrary, both Windsor and Obergefell explicitly took kids into account. And found that denying same sex parents marriage only harms their children.
Denying same sex parents marriage actually hurts kids according to the USSC. You ignore that portion of their ruling because its contradicts your nonsense.

Again, a non-represented party who implicitly shares a contract cannot be represented by judges. In family court, children have a separate representative appointed to represent their interests in divorce as to the marriage contract if conflicts arise. Guardian ad litem. Surely you've heard the term. There was no guardian ad litem at Windsor or Obergefell. Judges cannot represent a party to a case.

Who were the attorneys in either Windsor or Obergefell for the interests of children? Because, as you know, a judge cannot both represent a party to a contract and preside over the decision on its new revision at the same time.

2. Save of course that a child isn't party to any marriage of adults.Adults marry each other. Not their children.

Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about. You actually cited *entertainment* law for child actors as marriage law. Demonstrating elegantly that you're gloriously clueless about anything you're discussing.

Again, I do know what I'm talking about. These hearings were about revoking a thousands-years-old contract of which children share an implicit enjoyment, without children having representation at the revision talks. Which is illegal. Given that the change in the contract they shared strips them of either a mother or father for life as a brand spanking new term of the contract, their detriment can be predicted. Which is doubly illegal given contract law.

Contracts are contracts are contracts. Whether it is in the entertainment industry or anywhere else. Those who share a contract with an infant do so at their own legal peril. Because infants cannot be held to a contract, but the adults who share that contract with them absolutely must. And a contract shared with a child cannot be dissolved without the express assent of the child. In rare circumstances if an adult can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that revising or severing the contract with the infant is for the infant's best interest, then that contract can be dissolved. But if there lingers but a flicker of doubt that severing that contract might be in fact harmful to the child, the act of revision is VOID. The immense burden is upon the adult to prove up in any shared contract with a child the adult(s) seek to sever.

Being stripped of either a father or mother for life is harmful to children. Therefore, Obergefell is VOID. Purely just from a contract law standpoint in the purest sense of contract law and infants. A new hearing would have to be held with children having representation of their own intrinsic interests with regards to the marriage contract which they IN FACT IMPLICITLY SHARE. Implied contracts are as legally binding as specified ones. Oh...I DO know what I'm talking about Skylar..

You have heard me say that children were not REPRESENTED at any of the deliberations. Just because they were discussed offhandedly, doesn't mean they had advocates present.

3. And by 'off handedly', you mean repeatedly, consistently, and in explicit contradiction of your pseudo-legal gibberish? With Obergefell citing safeguarding children and families as the 3rd of 4 fundamental tenets of the right to marry?

The equivalent would be of an oil industry constantly bringing up their "concerns" for the environment and having their pocket judges give lip service to environmental protection in fracking without the EPA being present, on a hearing to revise a previous agreement to increase the toxic load in solvents to frack shale with. Then you would declare "but the judges took into account and constantly brought up their concerns for the environment, citing the environment all the time and "safeguarding" it"... Even if the EPA was barred from the talks and gave no assent to the new solvent load...which was granted to the oil companies by the judges presiding...

You do understand why parties hire attorneys to represent their interests at hearings, right? So that the opposition and their friends, the judges, can't have a kangaroo court in your absence and to your demise? Obergefell was an ex parte hearing.

If you are trying to assert that the judges were both children's representatives AND judges at the Windsor or Obergefell Hearings, then BOTH hearings were a mistrial. And if I have to explain why that is to you, you wouldn't even pass the entrance exams for law school.

4. Obvious nonsense. As neither a USSC hearing nor ruling is a 'trial', making a 'mistrial' physically impossible. Remember, you're clueless. You have no idea what these terms mean, using them at random. You know nothing about the law.

You know what I mean. One case where a child sues for their rights to revisit the contractual revision of marriage and Obergefell will effectively be overturned. A mother and father are that important to a daughter and son.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, you understand why parties hire attorneys to represent their interests at a hearing, right? So that a kangaroo court won't "decide their best interests" in their absence?...

 

[Skylar]

1. On the contrary, both Windsor and Obergefell explicitly took kids into account. And found that denying same sex parents marriage only harms their children.
Denying same sex parents marriage actually hurts kids according to the USSC. You ignore that portion of their ruling because its contradicts your nonsense.

Again, a non-represented party who implicitly shares a contract cannot be represented by judges. In family court, children have a separate representative appointed to represent their interests in divorce as to the marriage contract if conflicts arise. Guardian ad litem. Surely you've heard the term. There was no guardian ad litem at Windsor or Obergefell. Judges cannot represent a party to a case.

Children aren't party to any marriage of adults. Adults marry each other. Not their children.

Remember, you don't have the slightest clue how the law actually works. You're just making up your own version as you go along. And it has no relevance outside your imagination.

And Guardian ad litem are fact finders for the judges. Not advocates for children. There were plenty of 'friends of the court' briefs outlining the effects on children of denying marriage to same sex parents.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know how supreme court rulings work. You don't understand the terms you're using. And you don't understand contract law. Making your legal conclusions meaningless, imaginary babble.

Which might explain why *every* prediction of legal outcome you've ever made has been laughably wrong.

Again, I do know what I'm talking about. These hearings were about revoking a thousands-years-old contract of which children share an implicit enjoyment, without children having representation at the revision talks. Which is illegal. Given that the change in the contract they shared strips them of either a mother or father for life as a brand spanking new term of the contract, their detriment can be predicted. Which is doubly illegal given contract law.

