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

[Skylar]

Well I guess the Infancy Doctrine is wrong according to you.

The *actual* Infancy Doctine? Or the imaginary, pseudo-legal gibberish you *call* the Infancy Doctrine?

The *actual* infancy doctrine has never applied to marriage. As children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Its why no marriage of parents has ever been voided by their children in the history of the US.

Your imaginary made up version? I have no idea. Your imagination changes from day to say. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's obliteration of your nonsense remains the same:

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell V. Hodges

Keep running, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Well I guess the Infancy Doctrine is wrong according to you.

The *actual* Infancy Doctine? Or the imaginary, pseudo-legal gibberish you *call* the Infancy Doctrine?

.

The quotes I've provided from the discussion of the ID say that children having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity" for them are from this link: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

 

[Skylar]

Well I guess the Infancy Doctrine is wrong according to you.

The *actual* Infancy Doctine? Or the imaginary, pseudo-legal gibberish you *call* the Infancy Doctrine?

.

The quotes I've provided from the discussion of the ID say that children having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity" for them are from this link: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

And none of those quotes indicate that children are parties to the marriage of their parents or cite a single instance of any marriage of parents being voided by one of their children. Or the Infancy Doctrine ever being applied to marriage. Ever.

You imagined all of that.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has obliterated your entire argument finding that the bans that YOU support harms and humiliates children.

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell V. Hodges

So you ignore the Supreme Court and replace their explicit findings with your imagination. And then seem dumbfounded and confused when the courts and law follow the Supreme Court's findings....and not what you've made up.

Get used to that feeling.

 

[Syriusly]

Well I guess the Infancy Doctrine is wrong according to you.

The *actual* Infancy Doctine? Or the imaginary, pseudo-legal gibberish you *call* the Infancy Doctrine?

.

The quotes I've provided from the discussion of the ID say that children having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity" for them are from this link: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

If that was the case- then children would have their own counsel during divorce proceedings.

But they don't.

And of course if it was really the case that imaginary future potential children were part of the marriage contract- then their imaginary counsel could file suit requiring that the married couple stop using birth control so that the imaginary future children would have an opportunity to exist

LOL

 

[Silhouette]

The quotes I've provided from the discussion of the ID say that children having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity" for them are from this link: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

If that was the case- then children would have their own counsel during divorce proceedings.

But they don't.

Guardian ad litem in divorce:

Guardian Ad Litem, Divorce and Child Custody | Dads Divorce
either party in a family law case may request that the judge appoint a GAL in order to determine the best interests of the child or children involved in the case. The judge has discretion however, in deciding whether the party’s request should be granted.

In many states, a GAL is required to be appointed in abuse or neglect cases involving children.

 

[Syriusly]

The quotes I've provided from the discussion of the ID say that children having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity" for them are from this link: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

If that was the case- then children would have their own counsel during divorce proceedings.

But they don't.

Guardian ad litem in divorce:

Guardian Ad Litem, Divorce and Child Custody | Dads Divorce
either party in a family law case may request that the judge appoint a GAL in order to determine the best interests of the child or children involved in the case. The judge has discretion however, in deciding whether the party’s request should be granted.

In many states, a GAL is required to be appointed in abuse or neglect cases involving children.

LOL- but Silly you have claimed that:
a) that children are always a part of the marriage contract and
b) that children would be having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity"

Who are Guardian Ad Litem?

Who can be a guardian ad litem?

GAL's can be lawyers or some kinds of mental health professionals who have had special training.

What do the they do?
This means they ask the GAL to look into just one or two issues like a parent’s record of substance abuse or a parent’s current ability to make rational decisions about a child’s care, based on a current mental health care provider’s information.

So lets review:

• In a divorce proceeding- there is no requirement that children be represented by counsel.
• In some cases a judge might appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to represent the children's best interests
• The Guardian Ad Litem can be a lawyer- or a mental health professional- so Guardian Ad Litems are not required to be lawyers.
• The Guardian Ad Litem cannot prevent a divorce- but only make recommendations about issues relevant to the children in a divorce where children are present.

