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

[Syriusly]

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

The Prince Trust study doesn't mention mothers or fathers. It doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. It never mentions gays, gay marriage, same sex parenting

So, I like the chances of the Prince's Trust's discussions of the demise to children of the absence of a same-gender role model as they grew up being extrapolated to the systematic disenfranchisement gay marriage foists upon kids to strip them of either a mother or father for life, per contract...

Since the Supreme Court- AND every court- has ignored your lies about the Prince's Trust.....of course you like your chances.....

 

[Syriusly]

Did you read the testimony given by the children raised in gay homes or not? You're not a big fan of large surveys to come to deductive conclusions...I get it. You like small hand picked ones. Try reading the kids' accounts of being raised in gay homes..

Testimony of children raised in gay homes? Here you go- but of course you will ignore these....like you ignore all of reality

At age 19, Zach Wahls famously spoke before the Iowa House Judiciary Committee on behalf of his lesbian moms when the state was considering a constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples. He also addressed a national audience at the Democratic Convention in 2011. His statement, “The sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character,” captured on film, became YouTube’s No. 1 political video of 2011.

“Growing up with lesbian moms has been the most normal thing to ever happen to me, honestly,” said Katie Hershey van Horn, 19, now a freshman at University of Hawaii. “It’s so brutally normal! I have to do chores around the house, walk our dog, feed our cats and do my own laundry. I was raised like any other kid: always say ‘please’ and ‘thank you,’ don’t put your elbows on the table, and don’t litter!”
Twenty-two-year-old Michael Arden-Sonego is studying to become a firefighter.
“When the social worker told me that the couple that wanted to adopt my brothers and me was two men, she waited for some reaction, but I didn’t care,” Michael recalled. “I just wanted to live somewhere I could call home, somewhere where I could finally relax and know my brothers and I were going to be taken care of. Besides new parents we got a big family with cousins, grandparents, aunts, uncles and four dogs. My parents are good-hearted people who have worked hard to give us many opportunities and I am very grateful to have them as parents.”
Rachele Yaseen-Polanski, 44, of Claremont, California grew up in Colorado. When she was two years old her parents divorced and Rachele spent part of her time with her father and his new wife and part with her mother and her mother’s girlfriend.
“It was just normal,” said Rachelle. “I never knew any different. But my mother and her girlfriend both could have gotten fired in Colorado if their employers found out they were gay so they weren’t out -- except to friends and family.”

 

[mdk]

Just checked again...gay marriage is still legal in every state. Better luck tomorrow, sour grapes.

 

[Skylar]

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

The Prince Trust study doesn't mention mothers or fathers. It doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. It never mentions gays, gay marriage, same sex parenting

...and Loving v Virginia doesn't mention gay marriage or same-sex parenting either. Yet you used it to infer many things about those two topics for a "win" (temporary) at the Supreme Court. So, I like the chances of the Prince's Trust's discussions of the demise to children of the absence of a same-gender role model as they grew up being extrapolated to the systematic disenfranchisement gay marriage foists upon kids to strip them of either a mother or father for life, per contract...

You're mistaking your personal obsession for court interest. Where you fixate on some random study or case that has nothing to do with same sex marriage.....and then insist that the courts are compelled to follow your obsession.

Nope. There's zero evidence the courts are even *aware* of your personal obsession. Let alone find it compelling. Especially since your perspective is founded in a series of nested fallacies.

You assume the right to marry is predicated on children. The Supreme Court has contradicted this, indicating that its not. You assume that only a mother or father can be a positive same sex role model. The Prince's Trust contradicts this, having an extensive mentoring program to provide these very positive same sex role models.

You can ignore the Supreme Court and ignore the very source you're citing, pretending neither exist. But neither we nor any court is obligated to pretend with you. Which is why you fail.

 

[Syriusly]

Just checked again...gay marriage is still legal in every state. Better luck tomorrow, sour grapes.

Yes- thankfully despite Silhouette's foot stomping, children all over America are now being protected because their parents are able to be legally married.

Hey I just realized- when Silhouette hears Trump say he wants to make America 'Great Again"- she thinks he is talking about putting gays back in the closet...

 

[Silhouette]

Since the Supreme Court- AND every court- has ignored your lies about the Prince's Trust.....of course you like your chances.....

