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

[Montrovant]

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...

Why would there be a 'test' of an unrelated subject?

The contract necessaries for children you keep bringing up are in regards to contracts that minors are entered into, not contracts for adults that happen to have children. Marriage is not a minor contract (not counting those states where it is possible for a minor to enter into legal marriage). That you don't understand the difference between a minor being a contract signatory and a minor being the child of a contract signatory is your own problem, not the legal system's.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

The topic of this thread- like the topic of virtually all of your threads is "discriminate against homosexuals- and ensure that their children are harmed"

 

[Syriusly]

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

gally-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...

If in some bizarro world your claim ever came in front of a judge, you would be laughed out of court.

Because the court would see that your attempt was nothing more than a laughable attempt to harm the children of gay couples.

 

[Skylar]

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..

Says you. And you're the same hapless soul who told us how the Obergefell ruling was going to support the States in banning same sex marriage Your legal predictions are worse than useless, Sil.

You've literally never been right in any legal prediction. Ever.

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...

Again, how does denying same sex parents the right to marry help their children in any way? You're railing against same sex parenting. Denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't effect anything you're discussing.

As same sex parents denied marriage are still same sex parents.

And of course the court in Obergefell already found that the right to marry is unrelated to children:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

You simply ignore the Obergefell ruling. And then ignoring it, insist that the issue is unresolved.

That's not a legal argument.

 

[Silhouette]

If in some bizarro world your claim ever came in front of a judge, you would be laughed out of court.

Because the court would see that your attempt was nothing more than a laughable attempt to harm the children of gay couples.

I think we should test what you just said and find out. If the first hearing doesn't go the way kids need, it will be appealed. You know the routine.. Until NY vs Ferber faces off with Obergefell at the Supreme Court.

 

[mdk]

I think we should test what you just said and find out. If the first hearing doesn't go the way kids need, it will be appealed. You know the routine.. Until NY vs Ferber faces off with Obergefell at the Supreme Court.

Is this hearing before or after Kagan and Ginsburg are impeached?

 

[Skylar]

If in some bizarro world your claim ever came in front of a judge, you would be laughed out of court.

Because the court would see that your attempt was nothing more than a laughable attempt to harm the children of gay couples.

I think we should test what you just said and find out. If the first hearing doesn't go the way kids need, it will be appealed. You know the routine.. Until NY vs Ferber faces off with Obergefell at the Supreme Court.

Thus, there is no 'Ferber v. Obergefell'. There's you v. Obergefell. All of your claims about same sex marriage hurting kids....is you citing yourself. Ferber never finds any such thing. While Obergefell found that same sex marriage benefits kids.

You are ignoring an explicit finding of the Supreme Court and making up your own. Then laughably insisting that lower courts will base their rulings on what you made up and ignore the Supreme Court.

Sorry, Sil. They won't. And they haven't.

 

[Syriusly]

If in some bizarro world your claim ever came in front of a judge, you would be laughed out of court.

Because the court would see that your attempt was nothing more than a laughable attempt to harm the children of gay couples.

I think we should test what you just said and find out. If the first hearing doesn't go the way kids need, it will be appealed. You know the routine.. Until NY vs Ferber faces off with Obergefell at the Supreme Court.

Go ahead and 'test' it- file that law suit.

Really- none of us here are against you 'testing' any of your crappy theories in court.

Go for it.

Let us when the case is filed and we will watch 'avidly'

 

[Silhouette]

Is this hearing before or after Kagan and Ginsburg are impeached?

Before. Not long after the GOP retakes the Whitehouse and secures the majority in both the House and the Senate. Then. They won't impeach Ginsburg because she'll step down before then. They might impeach Kagan though. They have grounds. They aren't exempt from their own Law (Capterton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

 

[mdk]

Is this hearing before or after Kagan and Ginsburg are impeached?

Before. Not long after the GOP retakes the Whitehouse and secures the majority in both the House and the Senate. Then. They won't impeach Ginsburg because she'll step down before then. They might impeach Kagan though. They have grounds. They aren't exempt from their own Law (Capterton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

The GOP already has a majority in the House and Senate. The reason why they haven't moved to impeach either is b/c nobody takes your whines about Capterton seriously. For good reason.

 

[Skylar]

Is this hearing before or after Kagan and Ginsburg are impeached?