Guess what though?

They don't appoint Guardian Ad Litem's for imaginary future children.

Only real children.

 

[Skylar]

The quotes I've provided from the discussion of the ID say that children having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity" for them are from this link: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

If that was the case- then children would have their own counsel during divorce proceedings.

But they don't.

Guardian ad litem in divorce:

Guardian Ad Litem, Divorce and Child Custody | Dads Divorce
either party in a family law case may request that the judge appoint a GAL in order to determine the best interests of the child or children involved in the case. The judge has discretion however, in deciding whether the party’s request should be granted.

In many states, a GAL is required to be appointed in abuse or neglect cases involving children.

Three *huge* problems with your pseudo-legal nonsense.

1) Nothing there says that the basis of a Guardian Ad Litem is the 'Infancy Doctrine'. You imagined that.

2) If your interpretation of the Infancy Doctrine were valid, EVERY case would have to have this. Almost none do. And none cite the 'Infancy Doctrine' as the reason why.

3) If a child were genuinely party to the marriage as you imagine....then the child could initiate the divorce of their parents. They can't. No child is party to the marriage of their parents.

There's a reason why no marriage of parents has ever been voided by one of their children in the history of the US. Ever.

 

[Skylar]

The quotes I've provided from the discussion of the ID say that children having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity" for them are from this link: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

If that was the case- then children would have their own counsel during divorce proceedings.

But they don't.

Guardian ad litem in divorce:

Guardian Ad Litem, Divorce and Child Custody | Dads Divorce
either party in a family law case may request that the judge appoint a GAL in order to determine the best interests of the child or children involved in the case. The judge has discretion however, in deciding whether the party’s request should be granted.

In many states, a GAL is required to be appointed in abuse or neglect cases involving children.

LOL- but Silly you have claimed that:
a) that children are always a part of the marriage contract and
b) that children would be having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity"

Who are Guardian Ad Litem?

Who can be a guardian ad litem?

GAL's can be lawyers or some kinds of mental health professionals who have had special training.

What do the they do?
This means they ask the GAL to look into just one or two issues like a parent’s record of substance abuse or a parent’s current ability to make rational decisions about a child’s care, based on a current mental health care provider’s information.

So lets review:

• In a divorce proceeding- there is no requirement that children be represented by counsel.
• In some cases a judge might appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to represent the children's best interests
• The Guardian Ad Litem can be a lawyer- or a mental health professional- so Guardian Ad Litems are not required to be lawyers.
• The Guardian Ad Litem cannot prevent a divorce- but only make recommendations about issues relevant to the children in a divorce where children are present.

Guess what though?

They don't appoint Guardian Ad Litem's for imaginary future children.

Only real children.

"In a divorce proceeding- there is no requirement that children be represented by counsel."

Boom.

 

[Syriusly]

The quotes I've provided from the discussion of the ID say that children having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity" for them are from this link: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

If that was the case- then children would have their own counsel during divorce proceedings.

But they don't.

Guardian ad litem in divorce:

Guardian Ad Litem, Divorce and Child Custody | Dads Divorce
either party in a family law case may request that the judge appoint a GAL in order to determine the best interests of the child or children involved in the case. The judge has discretion however, in deciding whether the party’s request should be granted.

In many states, a GAL is required to be appointed in abuse or neglect cases involving children.

LOL- but Silly you have claimed that:
a) that children are always a part of the marriage contract and
b) that children would be having counsel at civil trials of "extraordinary circumstance" is a "necessity"

Who are Guardian Ad Litem?

Who can be a guardian ad litem?

GAL's can be lawyers or some kinds of mental health professionals who have had special training.

What do the they do?
This means they ask the GAL to look into just one or two issues like a parent’s record of substance abuse or a parent’s current ability to make rational decisions about a child’s care, based on a current mental health care provider’s information.

