Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[mdk]

When you say you have a heart to help children, does that mean just some special ones, or all of them?

All they need is the hope that their parents will someday get married and by golly that's good enough for me!

As long as there is no legal bind keeping them away from the missing parent, then there isn't an application of contract law to remedy the situation. But you know as well as I do that no contract may bind a child to his detriment. So "gay marriage" is a real problem legally.

You and I both know that no one is bound by your made-up legal musings.

 

[Silhouette]

As long as there is no legal bind keeping them away from the missing parent, then there isn't an application of contract law to remedy the situation. But you know as well as I do that no contract may bind a child to his detriment. So "gay marriage" is a real problem legally.

You and I both know that no one is bound by your made-up legal musings.

Well the courts are bound by the language of their previous Opinions and Rulings. So people are bound by those direct words. And those direct words from Kennedy, his rationale for passing Obergefell (again more like new legislation than a Ruling) was "so that children of these unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage".

That presents a couple of problems:

1. All children would need those benefits, including those of polyamorists and incest and

2. In so saying, Kennedy eliminated one of the prime benefits any child ever experienced in marriage since the dawn of human history: the presence of BOTH vital genders as parents.

3. In so saying, Kennedy also set in stone as a matter of law that children do derive benefits from marriage; and as such, are implicit parties to the marriage contract that HE JUST REVISED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR REPRESENTATION TO THEIR DETRIMENT!

 

[Montrovant]

Your ilk has this funny penchant where they believe that if they repeat a falsehood enough, even longstanding law evaporates before their very eyes to their advantage.

Why are you describing your actions on this board as though they are someone else's?

 

[mdk]

As long as there is no legal bind keeping them away from the missing parent, then there isn't an application of contract law to remedy the situation. But you know as well as I do that no contract may bind a child to his detriment. So "gay marriage" is a real problem legally.

You and I both know that no one is bound by your made-up legal musings.

Well the courts are bound by the language of their previous Opinions and Rulings. So people are bound by those direct words. And those direct words from Kennedy, his rationale for passing Obergefell (again more like new legislation than a Ruling) was "so that children of these unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage".

That presents a couple of problems:

1. All children would need those benefits, including those of polyamorists and incest and

2. In so saying, Kennedy eliminated one of the prime benefits any child ever experienced in marriage since the dawn of human history: the presence of BOTH vital genders as parents.

3. In so saying, Kennedy also set in stone as a matter of law that children do derive benefits from marriage; and as such, are implicit parties to the marriage contract that HE JUST REVISED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR REPRESENTATION TO THEIR DETRIMENT!

I had a dream last evening where a disheveled middle-aged women argued her anti-gay marriage case before the Supreme Court. Through the mumbling gibberish one was only able to discern that children are suddenly now an implicit party to a marriage contract. She cited her imagination and made-up precedent in her claims that parents need to have the consent of their children if they wish to marry or divorce. After the laughter ceased, the room was filled with an akward silence as the bailiff ushered the women to a car to return her back to the dirt farm from whence she came.

 

[ogibillm]

When you say you have a heart to help children, does that mean just some special ones, or all of them?

All they need is the hope that their parents will someday get married and by golly that's good enough for me!

As long as there is no legal bind keeping them away from the missing parent, then there isn't an application of contract law to remedy the situation. But you know as well as I do that no contract may bind a child to his detriment. So "gay marriage" is a real problem legally.

married parents benefit children. how would marriage be a detriment to children?

 

[ogibillm]

As long as there is no legal bind keeping them away from the missing parent, then there isn't an application of contract law to remedy the situation. But you know as well as I do that no contract may bind a child to his detriment. So "gay marriage" is a real problem legally.

You and I both know that no one is bound by your made-up legal musings.

Well the courts are bound by the language of their previous Opinions and Rulings. So people are bound by those direct words. And those direct words from Kennedy, his rationale for passing Obergefell (again more like new legislation than a Ruling) was "so that children of these unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage".

That presents a couple of problems:

1. All children would need those benefits, including those of polyamorists and incest and

2. In so saying, Kennedy eliminated one of the prime benefits any child ever experienced in marriage since the dawn of human history: the presence of BOTH vital genders as parents.