You know it's funny. During the time leading up to the Obergefell Opinion, the link to the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey was disabled for some reason at the Prince's Trust website. I think it's still disabled. But I got a copy of it and am hosting it myself. here: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[Skylar]

Since the Supreme Court- AND every court- has ignored your lies about the Prince's Trust.....of course you like your chances.....

You know it's funny. During the time leading up to the Obergefell Opinion, the link to the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey was disabled for some reason at the Prince's Trust website. I think it's still disabled. But I got a copy of it and am hosting it myself. here: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

You know its funny......the Prince's Trust study still says nothing you do. It never so much as mentions mothers, fathers, or measures the effect of any kind of parenting. It doesn't mention gays, gay marriage, or same sex parenting.

You made all that up. And your imagination is legally meaningless. Which explains why no court has ever cited any of your babble. And why same sex marriage is still performed in 50 of 50 States.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

same sex marriage is still performed in 50 of 50 States.

Get used to the idea.

In Kentucky...gay marriage just got a little...different...

.......look for more states to get creative in identifying the types of marriages some clerks, florists, bakers and adoption agencies may want to opt out of because of religious or other objections. This is what can legally happen when behaviors are mistaken for "race".. Kentucky Bill Passes: Gay Marriage & Normal Marriage Licenses Now Different

 

[Skylar]

same sex marriage is still performed in 50 of 50 States.

Get used to the idea.

In Kentucky...gay marriage just got a little...different...

Laughing......and what court in Kentucky cited your babble about the 'Prince's Trust?

Even in Kentucky, same sex marriage is performed in ever county. And if even one county refuses to do so, they'll go back to court where they'll be required to.

Remember, Sil.....we're talking about the actual law and the actual legal precedent. Not the hapless nonsense you've made up.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm just saying, Kentucky has just made a legal distinction.

 

[Silhouette]

same sex marriage is still performed in 50 of 50 States.

Get used to the idea.

In Kentucky...gay marriage just got a little...different...

.......look for more states to get creative in identifying the types of marriages some clerks, florists, bakers and adoption agencies may want to opt out of because of religious or other objections. This is what can legally happen when behaviors are mistaken for "race".. Kentucky Bill Passes: Gay Marriage & Normal Marriage Licenses Now Different

Remember, Sil.....we're talking about the actual law and the actual legal precedent. Not the hapless nonsense you've made up.

Right. Actual law (New York vs Ferber 1982) says that if a person's exercise of a constitutional right is onerous or harmful to children either physically or psychologically, that right does not exist to children's detriment.

Other actual law, known as the Infants and contract necessities statutes says that contracts that exist to a child's detriment aren't merely voidable upon challenge, they are void before their ink is dry without challenge. See the OP for details...

Depriving a child of even the hope of having the missing mother or father FOR LIFE, as a matter of contract, is intolerable and abusive. Therefore said "right" gays say they have is VOID.

So I'm glad we're both on the same page of following the law..

 

[Skylar]

I'm just saying, Kentucky has just made a legal distinction.

Nope. Both are still marriage in Kentucky.

What you've done....is made up another piece of meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish. And its as irrelevant as all the other silliness you've offered in this thread.

And the 47 others.

 

[Skylar]

same sex marriage is still performed in 50 of 50 States.

Get used to the idea.

In Kentucky...gay marriage just got a little...different...

.......look for more states to get creative in identifying the types of marriages some clerks, florists, bakers and adoption agencies may want to opt out of because of religious or other objections. This is what can legally happen when behaviors are mistaken for "race".. Kentucky Bill Passes: Gay Marriage & Normal Marriage Licenses Now Different

Remember, Sil.....we're talking about the actual law and the actual legal precedent. Not the hapless nonsense you've made up.

Right. Actual law (New York vs Ferber 1982) says that if a person's exercise of a constitutional right is onerous or harmful to children either physically or psychologically, that right does not exist to their detriment.

Ah, but remember.....you're just straight up ignoring the Supreme Court. Ferber never finds that same sex marriage hurts kids. Nor even mentions marriage. Which you know, but hope we don't.

While both Windsor and Obergefell found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. While recognizing same sex marriage helps them. Thus, per your own interpretations of Ferber, the Supreme Court should have done exactly what they did: recognize same sex marriage. So you quite literally ignore the Supreme Court's explicit findings on the matter. Which isn't a legal argument.

