Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

[Silhouette]

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.

Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.

The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.

Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.

Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw​

 

[mdk]

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a

What a compelling argument.

 

[mdk]

Like I said in the other thread, you're like a toddler that just learned a new word. Feber is going to be your new gas-lighting.
Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you encourage or discourage debate on this topic mkd? Without verbal abuse? Why or why not?

 

[mdk]

I will always encourage you to make a fool yourself. I don't believe you need my help though.

 

[thanatos144]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.

Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.

The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.

Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.

Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw​

Who is denying the child from their mother or father?

Unless adopted the child will not be denied, and if adopted the parent gave up their right, so they will be denied to see the child until the child reaches a certain age under the law of the state which is usually 18.

Also there are many single parent homes, and you should worry more about the heterosexual homes that are broken before worrying about the Homosexual home.

Finally, your homophobic rants on this subject get boring over the time. Gays have the right to marry and the USSC has made this clear. Until you can get the court to change it ruling this will be the law of the land.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Who is denying the child from their mother or father?...2. Unless adopted the child will not be denied, and if adopted the parent gave up their right, so they will be denied to see the child until the child reaches a certain age under the law of the state which is usually 18....3. Also there are many single parent homes, and you should worry more about the heterosexual homes that are broken before worrying about the Homosexual home....4. Finally, your homophobic rants on this subject get boring over the time. Gays have the right to marry and the USSC has made this clear. Until you can get the court to change it ruling this will be the law of the land.

1. Same sex marriage means either a mother or father is missing in a child's daily life.

2. Your rare example of open adoption is not to be assumed. It must be assumed the married parents are the only parents for the sake of a child's protection in the marriage contract's terms of mother/father.

3. Single parent homes are less onerous to children because at least they offer the HOPE that one day the child will have the complimentary parent present in their daily lives. The states offer incentives for adults to correct this lesser situation for the sake of children. Gay marriage structurally strips children even of the hope of both a mother and father in their daily lives. That is harsh and onerous and voids those contracts because of the children implicitly involved in them.

4. My "rant" may seem boring to you, but there are lawyers struggling to preserve states' rights and the rights of Christians and children who don't find my rant boring at all. In fact, quite the contrary..

 

[mdk]

My "rant" may seem boring to you, but there are lawyers struggling to preserve states' rights and the rights of Christians and children who don't find my rant boring at all. In fact, quite the contrary..

Yes, I am sure children are just scouring this thread in-between snack time and episodes of Yo Gabba Gabba!

 

[Silhouette]

I said "lawyers struggling to preseve states' rights and the rights of Christians and children"...and in between snack time and episodes of Yo Gabba Gabba the poor child might be wondering why her peers all have mommies and she doesn't..

 

[mdk]

I said "lawyers struggling to preseve states' rights and the rights of Christians and children"...and in between snack time and episodes of Yo Gabba Gabba the poor child might be wondering why her peers all have mommies and she doesn't..

Unless the lawyer is a glutton for punishment, why would he/she want to get laughed out the courtroom?

 

[TheOldSchool]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're right, this topic is old and over

 

[thanatos144]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're right, this topic is old and over

Thier votes won't last long.... why? Because progressivism is rooted in elitism and feminism. Both of which is diametrically opposite to the liberty needed for homosexuals to live peacefully and safely in a society. You see the marrige idiocy is just a cheap parlor trick.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

'Extra rights' meaning of course- treating them the same before the law.

Something Conservatives despise.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Who is denying the child from their mother or father?...2. Unless adopted the child will not be denied, and if adopted the parent gave up their right, so they will be denied to see the child until the child reaches a certain age under the law of the state which is usually 18....3. Also there are many single parent homes, and you should worry more about the heterosexual homes that are broken before worrying about the Homosexual home....4. Finally, your homophobic rants on this subject get boring over the time. Gays have the right to marry and the USSC has made this clear. Until you can get the court to change it ruling this will be the law of the land.