So lets review:

• In a divorce proceeding- there is no requirement that children be represented by counsel.
• In some cases a judge might appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to represent the children's best interests
• The Guardian Ad Litem can be a lawyer- or a mental health professional- so Guardian Ad Litems are not required to be lawyers.
• The Guardian Ad Litem cannot prevent a divorce- but only make recommendations about issues relevant to the children in a divorce where children are present.

Guess what though?

They don't appoint Guardian Ad Litem's for imaginary future children.

Only real children.

"In a divorce proceeding- there is no requirement that children be represented by counsel."

Boom.

And by the way- a GAL can be appointed during a divorce- or during any issue regarding parental rights

A “guardian ad litem” (GAL) is a person the court appoints to investigate what solutions would be in the “best interests of a child.” Here, we are talking about a GAL in a divorce or parental rights and responsibilities case. The GAL will look into the family situation and advise the court on things like:

• where the children should live most of the time
• whether the child is being harmed by a parent’s substance abuse
• what contact the child should have with a parent

 

[Seawytch]

Same sex marriage is normal marriage. The rest of your post is gibberish.

Children aren't party to the marriage of their parents. You can't get past that.

Also, the Supreme Court found that banning same sex marriage harms and humiliates children. You can't get past that either.

You're still stuck. 3 years and counting.

שִׁמְשׁוֹן: Same sex couples don't have children by normal means, they steal them from under our feet and then condemn us for noticing, היבריס.

There's no theft. Nothing is being taken from you. They adopt like any other couple may or have children themselves. Like any other couple.
We have to agree to disagree

I've been around same sex couples with families. They're.....unremarkable. Just folks raising their kids. They struggle to move car seats. They step on legos. They have kids who are picky eaters.

Just....normal parenting stuff.

Gays don't "just have kids". They steal evey crumb of normality they can.

Again, they steal nothing. They adopt or they have their own children. Nothing is being taken from you or anyone else.

They buy lawyers to change laws, they buy as much propaganda they can. And they think we don't notice? Some of you might not. And some of you call that foolishness "Enlightenment'. Yeah, right.

Laughing.....what is being taken from you, Mary? A gay couple get married and adopts a kid and what? What is do you lose? What is the cost to you?

Raising a kid is pretty normal stuff.

But gays will never have children biologically , you DO understand biology? They (and you) like to sweep that under the rug. I am not going to ignore that simple fact, məšugga' person.

My vagina and uterus disagree....vehemently.

 

[Seawytch]

But who is the vital father & vital mother with two gays or lesbians?

Why do two gays need a vital father or a vital mother? Why do two lesbians?

It is not vital that children have a mother and father. What is ideal is two parents.

 

[Syriusly]

But who is the vital father & vital mother with two gays or lesbians?

Why do two gays need a vital father or a vital mother? Why do two lesbians?

It is not vital that children have a mother and father. What is ideal is two parents.

What is vital is that children have at least one good parent. Two good parents is even better.

 

[Silhouette]

But gays will never have children biologically , you DO understand biology? They (and you) like to sweep that under the rug. I am not going to ignore that simple fact, məšugga' person.

My vagina and uterus disagree....vehemently.

So what woman got you pregnant?

 

[Silhouette]

It is not vital that children have a mother and father. What is ideal is two parents.

Did you just come up with that on your own.. like the USSC did in 2015? Or do we now have a preponderance of peer reviewed data showing that boys are just fine without fathers...or just with a woman officiating as a pseudo-father?

 

[Silhouette]

Then explain how you assimilate this quote from the Supreme Court in your pseudo-legal babble?

