Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

[Skylar]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary....And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce....Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

pseudo-legal" is probably being more than polite. he clearly knows nothing about how the system works.

Do you know how infants and contract law works with respect to necessities for children? It's clear you do not. Because if you did, you'd know that the necessity of both a mother and father in marriage (the reason the contract was created in the first place) can't be dissolved.

Do you know that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about? That no court nor law recognizes any of your gibberish about children being 'married' to their parents? That no court nor law recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children?

And you never did answer my question: since virtually no divorces have representation for the children.....by your own logic, virtually all divorces are 'mistrials', yes? Its either that, or you admitting that you don't have the slighest clue how the law works and are making up your claims as you go along.

 

[Skylar]

Unless you're going to claim that US law is beholden to some sort of ancient law you're making up, what you just said is effectively meaningless.

Follow the link in my signature and see if I'm making up what I'm saying about infants, necessities and contract law..

Yeah.....as I've already pointed out multiple times, I've gone to your Contracts of Minors link. When it talks about minors, contracts, and necessities, as in the quote in your sig line, it is talking about minors being obligated to honor contracts, not about contracts between adults in which minors are tangentially involved.

Perhaps if you actually read your link, or even your sig line (notice it talks about goods which are necessary, not parents), you would realize that you are making things up. When you ignore the very things you claim to be talking about, you have no credibility.

But hey! You've long since destroyed any credibility you may have had, so I guess it doesn't matter at this point, right? May as well just lie and see if any of it sticks!

SIl's read it. But we're in cognitive dissonance territory. And she'll just ignore it.

Her problem has never been her own capacity for willful ignorance. Its quite spectacular. Sil's problem has been getting us to ignore what she does.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you know that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about? That no court nor law recognizes any of your gibberish about children being 'married' to their parents? That no court nor law recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children?

And you never did answer my question: since virtually no divorces have representation for the children.....by your own logic, virtually all divorces are 'mistrials', yes? Its either that, or you admitting that you don't have the slighest clue how the law works and are making up your claims as you go along.

Never once have I claimed that children are married to their parents. You invented that as a strawman and then put those words into my mouth. So I'm calling you on it here and now. What I have maintained is that children, though not "married" to their parents, enjoy implicit rights to the marriage contract which, and pay attention here Skylar, WAS CREATED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH BOTH A MOTHER AND FATHER. "Marriage" is quite literally for over a thousand years synonymous legally with "Uniting a man and woman legally for the benefit of children anticipated to arrive". Marriage was created as a nest in which birds would be fledged. Marriage is an Aerie..

You can not discuss bifurcating children from the marriage contract anymore than you could discuss dismissing cheese, dough and sauce from a pizza.

And so, a mother and father were a vital necessity provided to children in contract to remedy the various social ills to children from their not having both the vital mother and father figure in their life. Therefore, any marriage contract that does not provide that vital necessity to children, no matter how "noble" the cause of its creation and how well-intended by sympathetic types...is void upon its face. It's a tough pill to swallow. But there it is.

 

[Silhouette]

SIl's read it. But we're in cognitive dissonance territory. And she'll just ignore it.

.

The only people displaying cognitive dissonance around here are those trying to convince the general public that marriage is not and never was a contract for the benefit of children..

 

[Montrovant]

SIl's read it. But we're in cognitive dissonance territory. And she'll just ignore it.

.

The only people displaying cognitive dissonance around here are those trying to convince the general public that marriage is not and never was a contract for the benefit of children..

So your lies about the Prince's Trust and Contracts of Minors don't equate to cognitive dissonance? You have, after all, been lying about the Prince's Trust for years now it seems, even ignoring the words of the very organization which runs it when they contradict your narrative. You seem to be on the same path with this Contracts of Minors, ignoring the fact that it is about minors being obligated to honor contracts rather than your narrative that it is about contracts between adults somehow being predicated on the children of those adults.

You also ignore the fact that children are not a requirement for marriage, nor is the ability to have children, and that the Supreme Court has already ruled that banning same gender couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Instead, you insist that your new legal gibberish in which children somehow get to determine who does or does not get married (through proxy, of course) is more legally binding than a USSC ruling.

And then you try to say it is others who suffer from cognitive dissonance?

 

[Montrovant]

Do you know that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about? That no court nor law recognizes any of your gibberish about children being 'married' to their parents? That no court nor law recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children?

And you never did answer my question: since virtually no divorces have representation for the children.....by your own logic, virtually all divorces are 'mistrials', yes? Its either that, or you admitting that you don't have the slighest clue how the law works and are making up your claims as you go along.

Never once have I claimed that children are married to their parents. You invented that as a strawman and then put those words into my mouth. So I'm calling you on it here and now. What I have maintained is that children, though not "married" to their parents, enjoy implicit rights to the marriage contract which, and pay attention here Skylar, WAS CREATED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH BOTH A MOTHER AND FATHER. "Marriage" is quite literally for over a thousand years synonymous legally with "Uniting a man and woman legally for the benefit of children anticipated to arrive". Marriage was created as a nest in which birds would be fledged. Marriage is an Aerie..

You can not discuss bifurcating children from the marriage contract anymore than you could discuss dismissing cheese, dough and sauce from a pizza.

And so, a mother and father were a vital necessity provided to children in contract to remedy the various social ills to children from their not having both the vital mother and father figure in their life. Therefore, any marriage contract that does not provide that vital necessity to children, no matter how "noble" the cause of its creation and how well-intended by sympathetic types...is void upon its face. It's a tough pill to swallow. But there it is.

