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

[Silhouette]

Well Kennedy can't have the luxury of legitimizing "gay marriage" for the benefits he says it will give children; while doing so eliminates THE chief benefit children derived from marriage can he? Two men can never replace the unique qualities a mother gives her children. Two women can never replace the unique qualities a father gives his children. So, there is no debating that. As you know, literally thousands of studies have been done showing the detriment that the void the lack of a mother or father leaves in the life of a child.

We aren't talking about unmarried parents because there is no contract involved there binding a child to those conditions for life with legal force. You know this. So stop denying you don't know the difference. It makes you look silly, and worse, deceitful.

As I just said, that you consider the chief benefit of marriage to be a child having a mother and father does not mean that everyone shares your opinion.

I would guess that most studies involving the lack of a mother or father in a child's life involved single parents rather than same sex parents. You know, like the Prince's Trust survey you so often have cited, which never once mentions same sex parents?

No, just billions of people share my opinion; and thousands of studies.

Again IN SINGLE PARENTHOOD THERE IS NO LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT CREATING A VOID FOR THAT CHILD FOR LIFE FROM THE MISSING GENDERED PARENT.

That void is guaranteed with the "gay marriage' contract 100% of the time. The key difference is that with single parenthood, there is no contract. With gay marriage, there is a contract. And that contract hurts children 100% of the time. Which of course is against the law and in full violation of the Infants Doctrine regarding contracts.

In fact it is because of single parenthood's lack in this regard that marriage is held out as a lure. Otherwise states would have no fiscal interest in luring people to be married at all. Extending benefits in the form of tax breaks to marrieds was extended as a means to insure there was less and less single parents. Because states know the missing gendered parent hurts children. So, gay marriage cannot be subsidized by states because it doesn't provide what the states were paying for in the first place: a home where a mother and father would be present for children to raise the most statistically well-rounded citizens for its future adult ranks. Less prison, less indigency, less mental illness.. All those things are expensive. Now states are forced to subsidize their own fiscal demise.

Obergefell destroyed states' main #1 reason for subsidizing married people: to protect their vulnerable children. There's another angle for Judge Moore...

A man's asshole is not a substitute for a mother. A woman's strap-on penis is not a substitute for a father. Children know the difference. They suffer the difference.

 

[Montrovant]

Well Kennedy can't have the luxury of legitimizing "gay marriage" for the benefits he says it will give children; while doing so eliminates THE chief benefit children derived from marriage can he? Two men can never replace the unique qualities a mother gives her children. Two women can never replace the unique qualities a father gives his children. So, there is no debating that. As you know, literally thousands of studies have been done showing the detriment that the void the lack of a mother or father leaves in the life of a child.

We aren't talking about unmarried parents because there is no contract involved there binding a child to those conditions for life with legal force. You know this. So stop denying you don't know the difference. It makes you look silly, and worse, deceitful.

As I just said, that you consider the chief benefit of marriage to be a child having a mother and father does not mean that everyone shares your opinion.

I would guess that most studies involving the lack of a mother or father in a child's life involved single parents rather than same sex parents. You know, like the Prince's Trust survey you so often have cited, which never once mentions same sex parents?

No, just billions of people share my opinion; and thousands of studies.

Again IN SINGLE PARENTHOOD THERE IS NO LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT CREATING A VOID FOR THAT CHILD FOR LIFE FROM THE MISSING GENDERED PARENT.

That void is guaranteed with the "gay marriage' contract 100% of the time. The key difference is that with single parenthood, there is no contract. With gay marriage, there is a contract. And that contract hurts children 100% of the time. Which of course is against the law and in full violation of the Infants Doctrine regarding contracts.

In fact it is because of single parenthood's lack in this regard that marriage is held out as a lure. Otherwise states would have no fiscal interest in luring people to be married at all. Extending benefits in the form of tax breaks to marrieds was extended as a means to insure there was less and less single parents. Because states know the missing gendered parent hurts children. So, gay marriage cannot be subsidized by states because it doesn't provide what the states were paying for in the first place: a home where a mother and father would be present for children to raise the most statistically well-rounded citizens for its future adult ranks. Less prison, less indigency, less mental illness.. All those things are expensive. Now states are forced to subsidize their own fiscal demise.