Again, you really don't know what you're talking about. As a party to a contract is one who has entered into that contract. No child has entered into marriage with their parents when their parents marry.

Ever.

The courts weighed the interests of children. And the USSC explicitly contradicted you. They found that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts their children:

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.

The courts have found that your proposals harm children. So you ignore the courts and the harm your proposals cause. Which, again, is gloriously irrelevant to any legal outcome. As Windsor and Obergefell are just as authoritative when you pretend it doesn't exist as when you recognize that it does.

Your pseudo-legal gibberish is simply irrelevant, being imaginary.

Contracts are contracts are contracts. Whether it is in the entertainment industry or anywhere else.

Marriage is not an entertainment contract. As marriage is between adults. While entertainment contracts for child actors explicitly make children a party to the contract.

Marriage never has. Which even you recognize. Killing your argument and demonstrating how little you understand of this topic in one singular act.

Being stripped of either a father or mother for life is harmful to children. Therefore, Obergefell is VOID.

Says you, citing yourself. The courts found that denying marriage to same sex parents hurts children. Directly, seriously, and in a variety of ways. You disagree. And your opinion is still legally irrelevant. The Obergefell rulings validity isn't predicated on your personal opinion. Legally speaking, you're nobody.

Therefore, your pseudo-legal gibberish remains pristine irrelevant to any outcome in any case. As demonstrated by gay marriage being legal in 50 of 50 States. And the Obergefell ruling being in full effect, explicitly contradicting your assertions.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Again, you understand why parties hire attorneys to represent their interests at a hearing, right? So that a kangaroo court won't "decide their best interests" in their absence?...

With a 'kangaroo court' being any court that applies the *actual* standards of law rather than whatever hapless pseudo-legal gibberish you make up?

Sil, seriously......you have no idea how the law works. You keep trying to use terms you don't understand. You keep citing sources that have nothing to do with you claims. And your entire argument is predicated on the Obergefell ruling's validity being based on agreement with your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is legally meaningless. No ruling is predicated on it. Nor do you have the slightest clue how the actual law works. Rendering your entire argument meaningless nonsense.

 

[Silhouette]

Children aren't party to any marriage of adults. Adults marry each other. Not their children.


And Guardian ad litem are fact finders for the judges. Not advocates for children. There were plenty of 'friends of the court' briefs outlining the effects on children of denying marriage to same sex parents.

Children are IN FACT IMPLICIT PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Implicit parties enjoy rights to a contract. In this case, the marriage contract was conceived of over a thousand years ago FOR CHILDREN'S IMPLICIT ENJOYMENTS in a home environment they were raised it. A new Hearing will set you straight on the horrible misinformation you are imparting here.

There were plenty of amicus briefs FROM ADULT CHILDREN RAISED IN GAY HOMES BEGGING SCOTUS to not change the contract to disinclude either a mother or father for life. The judges decided in the absence of actual representation of children, to IGNORE THE AMICUS BRIEFS filed described in the link in my signature. The Court IGNORED the damage that ratifying the new terms of the contract that children, in fact, share in, WITHOUT THESE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT HAVING REPRESENTATION PRESENT AT THE REVISION HEARING..

The Court decided, in childrens' absence physically in court, and in spite of their written protests, that stripping them of the right to BOTH a mother and father (kids come in both genders, pal) was "in their best interest". Which is flatly false. And that they were not present or represented, and that the revision was to their detriment, means via contract law and infants, that the revision is in fact today and always until children assent NULL AND VOID.

Let me remind you again...

..."where an infant's contract is to his benefit, it is good and binding upon him; when it is to his prejudice, it is void; and when it is of uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only at the election of the infant." http://www.marcjacobson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jacobson04a.pdf

An infant cannot void a contract he was not invited to weigh in on the revision thereof, nor represented at that revision. So Obergefell was a mistrial.

Your predictions of who is "always right" or "always wrong" are meaningless Skylar, in the face of an attorney and his child client suing for the right to have a mother AND father restored to the contract s/he enjoyed for thousands of years.

You can play the "Skylar's always right" defense for what it would get you at that Hearing..

 

[Skylar]

Children aren't party to any marriage of adults. Adults marry each other. Not their children.


And Guardian ad litem are fact finders for the judges. Not advocates for children. There were plenty of 'friends of the court' briefs outlining the effects on children of denying marriage to same sex parents.

Children are IN FACT IMPLICIT PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT.

Again, nonsense. No child is married to their parents when their parents marry. You don't understand how marriage works. You're making up your own version of marriage, your own version of contract law, and then insisting that the courts are bound to whatever gibberish you make up.

Nope. They're not. No one is. As your pseudo-legal babble is irrelevant to the actual law and the outcome of any case.

Which again, explains why your *every* legal prediction has been wrong. Without exception. You've been inaccurate on the outcome of every case you've tried to prognosticate about. Wrong on the basis of the ruling, wrong on the outcome of the ruling, wrong on the cases being cited, wrong on everything. As you keep citing your imagination while ignoring the actual law.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

I, on the other hand, have been right on virtually every aspect of this case. I was right on the ruling, right on the split of the court, right on the basis of the ruling, right on the cases they would cite. Why? Because I cited the actual law. You cite your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

You aren't right about infants and contract law. You are asserting that children did not and do not implicitly share in the marriage contract. I assure you that you are wrong about that. Go ask any lawyer or judge. Go ahead.

 

[bodecea]

You aren't right about infants and contract law. You are asserting that children did not and do not implicitly share in the marriage contract. I assure you that you are wrong about that. Go ask any lawyer or judge. Go ahead.

Hows the trolling for gay hits working for you?