Do you understand that marriage has had different meanings, legally and otherwise, depending on the period of time you are talking about as well as depending on the culture it is in?

The rights of children are and have been different as well, depending on culture and time period.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you understand that marriage has had different meanings, legally and otherwise, depending on the period of time you are talking about as well as depending on the culture it is in?

The rights of children are and have been different as well, depending on culture and time period.

No, marriage has always been about setting up a family where children are expected. Sorry. Otherwise states simply lose money on people shacking up. A state's vested interested in granting marriages has been for the benefit of the children within its borders. A state knows that children fare overwhelmingly best with the presence of loving mother and father in their daily lives. States reluctantly grant divorces when the marriage is so toxic that it's hurting the kids. Even then the state anticipates those two people to remarry to yet again provide hope for children of having both a mother and father in their lives.

Our culture has ALWAYS held marriage as the creation of a family. And family ALWAYS implicitly includes the arrival of children. Families perpetuate the species. And marriage was the epitome of the child-protective statute and contract: securing both a mother and father for them when a host of other dire situations otherwise left them statistically in peril.

All marriage contracts that deprive children of either a mother or father are void upon their face..

 

[Skylar]

SIl's read it. But we're in cognitive dissonance territory. And she'll just ignore it.

.

The only people displaying cognitive dissonance around here are those trying to convince the general public that marriage is not and never was a contract for the benefit of children..

Then show us the law or court rulings recognizing that children are married to their parents. Show us any of your own sources recognizing it. Show us any law or court ruling recognizing that marriage between parents is a 'minor contract' for their children. Show us any of your own sources recognizing this.

You can't. Your only source is yourself. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

You may now return to your hopeless self delusion.

 

[Skylar]

Do you know that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about? That no court nor law recognizes any of your gibberish about children being 'married' to their parents? That no court nor law recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'minor contract' for their children?

And you never did answer my question: since virtually no divorces have representation for the children.....by your own logic, virtually all divorces are 'mistrials', yes? Its either that, or you admitting that you don't have the slighest clue how the law works and are making up your claims as you go along.

Never once have I claimed that children are married to their parents.

Except when you did:

The original contract created thousands of years ago did "marry" children to their parents.

Post 128
Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

So were you lying then or are you lying now?

Oh, and I don't think a 'strawman' means what you think it means. The words you're looking for are 'accurate quotation'.

 

[Skylar]

Do you understand that marriage has had different meanings, legally and otherwise, depending on the period of time you are talking about as well as depending on the culture it is in?

The rights of children are and have been different as well, depending on culture and time period.

No, marriage has always been about setting up a family where children are expected. Sorry. Otherwise states simply lose money on people shacking up. A state's vested interested in granting marriages has been for the benefit of the children within its borders.

Sorry, no marriage is dependent on children or the ability to have them. Nor does any state require children or the ability to have them in order to get married. The USSC reiterated this point in their Obergefell ruling:

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.

Once again, your entire argument is you making up pseudo-legal gibberish, ignoring the law and ignoring the Supreme Court. And then laughably insisting that the law and the courts are bound to whatever nonsense you make up.

Can you see why you're *always* wrong when you predict the outcome of court cases?

 

[Montrovant]

Do you understand that marriage has had different meanings, legally and otherwise, depending on the period of time you are talking about as well as depending on the culture it is in?

The rights of children are and have been different as well, depending on culture and time period.

No, marriage has always been about setting up a family where children are expected. Sorry. Otherwise states simply lose money on people shacking up. A state's vested interested in granting marriages has been for the benefit of the children within its borders. A state knows that children fare overwhelmingly best with the presence of loving mother and father in their daily lives. States reluctantly grant divorces when the marriage is so toxic that it's hurting the kids. Even then the state anticipates those two people to remarry to yet again provide hope for children of having both a mother and father in their lives.

Our culture has ALWAYS held marriage as the creation of a family. And family ALWAYS implicitly includes the arrival of children. Families perpetuate the species. And marriage was the epitome of the child-protective statute and contract: securing both a mother and father for them when a host of other dire situations otherwise left them statistically in peril.

All marriage contracts that deprive children of either a mother or father are void upon their face..

Our culture has not been around for more than a thousand years, which you keep bringing up when talking about marriage. You can't even seem to get your time periods consistent in your arguments.

And even within our nation, children have not always been granted a great deal of legal protection.

Also, same sex couples can have children through various means or adopt, creating the families you are so concerned with in marriage.

Finally, where do you get the idea 'the state anticipates those two people to remarry'?

 

[Syriusly]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary....And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce....Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

pseudo-legal" is probably being more than polite. he clearly knows nothing about how the system works.

Do you know how infants and contract law works with respect to necessities for children? It's clear you do not. Because if you did, you'd know that the necessity of both a mother and father in marriage (the reason the contract was created in the first place) can't be dissolved.

Divorce

Dissolves

Marriages

Once again you are ridiculouosly wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

Therefore, any marriage contract that does not provide that vital necessity to children, no matter how "noble" the cause of its creation and how well-intended by sympathetic types...is void upon its face. .

Hmmmm you would think then that at least one court- somewhere- at some point- would have actually said that.

But no court ever has- instead courts have ruled consistently the opposite.

Take the case of the Wisconsin law that was struck down that forbid persons who owed child support from getting married.

The Supreme Court ruled that even if a man was a bad father- and did not pay the funds he was obligated to pay to support his own children- the State could not prevent that man from marrying a woman (whether she was the mother of the children or not).

In that ruling- the Court said that Americans have a right to marriage and that that right is not taken away just because a person refuses to be a parent to his children.