Obergefell destroyed states' main #1 reason for subsidizing married people: to protect their vulnerable children. There's another angle for Judge Moore...

A man's asshole is not a substitute for a mother. A woman's strap-on penis is not a substitute for a father. Children know the difference. They suffer the difference.

Billions of people and thousands of studies share your opinion, huh?

Even if we assume that to be true, the opinions that matter most in this context, the courts of the United States, do not agree with you.

Of course, there's no reason to assume the statement is true. Particularly in the case of your 'thousands of studies', we've seen how lie and misrepresent the things you cite as evidence of your case, so it's reasonable to guess that the thousands of studies you mention don't actually say what you claim they do.

As far as billions of people agreeing with you, only those who are voters in the US actually matter to this argument. Even there, opinion seems to be split, at best, about same sex marriage, and even among those who oppose same sex marriage, there are probably plenty who would disagree with the idea that children are a party to the marriage contract.

Marriage is not predicated on the ability or desire to have children. The states are perfectly willing to extend marriage benefits to couples whether they can have children or not, whether they want children or not, in fact questions of children are in no way necessary for marriage. More, you have seen at least one court ruling which clearly states that children are not necessary for marriage. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you continue to repeat the idea that children are somehow intrinsic to marriage. As far as the US legal system is concerned, they are not.

It's funny that you equate same sex marriage to the 'fiscal demise' of the states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Again, if Moore were to do this he’d be both ridiculous and wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Again, if Moore were to do this he’d be both ridiculous and wrong.

Not according to the Infants Doctrine and contracts.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Again, if Moore were to do this he’d be both ridiculous and wrong.

Not according to the Infants Doctrine and contracts.

Of course, the Infants Doctrine. I assume you mean the infancy doctrine, that legal doctrine about minors as contract signatories that you want to apply to the children of a married couple, despite the fact those children are not parties to the marriage contract.

You should understand the evidence you try to use to support your claims before you put forth that evidence. The infancy doctrine is about children being able to get out of contracts they enter into, not contracts their parents enter into.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course, the Infants Doctrine. I assume you mean the infancy doctrine, that legal doctrine about minors as contract signatories that you want to apply to the children of a married couple, despite the fact those children are not parties to the marriage contract.

You should understand the evidence you try to use to support your claims before you put forth that evidence. The infancy doctrine is about children being able to get out of contracts they enter into, not contracts their parents enter into.

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

If the answer is "yes", then Justice Kennedy enshrined in law in 2013 &/or 2015, that children are IMPLIED PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Anyone who derives benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. There is no disputing that.

So I'm sorry to inform you that children being implicit parties to the marriage contract has already been established quite recently, by the highest court in the nation.

For your debate it gets even worse. THE MAIN benefit children derived from the marriage contract previous to 2015 was BOTH a mother and father. Not a man with an asshole "playing female/mom"; nor a woman with a strapon dildo "playing male/dad". Children derived the real McCoy; for which there is no substitute.

Thousands of studies have been done that show children fall by the wayside compared to their peers (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) if they lack either a mother or father in their life. There are rare exceptions to that rule, but they are rare exceptions to that rule. We don't set standards based on rare exceptions; particularly when we as states subsidize THE MAIN benefit of marriage as a bet on a cheaper, more sane future citizenry. Of the many (unfortunate and expen$ive) maladies plaguing children without either a mother or father (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) are depression, suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, indigency, prison terms and a general sense of not belonging (as found in the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey, the largest of its kind)...particularly when the child missing a father is a boy and the child missing the mother is a girl.

So, Obegefell created contractual conditions as a binding force of law, that results in the DETRIMENT to children sharing that contract. Remember, your premise is that they do not share that contract "and therefore no contractual detriment was created at their expense". Given that Kennedy found there WAS contractual enjoyments children derive from marriage (making their share an implied one; which is equally as binding as expressed), your premise fails. And therefore, your conclusion "the Infants Doctrine doesn't apply to marriage contracts" is a false conclusion. It does apply. It applies to each and every single contract that children share either expressly, or implied.