Before. Not long after the GOP retakes the Whitehouse and secures the majority in both the House and the Senate. Then. They won't impeach Ginsburg because she'll step down before then. They might impeach Kagan though. They have grounds. They aren't exempt from their own Law (Capterton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

Didn't you predict that with the republicans taking the senate that Ginsberg and Kagan would be impeached? How'd that work out for you?

And neither Kagan nor Ginsberg will be impeached. As usual, Sil......you have no idea what you're talking about.

Capterton was about an elected judge that adjudicated a case of one of his major campaign contributors. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither accepted campaign contributions. Nor received anything from anyone in either Windsor or Obergefell.

Sigh....have you *ever* had an accurate legal prediction?

 

[Silhouette]

Didn't you predict that with the republicans taking the senate that Ginsberg and Kagan would be impeached? How'd that work out for you?

Your style of posting is that of a bully. You could've also said "Don't you need to get in shape, have a nose job and color the gray in your hair?" Your liberal use of ad hominems and put-downs instead of substance would've gotten you banned from any board I owned years ago. What does the pending Hearings when the GOP takes POTUS and Congress on Ginsberg and Kagan's displayed public bias before (and during) Obergefell have to do with stripping children for life of either a mother or father?

That being said...

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood. And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future. In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.

That's why the Rule was set. And that is its function. No substitutes are acceptable for the Rule.

One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity. Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time. That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life. Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children. So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.

Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.

 

[Skylar]

Didn't you predict that with the republicans taking the senate that Ginsberg and Kagan would be impeached? How'd that work out for you?

Your style of posting is that of a bully.

My style of posting is that of a realist citing facts. And the fact is that your every legal prediction has been false. Every time you've told us what the the court would do, what court proceedings would follow, what the outcome of a case would be, what the basis of a decision would be...

......you've always been wrong. Every single time. Without exception. I acknowledge this fact. You ignore it.

The point is, marriage was invented to cure the ills of single parenthood. And precisely so that both either the actual creative parents (mom/dad) would be together, or at the very least a mother/father stand-in (adoptive man/wife, grandpa/grandma) for the sake of the childrens' future. In that Rule, all children involved have access to both their own gender as a role model and the opposite one to learn how to interact in an adult social world that contains both.

The fact is that you are ignoring your own standards. As when we're speaking of single parents, where a child is denied a 'mother and a father', you ignore it. Giving it a complete pass based on 'hope'.

'Hope' isn't a mother and a father. You've ignored your own standards, wiping your ass with your own rationale. And this despite single parenthood being orders of magnitude more common than same sex parenting. If even you are going to ignore your argument, surely you can understand why we don't have much use for it.

One of the provisions of the Infant Doctrine regarding children and necessities is that a well rounded social preparation for later life is considered a necessity. Gay marriage by its very structure, destroys half of that foundation 100% of the time. That causes wounds to children and leaves them ill prepared for life. Causing wounds to children or damaging them socially is strictly forbidden in contract law when adults are implicitly involved in contracts with children. So any contract that wounds or damages children is void upon its face without legal challenge.

I believe you're referring to the Infancy Doctrine. And it says nothing you do. The Infancy Doctrine regards *explicit* minor contracts that bind children, like say a contract with a child actor. No court nor law recognizing marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children.

You do, citing your imagination. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

See, Sil....this, right here, is why your every legal prediction is wrong. You keep citing your imagination as the law, making up pseudo-legal gibberish that no law nor court recognizes. And then demanding that the actual courts abide your imagination while ignoring the law.

And they don't.

Any person, persons, judge, tribunal or attorneys seeking to show the world that gay marriage "doesn't harm children and in fact is good for them" has the burden upon them to FIRST demonstrate that beyond a shadow of a doubt (and, good luck with that) BEFORE any revisions to the marriage contract can happen where children are deprived of either a mother or father for life as a binding legal condition.

Says you. The Supreme Court is under no such burden, nor has any obligation to 'prove' anything to you. Their findings explicitly contradict you. So you ignore the Supreme Court.

Ignoring the Supreme Court is not a legal argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Sigh....have you *ever* had an accurate legal prediction?

Yeah, Judge Sutton in the 6th circuit. And the interpretation of Windsor which had 56 statements affirming that the decision on gay marriage was up to the states and the fed had to respect whatever they said. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

 

[mdk]

Sigh....have you *ever* had an accurate legal prediction?