3. In so saying, Kennedy also set in stone as a matter of law that children do derive benefits from marriage; and as such, are implicit parties to the marriage contract that HE JUST REVISED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR REPRESENTATION TO THEIR DETRIMENT!

I had a dream last evening where a disheveled middle-aged women argued her anti-gay marriage case before the Supreme Court. Through the mumbling gibberish one was only able to discern that children are suddenly now an implicit party to a marriage contract. She cited her imagination and made-up precedent in her claims that parents need to have the consent of their children if they wish to marry or divorce. After the laughter ceased, the room was filled with an akward silence as the bailiff ushered the women to a car to return her back to the dirt farm from whence she came.

you dont suppose she lives in nebraska, do you?
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/264287521/8-15-cv-00158-1-Complaint

 

[Silhouette]

Do you three have anything to offer the substantive 1-3 points? Or because you don't, you're resorting to trolling and ad hominem? Again..

 

[Silhouette]

Yep... *crickets* Just as I thought. Post #202 pretty much kicks Obergefell in the teeth.

 

[Montrovant]

Yep... *crickets* Just as I thought. Post #202 pretty much kicks Obergefell in the teeth.

I'm sure the USSC will quickly move to reverse their decision now that you've 'kicked Obergefell in the teeth'.

 

[Silhouette]

Yep... *crickets* Just as I thought. Post #202 pretty much kicks Obergefell in the teeth.

I'm sure the USSC will quickly move to reverse their decision now that you've 'kicked Obergefell in the teeth'.

What's important is when Judge Moore kicks it in the teeth.. You won't be rolling laughing then I'll wager...

 

[Silhouette]

Well the courts are bound by the language of their previous Opinions and Rulings. So people are bound by those direct words. And those direct words from Kennedy, his rationale for passing Obergefell (again more like new legislation than a Ruling) was "so that children of these unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage".

That presents a couple of problems:

1. All children would need those benefits, including those of polyamorists and incest and

2. In so saying, Kennedy eliminated one of the prime benefits any child ever experienced in marriage since the dawn of human history: the presence of BOTH vital genders as parents.

3. In so saying, Kennedy also set in stone as a matter of law that children do derive benefits from marriage; and as such, are implicit parties to the marriage contract that HE JUST REVISED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR REPRESENTATION TO THEIR DETRIMENT!

Yep... *crickets* Just as I thought. Post #202 pretty much kicks Obergefell in the teeth.

I'm sure the USSC will quickly move to reverse their decision now that you've 'kicked Obergefell in the teeth'.

When you're ready to say why points #1 2 & 3 aren't valid, just step right up and do so.

 

[Syriusly]

the court decides child custody and visitation rights regardless of marriage. it happens all the time. so marriage is not a prerequisite for court involvement.

and let's take a look at my friend. hos parents divorced when he was 25. as the youngest child how did the court recognize his participation n the marriage contract?

That's an excellent argument. I'm sure that any judge or court anywhere will instantly be impressed that children have no part in marriage, derive no benefits from it; and that marriage was not created for them in the first place, thousands of years ago...

Good luck in court. You're going to need it.

LOL- why would he need any luck- he is just pointing out the actual legal reality.

How did you do arguing in court that your husband couldn't divorce you because the children didn't agree to it- and that they are partners in the marriage?

I am guessing that didn't turn out very well.

 

[Syriusly]

Well the courts are bound by the language of their previous Opinions and Rulings. So people are bound by those direct words. And those direct words from Kennedy, his rationale for passing Obergefell .

The Supreme Court is not bound by any previous opinions and rulings. They consider them- but they are not bound by them.

Why are you against polygamous marriage Silhouette?

 

[Montrovant]

Well the courts are bound by the language of their previous Opinions and Rulings. So people are bound by those direct words. And those direct words from Kennedy, his rationale for passing Obergefell (again more like new legislation than a Ruling) was "so that children of these unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage".

That presents a couple of problems:

1. All children would need those benefits, including those of polyamorists and incest and

2. In so saying, Kennedy eliminated one of the prime benefits any child ever experienced in marriage since the dawn of human history: the presence of BOTH vital genders as parents.