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell V. Hodges

The Court erred in extending compassion to a non-static behavioral cult. That's how I explain it. If the court had expounded fairly and further, even if it had reached the same verdict, mine would be a different rebuttal. But nowhere in Obergefell did the court do what it should have done, knowing the consequences of creating a brand new contract forced on all 50 states and the 300 million self-governed. Not one peep was said as follows:

(What was required to be discussed but never happened)
"The Court considers here today that the marriage laws at issue may harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples, however in the interest of children in general into the unforseeable future, there needs to be a discussion about ratifying a contract that banishes children for life from either a mother or father...in the studies cited below we find...." Etc.

That NEVER happened. And it was required to happen because as you pointed out, the Court indicated children's best cumulative interests were at the front of their mind in Obergefell. Indeed they occupied the whole third tier of their entire rationale. The Court deemed children as part of the whole of marriage. And, therefore, the marriage contract itself.

The Court so-doing acted as an ad hoc team of armchair-experts in child psychology AND as self-appointed uber-representatives/advocates for the entire population of America when they deemed mothers or fathers were no longer important to children in marriage. It is not an exaggeration to say that those five Justices literally were acting as demi-gods in Obergefell. With the sweep of five pens, they brutally eviscerated what mankind has embraced as essential to children, without any authority whatsoever to do so. They do not have that kind of power.

Oh, and they didn't bother inviting any counsel (required by the Infancy Doctrine in such a weighty case) to represent children's cumulative unique interests in the proposed radical-revision of the marriage contract (improperly approved) in Obergefell.

 

[rightwinger]

Part I: Judiciary Weaving Language To Create New Constitutional Protections Without The Pesky Legislature Interfering: (a violation of the separation of powers all done by the Court's democratic party representatives...ok a couple of independents in name only.)

There has been argument here on the boards that 2015's gay marriage decision (Obergefell) didn't include intimacy as a reason for granting marriage rights. However, this is false. The Court purposefully wove terms of language together to create a new class of protection for just some (but not other) sexual kink behaviors.

What's important to take away from these distinctions, this bastardization of language, is that the Court in interweaving the terms, also created a new non-existent class for inclusion for "special protections/privileges" in the US Constitution which do not exist there. The Court's subversive "have our cake and eat it too"...pandering to the LGBT cult created a rift in the separation of powers and in future laws that cannot any longer deny any other "sexual-intimacy kink"...(unless in these paragraphs, the Justices writing were referring to back rubs or pats on the shoulder when referring directly to "same-sex intimacy/etc.".)

Sorry to be so graphic, but a man inserting his penis into another man's anus as an artificial vagina (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) and treating that "bottom" partner as a "psuedo-wife/mother" (outward sign of closeted heterosexuality) for the purposes of parenting children implicitly involved in marriage cannot be a superior deviant sex act (the majority objects to) than a man taking two or more wives, for instance. And at least the man's kink of wanting intimacy with more than one wife will provide both a mother and father for life for kids implicitly involved in marriage. If argument should be offered in this thread that "a majority approves of gay marriage", I remind readers here that gay marriage is and always has been illegal in the most liberal goofy state in the Union: California....the majority there always voting it down. Most recently in 2008. It would fail again today because what goes on in the private opinions of the voting booth quite obviously is in direct conflict with cherry-picked polling the LGBT controlled media dispenses to the general public "as fact".

Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution:

Codes Display Text
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Here is just one example of many, many examples in Obergefell where the words are used as one and the same:

Page 7: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
***
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.
**********
Rights to associate do not equal marriage. If they did, other sex "intimacy" kinks like polyamorists (polygamists) would have that same right of association in marriage. For they too have long been discriminated against by the majority's rejection of such behaviors/lifestyles.

What readers should take away from this clever use of language is that while they were asleep and thinking interweaving the terms doesn't matter, it created a whole new category of protections based on behaviors and not static class like race, gender, country of origin or actual recognized religion. Unless the Justices were declaring that just some sex kinks are themselves a form of religion, based in behavior, and therefore protected? But I saw no mention of that at all in Obergefell from beginning to end.

The problem is folks, when you deregulate the majority rule on repugnant minority behaviors, where does that stop? The 14th Amendment is about equal treatment for all. So that means, literally, ALL minority repugnant behaviors can now marry since to not grant them that "dignity", is "Unconstitutional".