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

Other actual law, known as the Infants and contract necessities statutes says that contracts that exist to a child's detriment aren't merely voidable upon challenge, they are void before their ink is dry without challenge. See the OP for details...

More pseudo-legal nonsense. No law or court recognizes marriage of parents as a minor contract for their children. Nor court nor law recognizes children bring married to their parents. Nor did any of your sources recognize marriage as a minor contract for children. Not one.

You're citing entertainment law for explicit contracts obligating children.....like contracts for child actors. Then laughably insisting that entertainment law is marriage law because you've imagined that marriage is a minor contract for children.

It isn't. It doesn't. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. And your imagination remains gloriously irrelevant to anyone's marriage.

Depriving a child of even the hope of having the missing mother or father FOR LIFE, as a matter of contract, is intolerable and abusive. Therefore said "right" gays say they have is VOID.

Says you citing whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you're spouting tonight. Back in reality, the Supreme Court found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. Those who can't or won't have children have every right to marry. Destroying your 'void' babble yet again.

You simply don't understand how the law works. Which is why your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure. You're quite literally always wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

Since the Supreme Court- AND every court- has ignored your lies about the Prince's Trust.....of course you like your chances.....

You know it's funny. During the time leading up to the Obergefell Opinion, the link to the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey was disabled for some reason at the Prince's Trust website. I think it's still disabled. But I got a copy of it and am hosting it myself. here: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

You know what's funny?

Is you think everything is part of the Konspiracy.

 

[Silhouette]

You know what's funny?

Is you think everything is part of the Konspiracy.

You know what's funny? Your posts almost always seek to divert discussion from the topic of this thread..

 

[Skylar]

You know what's funny?

Is you think everything is part of the Konspiracy.

You know what's funny? Your posts almost always seek to divert discussion from the topic of this thread..

Says the poor lady who just ignored the Supreme Court's findings and made up her own.

Sorry Sil....but you making up passages in Ferber that don't exist isn't a legal argument. You straight up ignoring the portions of the Windsor and Obergefell ruling that you don't like isn't a legal argument.

Which is why you lost.

 

[Silhouette]

you making up passages in Ferber that don't exist isn't a legal argument. You straight up ignoring the portions of the Windsor and Obergefell ruling that you don't like isn't a legal argument.

Which is why you lost.

From the OP:

********

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.."

*******

So, you'd better hope that no lower court or the High Court finds that contractually-depriving a child of either a mother or father for life is at all harmful to them...because even the slightest indication of statistical harm (for which there are reams of data proving it is so, especially boys without fathers) as a matter of a contractual term will render that contract with the infants involved VOID. It isn't merely voidable, it is already void.

One more quote from the OP:

*******

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).

*****

 

[Montrovant]

you making up passages in Ferber that don't exist isn't a legal argument. You straight up ignoring the portions of the Windsor and Obergefell ruling that you don't like isn't a legal argument.

Which is why you lost.

From the OP:

********

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.."

*******

So, you'd better hope that no lower court or the High Court finds that contractually-depriving a child of either a mother or father for life is at all harmful to them...because even the slightest indication of statistical harm (for which there are reams of data proving it is so, especially boys without fathers) as a matter of a contractual term will render that contract with the infants involved VOID. It isn't merely voidable, it is already void.

One more quote from the OP:

*******

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).

*****

Are you ever going to accept that the contract necessaries you keep talking about are not what you think they are?

 

[Silhouette]

Are you ever going to accept that the contract necessaries you keep talking about are not what you think they are?

Are you going to accept that they will have to be legally tested? Because they're going to be..

Legally-stripping a child of either a mother or father for life is no laughing matter. That you think it is will not impress a judge or panel of them...

 

[mdk]

Are you ever going to accept that the contract necessaries you keep talking about are not what you think they are?

Are you going to accept that they will have to be legally tested? Because they're going to be..

Legally-stripping a child of either a mother or father for life is no laughing matter. That you think it is will not impress a judge or panel of them...

Any day now I am sure this will get legally tested. Just as soon as Kagan and Ginsburg get impeached for violating another SCOTUS finding you've imagined.