New GOP Edge: Did 5 Dem/Indp Justices Ratify Child-Deprivation Using Fake "Gay Gene" Premise?

[Silhouette]

Why are you bigots so obsessed with gay sex?

Is that your legal argument to rebut page 1? There's a lot more at stake than mere gay sex. There's children's rights in contracts, the voters rights to self-govern, false premises and judicial overreach. Care to address any of those points?

 

[Skylar]

^^ Broken record. Let us know when you can offer substance/quotes/links...

Laughing.....if I repeat that no court does nor ever has recognized a child as a party to the marriage of their parents, its because it destroys your entire argument. As the Infancy Doctrine only applies to business contracts, and only those that the child is a party to.

There's a reason you can't show us a single marriage in US history ever because of the infancy doctrine.

......you simply don't know what the Infancy Doctrine is.

You're stuck, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

"Your honors, I laughed and submitted my counter argument in bold print. Need I say more?"

 

[Skylar]

"Your honors, I laughed and submitted my counter argument in bold print. Need I say more?"

So failing to find a single instance of the Infancy Doctrine ever voiding the marriage of parents on behalf of their child........you start complaining about text being 'bolded'?

Smiling.....your concession is accepted, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Don't get so sidetracked with your presumed omnipotence.

 

[Skylar]

Don't get so sidetracked with your presumed omnipotence. You forgot this thread is about polygamy-orientation marrying.

So no more babble about the 'infancy doctrine' then? As you're avoiding the topics of your own posts like they were on fire.

If even you are going to ignore your own pseudo-legal nonsense....surely you can understand why every court does the same.

 

[Syriusly]

Don't get so sidetracked with your presumed omnipotence.

Why are you talking to yourself again? Or did you forget once again how to use the 'post reply' button?

 

[Syriusly]

Why are you bigots so obsessed with gay sex?

Is that your legal argument to rebut page 1? There's a lot more at stake than mere gay sex. There's children's rights in contracts, the voters rights to self-govern, false premises and judicial overreach. Care to address any of those points?

Every single single 'point' you have mention you have made up- they are legal babble.

All of them.

 

[bodecea]

I strongly recommend letting this nut have his threads all to himself.

 

[Syriusly]

I strongly recommend letting this nut have his threads all to himself.

........how dare you be the voice of reason......lol

 

[Norman]

Dude, you need to drop this shit. Completely bonkers, so much stupid shit it's impossible to even tell where to start.

 

[Silhouette]

That's quite the rebuttal. Yet it does seem to sum up the LGBT position with respect to the laws & points discussed on page 1.

After all, what else would you have to offer except "Hey, don't take anything on page 1 seriously! Please!!" That's really all you could say.

That bit about kids' rights to have counsel at civil hearings with extraordinary consequences pending in their lives really is the clincher eh? There was no unique representation for children at Obergefell's contract revision hearing where mothers and fathers were judicially-legislated into irrelevance in marriage. Those were THE old benefits children relied on from the marriage contract. Not one attorney present on their behalf. Which means of course that Obergefell was an illegal verdict.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only "argument on the Board" about Obergefell has come from one dizzy Board member.

 

[Silhouette]

The only "argument on the Board" about Obergefell has come from one dizzy Board member.

And how do you feel about children not having representation in Obergefell given the Infancy Doctrine's mandate about counsel at extraordinary civil trials being mandated as a necessity to them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the only arguing this nonsense position.

The rest of us shake our head in wonder after all these years of your delusion on these issues.

 

[Silhouette]

You are the only arguing this nonsense position.

The rest of us shake our head in wonder after all these years of your delusion on these issues.

From post #2, link in the post:

Infancy Doctrine:

2. Necessaries

"....Determining what is a necessity for a minor is a fact-intensive inquiry, although also a matter of law, and it is useful to look at what has been upheld and rejected as a necessity in the past. Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well."

So either revising the marriage contract to banish children for life from either a mother or father is "extraordinary" to children in general or "no big deal".

The USSC is bound not just by law, but also by social approval and trends. Those trends always do affect their verdict. Yet we have this poll which suggests that there is no trend whatsoever relegating mothers or fathers to insignificant status to children. Full 80% evenly dispersed across the entire political spectrum said mothers and fathers BOTH are important to children. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That there was no unique representation for children in general at Obergefell's contract-revision hearing is HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC for the verdict. The Infancy Doctrine is quite clear on this. It says that any contract which maligns or harms or deprives children of necessities is instantly void upon its face. It isn't merely challengeable. It is immediately void.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I, and I imagine most others on the Board, merely am pointing out you are the one writing all this stuff and it makes no sense.

 

[Silhouette]

I didn't write the passage on necessities from the Infancy Doctrine in my last post. It is clear, is it not as to children having representation at civil trials of extraordinary circumstance for them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you feeling OK?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Dodge ^^