Therefore, Obergefell was an illegal Ruling on that point. But it is also an illegal Ruling on many other points of which I've pointed out before. Those include Ginsburg (and Kagan) openly telling the world how they would vote on it months in advance; that Windsor said 56 times that the power to define marriage rests with the states; that no words about marriage are mentioned in the constitution at all because it is a state-granted privilege..evidenced by the fact that states can still deny other sexual orientations marriage...the misuse of the 14th to give only some but not other sexual orientations carte blanch for marriage...etc. etc.

Like I said, Judge Moore could just put on a blindfold and throw darts in any direction and he'd hit a bullseye. The hardest part of his defense would be which rock-solid defense to choose.

 

[mdk]

Marriage isn't a privilege.

Children are not implied members of a marriage contract in any state.

The Infancy Doctrine doesn't void contracts between other adults.

The Prince's Trust study dealt with children missing a role model and in no way states that said role model has to be a parent.

How can you claim that Obergefell is an illegal ruling and yet cite it as your reason that children are now parties to marriage contract? You can't have it both ways.

Nobody is bound by your cockamamie and repeating it ad infinitum will have the same effect it did before...nothing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

What he said was:

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. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. 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. See Windsor, supra, at ___. 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.

<<Also said>>

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.

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 same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

What he said was:

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. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma...​

Yes, I know. Kennedy outlined that children derive benefits from the marriage contract. I'm glad you're on the same page as I.

Now, go back and read post #246..

 

[Syriusly]

I told you, the more children a man has, the more dilute his contact with each one. But even still, he then functions more like a camp counselor and it is a better situation still than a boy who has been permanently divorced from a father for life in a lesbian "marriage" or a girl being divorced for life from a mother in a gay male "marriage"; both as a matter of a contractual bind: providing that void for children 100% of the time...

Except of course that is no more true than a divorce ends up with a void for the children 100% of the time.

Pulled that one out of your ass did you? t.

No- unlike you I don't pull crap out of my ass and present it as a fact.

Every scenario you present is wholly pulled straight out of your ass

• Your claim that marriage is designed for children
• Your claim that children are part of the marriage contract- even when there are no children!
• Your claim that it is expected that all marriages will result in children- even when the couple marrying are in the 70's and 80's.
• Your claim that a gay couple marrying deprives a child of anything- because most gay couples who marry will not have children.
  
• And if a gay couple does marry and do decide to have children- it still doesn't deprive those children of anything- because that gay couple can have children regardless of whether they marry or not.

The fact is that the only thing denying marriage to a gay couple does is

• Injure the gay couple- and IF they choose to have children- injure their children.

Why do you want to cause injury to homosexuals and the kids they might have?

Because that is what you want to do.

 

[mdk]

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

What he said was:

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. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma...​

Yes, I know. Kennedy outlined that children derive benefits from the marriage contract. I'm glad you're on the same page as I.

Now, go back and read post #246..

Surely you jest! You're not even in the same library let alone the same page.

 

[Syriusly]

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

What he said was:

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. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma...​

Yes, I know. Kennedy outlined that children derive benefits from the marriage contract. I'm glad you're on the same page as I.
..

That is the third basis.

There are two others- which you choose to ignore.

Just as you choose to ignore that a polygamous family would provide that mother and father you have proclaimed out of your ass are necessary for children- even though your own children didn't have both.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course, the Infants Doctrine. I assume you mean the infancy doctrine, that legal doctrine about minors as contract signatories that you want to apply to the children of a married couple, despite the fact those children are not parties to the marriage contract.

You should understand the evidence you try to use to support your claims before you put forth that evidence. The infancy doctrine is about children being able to get out of contracts they enter into, not contracts their parents enter into.

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

If the answer is "yes", then Justice Kennedy enshrined in law in 2013 &/or 2015, that children are IMPLIED PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Anyone who derives benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. There is no disputing that.

So I'm sorry to inform you that children being implicit parties to the marriage contract has already been established quite recently, by the highest court in the nation.

For your debate it gets even worse. THE MAIN benefit children derived from the marriage contract previous to 2015 was BOTH a mother and father. Not a man with an asshole "playing female/mom"; nor a woman with a strapon dildo "playing male/dad". Children derived the real McCoy; for which there is no substitute.

Thousands of studies have been done that show children fall by the wayside compared to their peers (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) if they lack either a mother or father in their life. There are rare exceptions to that rule, but they are rare exceptions to that rule. We don't set standards based on rare exceptions; particularly when we as states subsidize THE MAIN benefit of marriage as a bet on a cheaper, more sane future citizenry. Of the many (unfortunate and expen$ive) maladies plaguing children without either a mother or father (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) are depression, suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, indigency, prison terms and a general sense of not belonging (as found in the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey, the largest of its kind)...particularly when the child missing a father is a boy and the child missing the mother is a girl.

So, Obegefell created contractual conditions as a binding force of law, that results in the DETRIMENT to children sharing that contract. Remember, your premise is that they do not share that contract "and therefore no contractual detriment was created at their expense". Given that Kennedy found there WAS contractual enjoyments children derive from marriage (making their share an implied one; which is equally as binding as expressed), your premise fails. And therefore, your conclusion "the Infants Doctrine doesn't apply to marriage contracts" is a false conclusion. It does apply. It applies to each and every single contract that children share either expressly, or implied.

Therefore, Obergefell was an illegal Ruling on that point. But it is also an illegal Ruling on many other points of which I've pointed out before. Those include Ginsburg (and Kagan) openly telling the world how they would vote on it months in advance; that Windsor said 56 times that the power to define marriage rests with the states; that no words about marriage are mentioned in the constitution at all because it is a state-granted privilege..evidenced by the fact that states can still deny other sexual orientations marriage...the misuse of the 14th to give only some but not other sexual orientations carte blanch for marriage...etc. etc.

Like I said, Judge Moore could just put on a blindfold and throw darts in any direction and he'd hit a bullseye. The hardest part of his defense would be which rock-solid defense to choose.

Every scenario you present is wholly pulled straight out of your ass

• Your claim that marriage is designed for children

.

No, my claim is that Kennedy outlined as legal fact that children derive benefits from the marriage contract, which means they are implicit parties to that contract.

Now go back and read the above...

Also, if states can legally deny polygamy marriage or incest marriage or any other sexual orientation wanting marriage, then Alabama can deny homosexual orientation marriage also. You can't use the 14th to have it both ways...to address your whining about polygamy as a strawman.. Sotomayor had better remember this when she reviews the Browns case outline due here in a week or so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course, the Infants Doctrine. I assume you mean the infancy doctrine, that legal doctrine about minors as contract signatories that you want to apply to the children of a married couple, despite the fact those children are not parties to the marriage contract.

You should understand the evidence you try to use to support your claims before you put forth that evidence. The infancy doctrine is about children being able to get out of contracts they enter into, not contracts their parents enter into.

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

If the answer is "yes", then Justice Kennedy enshrined in law in 2013 &/or 2015, that children are IMPLIED PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Anyone who derives benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. There is no disputing that.

So I'm sorry to inform you that children being implicit parties to the marriage contract has already been established quite recently, by the highest court in the nation.

For your debate it gets even worse. THE MAIN benefit children derived from the marriage contract previous to 2015 was BOTH a mother and father. Not a man with an asshole "playing female/mom"; nor a woman with a strapon dildo "playing male/dad". Children derived the real McCoy; for which there is no substitute.

Thousands of studies have been done that show children fall by the wayside compared to their peers (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) if they lack either a mother or father in their life. There are rare exceptions to that rule, but they are rare exceptions to that rule. We don't set standards based on rare exceptions; particularly when we as states subsidize THE MAIN benefit of marriage as a bet on a cheaper, more sane future citizenry. Of the many (unfortunate and expen$ive) maladies plaguing children without either a mother or father (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) are depression, suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, indigency, prison terms and a general sense of not belonging (as found in the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey, the largest of its kind)...particularly when the child missing a father is a boy and the child missing the mother is a girl.

So, Obegefell created contractual conditions as a binding force of law, that results in the DETRIMENT to children sharing that contract. Remember, your premise is that they do not share that contract "and therefore no contractual detriment was created at their expense". Given that Kennedy found there WAS contractual enjoyments children derive from marriage (making their share an implied one; which is equally as binding as expressed), your premise fails. And therefore, your conclusion "the Infants Doctrine doesn't apply to marriage contracts" is a false conclusion. It does apply. It applies to each and every single contract that children share either expressly, or implied.

Therefore, Obergefell was an illegal Ruling on that point. But it is also an illegal Ruling on many other points of which I've pointed out before. Those include Ginsburg (and Kagan) openly telling the world how they would vote on it months in advance; that Windsor said 56 times that the power to define marriage rests with the states; that no words about marriage are mentioned in the constitution at all because it is a state-granted privilege..evidenced by the fact that states can still deny other sexual orientations marriage...the misuse of the 14th to give only some but not other sexual orientations carte blanch for marriage...etc. etc.

Like I said, Judge Moore could just put on a blindfold and throw darts in any direction and he'd hit a bullseye. The hardest part of his defense would be which rock-solid defense to choose.

Every scenario you present is wholly pulled straight out of your ass

• Your claim that marriage is designed for children

.

No, my claim is that Kennedy outlined as legal fact that children derive benefits from the marriage contract, which means they are implicit parties to that contract.

Now go back and read the above...

What you advocate is not only un-Constitutional, it’s detrimental to children.

 

[Silhouette]

What you advocate is not only un-Constitutional, it’s detrimental to children.

Nothing could be more detrimental to a child than to divorce him or her from a father or mother for life as a contractual bind.

IF: marriage is a contract AND: Kennedy established children derive benefits from that contract (he did) AND: one of the main benefits children enjoyed from that contract was a mother and father AND: Obergefell set up new terms to erase that vital benefit without children having representation (it did); THEN Obergefell is not a legally binding Ruling.

So says the Infants Doctrine and contract law.

 

[Montrovant]

Anyone who derives benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. There is no disputing that.

Except that I'm disputing it. So have others. In fact, you have provided not a shred of evidence that this is true, neither in the particular case of marriage nor in general. I earlier gave you an example of how someone might benefit from a contract without being a party to it. I suppose that, as with most things you read that don't fit into your narrative and you cannot find what you consider a reasonable response to, you ignored it.

There are implied contracts but, as with the infancy doctrine, you seem to have no idea what the term means.

 

[mdk]

So says the Infants Doctrine and contract law.

So says you, citing your imagination. Neither of which have any bearing on the actual law.

 

[Montrovant]

What you advocate is not only un-Constitutional, it’s detrimental to children.

Nothing could be more detrimental to a child than to divorce him or her from a father or mother for life as a contractual bind.

IF: marriage is a contract AND: Kennedy established children derive benefits from that contract (he did) AND: one of the main benefits children enjoyed from that contract was a mother and father AND: Obergefell set up new terms to erase that vital benefit without children having representation (it did); THEN Obergefell is not a legally binding Ruling.

So says the Infants Doctrine and contract law.

Nothing could be more detrimental?

It is the infancy doctrine and continue to ignore what it is actually about, that being contracts entered into by minors, not some sort of secret joining of children into their parents' marriage contracts, something that only you are apparently privy to.

I wonder, have you ever answered Syriusly's question about whether the adult children of a married couple are party to that couple's marriage contract?

If not, at what age are children no longer party to their parents' marriage contract? Where is that age enshrined in law or precedent?

I eagerly await your ignoring of these questions, yet again.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course, the Infants Doctrine. I assume you mean the infancy doctrine, that legal doctrine about minors as contract signatories that you want to apply to the children of a married couple, despite the fact those children are not parties to the marriage contract.

You should understand the evidence you try to use to support your claims before you put forth that evidence. The infancy doctrine is about children being able to get out of contracts they enter into, not contracts their parents enter into.

Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?

If the answer is "yes", then Justice Kennedy enshrined in law in 2013 &/or 2015, that children are IMPLIED PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Anyone who derives benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. There is no disputing that..

LOL- god you are no lawyer- or even play one on TV.

If my company signs a contract with a new vendor- even if I derive benefit from that contract- I am not party of the contract.

Implied or not.

LOL

 

[Silhouette]

You could make that argument from an adult. But Kennedy said "This is for the kids". In so doing he enjoined them officially and expressly in the marriage contract.