3. In so saying, Kennedy also set in stone as a matter of law that children do derive benefits from marriage; and as such, are implicit parties to the marriage contract that HE JUST REVISED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR REPRESENTATION TO THEIR DETRIMENT!

Yep... *crickets* Just as I thought. Post #202 pretty much kicks Obergefell in the teeth.

I'm sure the USSC will quickly move to reverse their decision now that you've 'kicked Obergefell in the teeth'.

When you're ready to say why points #1 2 & 3 aren't valid, just step right up and do so.

There is a difference between rulings and opinions. Dissents are also opinions, are the courts bound by those as well?

1. That children benefit from marriage does not mean that children are party to the marriage contract, nor that all forms of marriage must be legally recognized. More, polygamy does not fit within the current legal framework of marriage; it would require many changes and additions to have polygamous marriage. That doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it is a far less simple difference than same sex marriage and does not fall under the same legal arguments.

2. Kennedy did nothing of the sort. For one thing, his was merely one vote, whatever he said in his opinion. For another, whether or not same sex couples are married does not change whether their children have opposite sex parents.

3. Kennedy's opinion is not 'set in stone'. It is an opinion. You seem to have a hard time understand that. And, once again, deriving benefits from marriage does not make children implicit parties to that contract. As you've been told again and again and again and again. You can repeat that however many times you like, it does not make it true. You have been unable to supply a single instance in which a child was able to prevent a divorce, or sue for divorce, or in any way show that the courts consider them a party to the marriage contract. Perhaps if you had the slightest shred of evidence that your claims hold legal weight someone might give them consideration.

 

[Silhouette]

Montrovant wrote:

1. That children benefit from marriage does not mean that children are party to the marriage contract, nor that all forms of marriage must be legally recognized. More, polygamy does not fit within the current legal framework of marriage; it would require many changes and additions to have polygamous marriage. That doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it is a far less simple difference than same sex marriage and does not fall under the same legal arguments.

2. Kennedy did nothing of the sort. For one thing, his was merely one vote, whatever he said in his opinion. For another, whether or not same sex couples are married does not change whether their children have opposite sex parents.

3. Kennedy's opinion is not 'set in stone'. It is an opinion. You seem to have a hard time understand that. And, once again, deriving benefits from marriage does not make children implicit parties to that contract. As you've been told again and again and again and again. You can repeat that however many times you like, it does not make it true. You have been unable to supply a single instance in which a child was able to prevent a divorce, or sue for divorce, or in any way show that the courts consider them a party to the marriage contract. Perhaps if you had the slightest shred of evidence that your claims hold legal weight someone might give them consideration.
*****************************
1. Kennedy disagrees. His reasoning for passing Obergefell were that children "of gays" needed the benefits of marriage. Would you like me to find the quotes from Obergefell? Windsor? Trouble is, he left out the children of polyamorists and incest orientations. I guess "some" children were being harmed by their "parents" (never either a mother or father in gay marriage) not being married, but for other children it's OK to harm them this way??

2. Kennedy has a lot of sway in the Court; so what he said DID matter. Given the passion to which Scalia dissented, Kennedy must have fought and fought hard to convince at least Breyer and Sotomayor. The entire world had the benefit of Ginsburg & Kagan's pre-Hearing advertisements that they would vote to make gay marriage "legal" in all 50 states. Institutionalizing the NOT having of either a mother or father is the issue here: not some unfortunate situations that aren't bound by a legal contract/institution. You're aware of how things get normalized in a culture I take it?

3. Any person deriving benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. And children are and have been for thousands of years so intricately entwined in the word "marriage" that you'll never convince even Ginsburg that that isn't so; much less Kennedy. If there was any grey area in that "implied party deriving benefits" statute, you'd never find children not being part of marriage in that grey category. There's just too much history, too much public awareness of the opposite of that claim.

 

[Montrovant]

Montrovant wrote:

1. That children benefit from marriage does not mean that children are party to the marriage contract, nor that all forms of marriage must be legally recognized. More, polygamy does not fit within the current legal framework of marriage; it would require many changes and additions to have polygamous marriage. That doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it is a far less simple difference than same sex marriage and does not fall under the same legal arguments.