1. Same sex marriage means either a mother or father is missing in a child's daily life.
.

And of course that is a lie.

Most 'same sex marriages' have no children- hence no such thing.

 

[paperview]

Is there maybe five minutes out of the day the OP isn't obsessing over gay folks?

I doubt it.

 

[Syriusly]

[
3. Single parent homes are less onerous to children because at least they offer the HOPE that one day the child will have the complimentary parent present in their daily lives..

According to you.

In reality- single parent homes are far, far more likely to suffer both economic hardships and incidents of domestic violence.

A two parent home is far more likely to provide a secure financial base for children.

Your argument is frankly a lie.

The State does not require the parents of children to marry. The State does not require the parents of children to stay married. The States allow children to be in single parent homes.

IF this was considered to be doing children 'legal harm' then none of that would happen.

BUT for the children of gay parents- those you want to apply those standards to.

 

[mdk]

Is there maybe five minutes out of the day the OP isn't obsessing over gay folks?

I doubt it.

I am sure she sleeps at some point. Even than one can never tell what will occur in a dream-state. lol

 

[Syriusly]

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.

Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.

The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.

Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.

Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw​

https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf (Page 30)

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when
the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right

In a case where the "right" to sell and promote child pornography claimed 1st Amendment protections, the US Supreme Court found that even where adults have constitutionally-protected behaviors, children's psychological and physical well being dominates legally.

Enter: Obergefell 2015. Nevermind that Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009 forbade Justices Ginsburg & Kagan from sitting on that Hearing because they both officiated at gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage" was pending. Let's just focus on Obergefell.

The marriage contract was created over a thousand years ago mainly and predominantly to protect children from all the various inferior situations where they would not have both a mother and father present in their daily lives. The marriage contract was created precisely for children and precisely for that reason.

Gay marriage is worse than divorce. Divorce at least struggles to maintain the child's regular contact with both mom and dad if the conditions of them living together become intolerable for the atmosphere of marriage (for the children's sake). Obergefell for the first time in human history has made an institution out of systematically-depriving children of either a mother or father for life. Instead of the bane it has always been, Obergefell "dressed it up" as "a new asset"...Yet that asset has yet to be proven out. Meanwhile children are subjected to these lifestyles (for they are not inborn...a class creation the Judicial was not allowed to add to the 14th while omitting other behaviors...fodder for yet another thread) as guinea pigs.

Then we also have infant necessities and contract law. The Doctrine of Infants says that children can't be stripped of a necessity in a contract they share expressly or implicitly. Stripping them of either a father or mother for life, without the possibility of parole is worse than subjecting them to single parenthood. They'd be better off there because at least a single parent holds the promise of having them have both mother and father at some point. Gay marriage erases that hope completely. And so, gay marriage contracts are void upon their face. They aren't voidable, they are void.

A contract is not binding on a minor merely because it is proved to be for the minor's benefit; but a contract which would otherwise be binding as a contract for necessaries is not so if it contains harsh and onerous terms: Fawcett v. Smethurst (1914) 84 LJKB 473, (Atkin J).

Depriving a child of a mother or father for life as a new system of convenience to adult "civil rights" is harsh and onerous to children. So the contract would be void.

Read more at Law Teacher: http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/capacity-lecture.php#ixzz3xza8c3dw​

There is virtually nothing actually true in Silhouette's posts except the actual words she has quoted- but certainly not her interpretations of the words.

 

[thanatos144]

This topic is old and over. The progressives twisted the constitution to grant homosexuals extra rights. Now they will get thier votes.

'Extra rights' meaning of course- treating them the same before the law.

Something Conservatives despise.

Meaning giving them special exemption from laws based on sexual predilection. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is the usurpation of states rights to make laws. Whether a state had homosexual marriage or not should have been up to each state not five old people in a robe. But like I said the progressives bought the homosexual male vote for a short period of time. Because homosexual or not they are still men and feminism thus progressivism see them are war mongering rapists.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk