The Latest In the Landmark Court Case the LGBT Would Rather You Not Remain Current On..

[Syriusly]

Ok, children did not have counsel present at Obergefell briefing the court on whether or not their benefits from the marriage contract, both mother & father, should be taken away.

There's your example of kids being treated like chattel.

Obergefell was not a case about children- it was a case about marriage.

Funny how you think that children should have had counsel in Obergefell- but not in every single divorce case that happens in America.

 

[Syriusly]

We have the Judiciary, for a reason.

Of course we do. And you'd think that by the time a judge made it to the appellate system, s/he'd know that all parties (named beneficiaries to: see Obergefell Opinion page 15 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution ) to a contract-revision hearing must have counsel present.

That didn't happen. So there was no real actual Judiciary involved in any of the other cases where the contract was up for revision.

LOL- once again Silhouette opining that she knows more about the law than every single Justice on the Supreme Court.

 

[Syriusly]

The spectators come to gawk at public sex acts by LGBTs are equally ineligible if they brought kids.

Tell us more about the public sex acts you have gone to watch Silhouette.

 

[deanrd]

Wanna bet the Biggest Orgy in the World is mostly Republicans.

Look at what they elected for president. They're just as nasty as he is.

 

[Jessica123]

Wanna bet the Biggest Orgy in the World is mostly Republicans.

Look at what they elected for president. They're just as nasty as he is.

They're hypocrites. They hate Gays for loving their best friends that happen to be the same sex but totally accept someone that ***** other women while their wives are pregnant with their own baby.

 

[JoeB131]

Silhouette is like a "vegetarian" who can't stop talking about Steak.

 

[JoeB131]

Sexual deviants have no business with children.

Period.


.

Okay... so who gets to define what is deviant? Do we need a "sex police" to bust anyone who doesn't do the Missionary Position with the lights out once a month?

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell was not a case about children- it was a case about marriage.

Funny how you think that children should have had counsel in Obergefell- but not in every single divorce case that happens in America.

Obergefell disagrees with you on page 15 of the Opinion.

I've yet to hear of a divorce that seeks to banish children involved from having any mother or father in their future for life using a contract.

Obergefell's proposed contract revision was landmark. All parties to the contract were supposed to have counsel briefing. That never happened.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obergefell disagrees with Sil's intepretation of the decision.

Look at page 15.

The decision is about marriage, not proposed contract revision. That is crazy talk.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ still trying to keep kids out of the contract revision process they share eh?

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell disagrees with Sil's intepretation of the decision.

Look at page 15.

The decision is about marriage, not proposed contract revision. That is crazy talk.

OK, so removing for the first time in human history what the Court called "the benefits to children" from said contract (including and paramount since time immemorial both a mother and father) isn't a marriage-contract revision? That would be like going into contract for employment and your boss suddenly having a court hearing on whimsically and arbitrarily denying you your paycheck, without inviting you or your counsel to the hearing....the judge finding in your boss' favor without you present...and having that be "new American case law".

Pull your head out of your ass. The Court declared on page 15 of their Opinion that children share the benefits (ergo the contract itself) with adults in it. Therefore, they are parties to any revision proposed. They had no unique counsel at Obergefell. Ergo Obergefell was an unlawful decision because it enshrined the removal of a key & vital and voluminous benefit children derived from contract without their being invited to have any personal say on the matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obergefell in no way or fashion recognizes nor confers 'contract status on children', as you so wish, Sil.

You would not pass Contract in laws school if you offered that argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell was not a case about children- it was a case about marriage.

Funny how you think that children should have had counsel in Obergefell- but not in every single divorce case that happens in America.

Obergefell disagrees with you on page 15 of the Opinion.

Obergefell specifically says that what you advocate for harms children.

Why do you want to harm children?
Obergefell:
The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples

 

[Syriusly]

^^ still trying to keep kids out of the contract revision process they share eh?

Still can't figure out how to use the reply button eh?

LOL

Tell us more about the how all the kids in divorces have lawyers representing their interests.

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell disagrees with Sil's intepretation of the decision.

Look at page 15.

The decision is about marriage, not proposed contract revision. That is crazy talk.

Pull your head out of your ass. The Court declared on page 15 of their Opinion that children share the benefits (ergo the contract itself) with adults in it. Therefore, they are parties to any revision proposed. They had no unique counsel at Obergefell. .

Nope- you are just lying about Obergefell.

Here is what Obergefell actually said:
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. - notice doesn't mention children are part of the marriage contract.

And of course this which you take great pains to ignore:

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

And of course what Obergefell actually found:

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their 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 through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of sa

Why do you want to harm children Silhouette?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the OP lies about Obergefell.

 

[rightwinger]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

OP needs to get used to it

 

[MindWars]

Now, onto the case... Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

When we last discussed, Michigan orphans were allowed to join the suit, (as all children should have separate counsel advising on any legal matter involving the tweaking of family law, particularly marriage and adoption where they share the contracts with adults: see: Infancy Doctrine). Good, finally the courts are recognizing which parties to a shared contract were barred from briefing previous multiple cases in these family law matters...

Now, the orphans who joined the suit and Catholic Charities were allowed to file "additional pages". Seems boring at first glance, but what that means is, they're fine-tuning their arguments. That happened May 1, 2018. I believe its surrounding a motion to dismiss the suit; which actually should happen and here's why...

The lesbians who brought the suit (and dragonlady confirmed here in post #473 of the other thread herein linked above) not to really make Catholic charities adopt out boys to fatherless marriage contracts (for life) they'd be forced to share with adults (illegal per the infancy doctrine). They know that Catholics may do as they please with their orphanages so long as they self-fund. 1st Amendment protections are stiff for religious objections. The lesbians know they have other choices besides Catholic Charities to try to pry away boys (and little girls) to take home to their fatherless-for-life contractual-guarantee.

No...what the lesbians want in Dumont vs Lyon is to strip Catholic Charities of money they vitally need for the massive numbers of orphans they care for in the State of Michigan. You see, the LGBT wants to use the whip of "separation of church and state" TO PUNISH the Catholic Charities which will result (as they well know beforehand) in the direct proximal harm to orphaned children in the State of Michigan.

Here's what dragonlady said in her post 473 here: Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

The briefs you’re talking about are the briefs of children who have been helped by the Catholic agency that the want to continue to receive funding because of all of their good works on behalf of orphans.

The judge isn’t reviewing briefs on whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, but rather whether a Catholic agency which refuses to place children with gay couples should continue to receive public funding.

Dragonlady, LGBT apologist and fierce advocate here at USMB and I suspect professionally elsewhere, says in an unapologetic tone "yeah, the LGBT is seeking to take the main lifeblood away that feeds and cares for the bulk of Michigan orphans from people who have traditionally cared for these poor children for millennia now. LGBT wants these vulnerable kids to be corralled in secular non-moral pens for equal and unquestioned distribution based on what the adults want."

I can guarantee you that if you applied to adopt a child anywhere and said "yeah, I'm gonna deprive this kid of clothing or food or shelter for life", you'd be denied. But apparently the cult of LGBT thinks with the shoehorn they got outside of due process (Obergefell 2015) that this means they can waltz into an adoption agency and demand they disgorge children, even when they announce to the adoption agent by their very physical arrangement "we intend to deprive this child of a father for life using binding contractual terms we'll force this kid to share with us."

Sinister enough, right? But actually there's a root in the muck even deeper than that (are you listening NAMBLA?) It's that the cult of LGBT wants ALL vulnerable children now technically available to "marrieds" (though the test of fatherless and motherless contracts still can save the day) to be coughed up on demand just because they have these contracts: all in the name of "equality!". And so, we have arrived at the real reason for the push on gay marriage where civil unions were sufficing just fine for the LGBTs to share bank accounts, hospital visits and the like The one thing they couldn't get with mere civil unions is a guaranteed access to our nation's most vulnerable little kids to bring home behind closed doors...

I always have to bring up gay pride parades at this point because if this is what they flaunt in public as a uniquely cohesive group (have you ever heard of any LGBT person being against these parades in a public way? And if so, what percentage of their cult do you think they represent? Maybe .0000000001%?) then WHAT ARE THEY DOING around kids, especially those not technically related to them by blood, behind closed doors?? The nation's most vulnerable children now stand poised to be legally forced into these homes:

Notice there are two teen boys standing in the very back.

 

[MindWars]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

OP needs to get used to it

You must be gay. Other wise you would not stick up for this filth same as over on my post .

 

[Silhouette]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

OP needs to get used to it

If it was arrived at legitimately, I'd have to get used to it. Except parties to the marriage contract weren't present at Obergefell, the case that Dumont's punitive lesbians will cite in their briefs.

No American has to "get used to" breach of justice so obtuse. If a contract is to be radically-revised, even minimally revised, all parties to that contract must have separate counsel briefing the court. Taking away millennia-old benefits of both mother and father from the contract had to be done with children briefing separately. They have contract-rights when they share with adults. These rights were wholesale-ignored.