2. Kennedy did nothing of the sort. For one thing, his was merely one vote, whatever he said in his opinion. For another, whether or not same sex couples are married does not change whether their children have opposite sex parents.

3. Kennedy's opinion is not 'set in stone'. It is an opinion. You seem to have a hard time understand that. And, once again, deriving benefits from marriage does not make children implicit parties to that contract. As you've been told again and again and again and again. You can repeat that however many times you like, it does not make it true. You have been unable to supply a single instance in which a child was able to prevent a divorce, or sue for divorce, or in any way show that the courts consider them a party to the marriage contract. Perhaps if you had the slightest shred of evidence that your claims hold legal weight someone might give them consideration.
*****************************
1. Kennedy disagrees. His reasoning for passing Obergefell were that children "of gays" needed the benefits of marriage. Would you like me to find the quotes from Obergefell? Windsor? Trouble is, he left out the children of polyamorists and incest orientations. I guess "some" children were being harmed by their "parents" (never either a mother or father in gay marriage) not being married, but for other children it's OK to harm them this way??

2. Kennedy has a lot of sway in the Court; so what he said DID matter. Given the passion to which Scalia dissented, Kennedy must have fought and fought hard to convince at least Breyer and Sotomayor. The entire world had the benefit of Ginsburg & Kagan's pre-Hearing advertisements that they would vote to make gay marriage "legal" in all 50 states. Institutionalizing the NOT having of either a mother or father is the issue here: not some unfortunate situations that aren't bound by a legal contract/institution. You're aware of how things get normalized in a culture I take it?

3. Any person deriving benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. And children are and have been for thousands of years so intricately entwined in the word "marriage" that you'll never convince even Ginsburg that that isn't so; much less Kennedy. If there was any grey area in that "implied party deriving benefits" statute, you'd never find children not being part of marriage in that grey category. There's just too much history, too much public awareness of the opposite of that claim.

1. You ignored what I said. Just because children may get some benefits from the marriage of their parents does not mean they are a party to the marriage contract. However many times you claim they are does not make it so.

2. I never said what Kennedy said did not matter. I said that he did not do what you claimed, and he did not. He is one of what were 9 justices at the time, each free to vote however they chose.

Same sex marriage had begun becoming normalized in US culture before the Obergefell decision.

3. You keep saying that anyone who gets benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract without providing any legal evidence. You simply make the claim and expect people to agree with its veracity. Let me give you an example. I live with someone. They have a subscription to a television broadcasting service, which is a type of contract. I gain benefit from that contract because I get to watch the programming. However, I am not a party to that contract. I have no say in what type of service is paid for nor any responsibility to pay the monthly bill. I am not an implied participant in the contract, yet I still benefit from it.

Try providing some legal evidence of your claims rather than just throwing them out there and hoping they stick.*

*I'm sure you won't actually do that, based on your history, but felt the need to make the suggestion anyway.

 

[Silhouette]

Not only did I not ignore what you said; I answered you in great detail point by point. So your tactic is that if you lose a debate, you accuse your opponent of "ignoring you" when they answer your point by point?

The main win I have over you in this debate is that Justice Kennedy agrees with me that children derive benefits from marriage...so much so that he hinged his approval of Obergefell on that main point. You can't turn around and argue in front of that same man: "your honor, our position is that children do not implicitly share in the marriage contract."

And you know it. From that given then, Obergefell is illegal because it revised a contract children share in and derive benefits from, paramount of which are BOTH a mother and father, to now divorce them by legal bind for life (no less) from either a mother or father. And all THAT without children's unique interests (to derive both a mother and father) in marriage having representation at Obergefell.

And if that wasn't bad enough, two of the Justices and one of them in particular was out in public giving interviews with media about how she believed "America was ready for gay marriage", MONTHS in ADVANCE of the Hearing on Obergefell...which guess what, was about "should the fed force all 50 states to ratify gay marriage"...WHILE IT WAS PENDING IN HER COURT. According to Capterton vs AT Massey Coal, (USSC 2009) Ginsburg herself, signed off that no judge or jurist in the USA may display bias and not recuse themselves. She violated her own Finding!