Will these facts if revealed, and the damage they caused American Law hurt the democrats the Country associates with these high crimes? Remember, a judge or Justice of the court system from the bottom to the top does not have the power to insert brand new language into the US Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution referring to deviant-sex intimacy as a protected thing. The only behaviors protected from the majority are religious ones.

Gay Gene Fake Premise:
And, despite hasty conclusions by "scientists"..there is no "gay gene". It's bullshit, contrived purposefully as a psuedo-defense for what they know is coming. In other words they don't want LGBT being seen as behavioral...what it is in fact.. in near-future court battles about cake baking and adoption agencies not wanting to be forced to disgorge vulnerable children into homes with permanent contractual bans on either a father or mother being present... Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: ‘There Is No Gay Gene’ And a really useful link with dozens of links to actual scientific data: CHAPTER 6: THE MYTH OF THE “GAY GENE”
If there is no gay gene, then they are behaviors. If they are behaviors then they are subject to majority rule.

Stay tuned for Part II...

Beating a dead horse

Gays can marry....live with it

 

[Silhouette]

Beating a dead horse

Gays can marry....live with it

Removing mothers and fathers as important to children in the marriage contract is by no means whatsoever a "dead horse". Child protective laws require that when a contract harms children, we all are required to report that harm and act to change it immediately. Look for a new Court to revisit Obergefell. And don't die of shock when they do. How old is Ginsburg now? Kennedy?

 

[mdk]

Beating a dead horse

Gays can marry....live with it

Removing mothers and fathers as important to children in the marriage contract is by no means whatsoever a "dead horse". Child protective laws require that when a contract harms children, we all are required to report that harm and act to change it immediately. Look for a new Court to revisit Obergefell. And don't die of shock when they do. How old is Ginsburg now? Kennedy?

I bet your local police department and CYS just love you flooding their offices with nonsense calls about how gay people raising their children is child abuse.

 

[Silhouette]

I bet your local police department and CYS just love you flooding their offices with nonsense calls about how gay people raising their children is child abuse.

Protection of children happens in a variety of ways. I prefer the top-down approach. Police will do what the new US Supreme Court will tell them to do on the question of children-collective not having unique representation for their interests re: Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

Then explain how you assimilate this quote from the Supreme Court in your pseudo-legal babble?

The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell V. Hodges

The Court erred in extending compassion to a non-static behavioral cult.

Being gay isn't a 'cult'. And the basis of the right to marry isn't being gay. Nor did the court error in recognizing the rights of same sex couples.

You're once again insisting we ignore the supreme court and applying your imagination as the law again.

Um, no.

That's how I explain it. If the court had expounded fairly and further, even if it had reached the same verdict, mine would be a different rebuttal. But nowhere in Obergefell did the court do what it should have done, knowing the consequences of creating a brand new contract forced on all 50 states and the 300 million self-governed. Not one peep was said as follows:

The court did exactly what it should have done. It found (rightly) that bans on same sex marriage hurt and humiliate children. Here's the *actual* ruling. Not your imaginary version of it:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Obergefell v. Hodges

You insist that these children should be harmed and humiliated. The court rightly found that they shouldn't.

(What was required to be discussed but never happened)
"The Court considers here today that the marriage laws at issue may harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples, however in the interest of children in general into the unforseeable future, there needs to be a discussion about ratifying a contract that banishes children for life from either a mother or father...in the studies cited below we find...." Etc.

There's no such requirement. Again, Sil....you're communicating your laughably misunderstanding of basic legal concepts. You insist that children are married to their parents. They aren't. You insist that the infancy doctrine makes children parties to the marriage of their parents. It doesn't. You insist that all marriages are conditioned on procreation. They aren't.

No court is obligated nor required to apply your comic misunderstanding of the law. Or to hurt and humiliate children to satisfy your personal obsession with gay people.