Yeah, Judge Sutton in the 6th circuit. And the interpretation of Windsor which had 56 statements affirming that the decision on gay marriage was up to the states and the fed had to respect whatever they said. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Swing and a miss. As always, you conveniently leave out the part from the Windsor ruling that finds state marriage laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. You can ignore the inconvenient parts the court's ruling all you wish; however, the rest us are under no such obligation.

 

[Skylar]

Sigh....have you *ever* had an accurate legal prediction?

Yeah, Judge Sutton in the 6th circuit.

Um, Sutton isn't the Supreme Court. He's from the 6th district court. Nor did you predict judge Sutton's ruling. And Judge Sutton was overturned by the Supreme Court. Worse, every other circuit court district to hear the such cases contradicted Sutton. With virtually all lower courts within each circuit court overturning same sex marriage bans.

I believe the final tally was 49 overturning same sex marriage bans to 3 affirming them. With the USSC siding with the 49. And you siding with the 3.

For crying out loud, even Scalia indicated that the Windsor decision was 'beyond mistaking' in its implications toward state same sex marriage bans. And that the Supreme Court overturning such bans was 'inevitable'.

And you ignored Scalia too! You can't teach that kind of willful ignorance.

And the interpretation of Windsor which had 56 statements affirming that the decision on gay marriage was up to the states and the fed had to respect whatever they said. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

"Subject to certain constitutional guarantees."" This is the phrase that you always ignored and pretended wasn't in Windsor. We told you that this phrase was going to be central. We even gave you some of the cases that the Obergefell court would cite.

You insisted that you knew better, telling us that the '56 times' overruled the 'constitutional guarantees.

And when the Obergefell ruling came down, you were comically wrong. You were wrong on the split, you were wrong on what it would say, you were wrong on its basis, you were wrong on the implications of the Windsor ruling, you were wrong your '56 times', you were wrong on what the court would find regarding children and same sex marriage.

I was right on all those points. Why? Because I listened. I read what the courts were actually saying, rather than ignoring any portion I didn't like, as you did. 49 other courts did the same thing and came to the same conclusion. With the Supreme Court affirming they were right.

3 courts didn't. Nor did you. With the Supreme Court affirming you were wrong. But this time its different?

 

[Skylar]

Sigh....have you *ever* had an accurate legal prediction?

Yeah, Judge Sutton in the 6th circuit. And the interpretation of Windsor which had 56 statements affirming that the decision on gay marriage was up to the states and the fed had to respect whatever they said. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Swing and a miss. As always, you conveniently leave out the part from the Windsor ruling that finds state marriage laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. You can ignore the inconvenient parts the court's ruling all you wish; however, the rest us are under no such obligation.

Jen always leaves those parts out. Even *after* the Obergefell ruling cited that very passage as one of its justifications for recognizing the right to marry.

 

[Silhouette]

Um, Sutton isn't the Supreme Court. He's from the 6th district court. Nor did you predict judge Sutton's ruling. And Judge Sutton was overturned by the Supreme Court.

For now... New York vs Ferber though says that even if the US Supreme Court Upheld gay marriage as rock solid, as if it was a spelled out facet of the Constitution (which of course it isn't), it still could not be exercised if it strips children of a necessity. Like, a mother or father for life...

 

[Silhouette]

Swing and a miss. As always, you conveniently leave out the part from the Windsor ruling that finds state marriage laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. You can ignore the inconvenient parts the court's ruling all you wish; however, the rest us are under no such obligation.

What constitutional guarantees? That any and all sexual orientations between adults can marry? Not all of them? How is that a constitutional guarantee again?....

 

[Skylar]

Swing and a miss. As always, you conveniently leave out the part from the Windsor ruling that finds state marriage laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. You can ignore the inconvenient parts the court's ruling all you wish; however, the rest us are under no such obligation.

What constitutional guarantees? That any and all sexual orientations between adults can marry? Not all of them? How is that a constitutional guarantee again?....

The basis of the right to marry in the Obergefell decision wasn't sexual orientation. Instead, the court found that a state couldn't deny marriage licenses to a couple based on their genders.

And both genders can marry.

There's no mandate in any law or court ruling that those in same sex marriages be gay or those in opposite sex marriages be straight.

You made all that up.