Judge Moore of Alabama could literally sit back with a blindfold on and just throw darts in any direction and prevail on Alabama's sovereignty in this matter. Other points he could hit on:

1. That Obergefell, as Scalia described it, was new legislation that never existed before (not even remotely to be derived from the Constitution since nothing in there is mentioned about sexual behaviors)

2. You can't have just some sexual orientations able to marry but not others when you're citing the 14th Amendment to justify doing so.

3. That US v Windsor 2013 cited no less than 56 times that the qualifications for marriage was unquestionably residing in states' powers. In fact it used this premise to destroy parts of DOMA. (56 reiterations from Windsor) Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

4. Between Windsor and Obergefell we have a complete turnabout by the court. On the one hand if the fed tries to control marriage when it denies just some sexual orientations (the Court's favorites, but not others), then "the fed has no business defining marriage for the states". But when it comes to forcing gay marriage on the 50 states who do not want that; then all of a sudden the 56 times reiterated in Windsor don't matter and "now the fed can define marriage for the states"...except for polygamists and incest orientations; which for some reason the 14th doesn't protect...even though it didn't protect gay sex behaviors either..

Between Windsor and Obergefell, the Court really did pull an autocratic stunt where it was blatantly stealing power away from Congress at its whim, discriminating against some sexual orientations also (ironically) while it did all that under the guise of "equality". It said "the Congress can't enact laws we disagree with". And "but we (unelected 5 people only) can enact laws the Congress and the 50 states disagree with; even though our Branch does not have the powers of legislation". And the reason they were "able" to do this is via the false premise that "just some sexual behaviors are the same as static race or gender".

Thank God for Hively v Ivy Tech recently in the 7th circuit which made it plain and clear that that is a false premise. Hively v Ivy Tech now stands at odds with Obergefell.

Scalia was right. No wonder this case bothered him more than any other in his career. It ate away at him actually.

 

[mdk]

Not only did I not ignore what you said; I answered you in great detail point by point. So your tactic is that if you lose a debate, you accuse your opponent of "ignoring you" when they answer your point by point?

The main win I have over you in this debate is that Justice Kennedy agrees with me that children derive benefits from marriage...so much so that he hinged his approval of Obergefell on that main point. You can't turn around and argue in front of that same man: "your honor, our position is that children do not implicitly share in the marriage contract."

And you know it. From that given then, Obergefell is illegal because it revised a contract children share in and derive benefits from, paramount of which are BOTH a mother and father, to now divorce them by legal bind for life (no less) from either a mother or father. And all THAT without children's unique interests (to derive both a mother and father) in marriage having representation at Obergefell.

And if that wasn't bad enough, two of the Justices and one of them in particular was out in public giving interviews with media about how she believed "America was ready for gay marriage", MONTHS in ADVANCE of the Hearing on Obergefell...which guess what, was about "should the fed force all 50 states to ratify gay marriage"...WHILE IT WAS PENDING IN HER COURT. According to Capterton vs AT Massey Coal, (USSC 2009) Ginsburg herself, signed off that no judge or jurist in the USA may display bias and not recuse themselves. She violated her own Finding!

Judge Moore of Alabama could literally sit back with a blindfold on and just throw darts in any direction and prevail on Alabama's sovereignty in this matter. Other points he could hit on:

1. That Obergefell, as Scalia described it, was new legislation that never existed before (not even remotely to be derived from the Constitution since nothing in there is mentioned about sexual behaviors)

2. You can't have just some sexual orientations able to marry but not others when you're citing the 14th Amendment to justify doing so.

3. That US v Windsor 2013 cited no less than 56 times that the qualifications for marriage was unquestionably residing in states' powers. In fact it used this premise to destroy parts of DOMA.

4. Between Windsor and Obergefell we have a complete turnabout by the court. On the one hand if the fed tries to control marriage when it denies just some sexual orientations (the Court's favorites, but not others), then "the fed has no business defining marriage for the states". But when it comes to forcing gay marriage on the 50 states who do not want that; then all of a sudden the 56 times reiterated in Windsor don't matter and "now the fed can define marriage for the states"...except for polygamists and incest orientations; which for some reason the 14th doesn't protect...even though it didn't protect gay sex behaviors either..

Each one of your broken record points have been shattered on numerous occasion and by a myriad of posters here. Your incessant need to keep repeating yourself in no way makes your points valid. Just b/c you choose to be willfully blind doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit.

 

[Silhouette]

Each one of your broken record points have been shattered on numerous occasion and by a myriad of posters here. Your incessant need to keep repeating yourself in no way makes your points valid. Just b/c you choose to be willfully blind doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit.

My posts vary in contrast to yours Uber-Troll mdk. I challenged any of the users here to check your posts. They are all merely a version of this type of troll response I just quoted you as saying. Your posts are almost identical, one after the other....and 20,000 of them too. Dedicated you are to trolling. Getting through to readers you are not.

 

[Montrovant]

Not only did I not ignore what you said; I answered you in great detail point by point. So your tactic is that if you lose a debate, you accuse your opponent of "ignoring you" when they answer your point by point?

The main win I have over you in this debate is that Justice Kennedy agrees with me that children derive benefits from marriage...so much so that he hinged his approval of Obergefell on that main point. You can't turn around and argue in front of that same man: "your honor, our position is that children do not implicitly share in the marriage contract."

And you know it. From that given then, Obergefell is illegal because it revised a contract children share in and derive benefits from, paramount of which are BOTH a mother and father, to now divorce them by legal bind for life (no less) from either a mother or father. And all THAT without children's unique interests (to derive both a mother and father) in marriage having representation at Obergefell.

And if that wasn't bad enough, two of the Justices and one of them in particular was out in public giving interviews with media about how she believed "America was ready for gay marriage", MONTHS in ADVANCE of the Hearing on Obergefell...which guess what, was about "should the fed force all 50 states to ratify gay marriage"...WHILE IT WAS PENDING IN HER COURT. According to Capterton vs AT Massey Coal, (USSC 2009) Ginsburg herself, signed off that no judge or jurist in the USA may display bias and not recuse themselves. She violated her own Finding!

Judge Moore of Alabama could literally sit back with a blindfold on and just throw darts in any direction and prevail on Alabama's sovereignty in this matter. Other points he could hit on:

1. That Obergefell, as Scalia described it, was new legislation that never existed before (not even remotely to be derived from the Constitution since nothing in there is mentioned about sexual behaviors)

2. You can't have just some sexual orientations able to marry but not others when you're citing the 14th Amendment to justify doing so.

3. That US v Windsor 2013 cited no less than 56 times that the qualifications for marriage was unquestionably residing in states' powers. In fact it used this premise to destroy parts of DOMA. (56 reiterations from Windsor) Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

4. Between Windsor and Obergefell we have a complete turnabout by the court. On the one hand if the fed tries to control marriage when it denies just some sexual orientations (the Court's favorites, but not others), then "the fed has no business defining marriage for the states". But when it comes to forcing gay marriage on the 50 states who do not want that; then all of a sudden the 56 times reiterated in Windsor don't matter and "now the fed can define marriage for the states"...except for polygamists and incest orientations; which for some reason the 14th doesn't protect...even though it didn't protect gay sex behaviors either..

Between Windsor and Obergefell, the Court really did pull an autocratic stunt where it was blatantly stealing power away from Congress at its whim, discriminating against some sexual orientations also (ironically) while it did all that under the guise of "equality". It said "the Congress can't enact laws we disagree with". And "but we (unelected 5 people only) can enact laws the Congress and the 50 states disagree with; even though our Branch does not have the powers of legislation". And the reason they were "able" to do this is via the false premise that "just some sexual behaviors are the same as static race or gender".

Thank God for Hively v Ivy Tech recently in the 7th circuit which made it plain and clear that that is a false premise. Hively v Ivy Tech now stands at odds with Obergefell.

Scalia was right. No wonder this case bothered him more than any other in his career. It ate away at him actually.

For the umpteenth time : Just because children get some benefit from their parent's marriage does not make them a party to that contract.

Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

The states have power over marriage so long as they do not violate the Constitution. Again, something that has been pointed out to you ad nauseam.