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

[Silhouette]

The conspicuous silence speaks louder than words. So I'll talk about that instead. The bottom line is you can't talk about how Obergefell (gay marriage) was inspired ("for the sake of the kids!") while at the same time talk about how other kids don't need the benefits of marriage from other sexual orientations, can you? Well, not with a straight face anyway..

And we know Obergefell ultimately used the excuse of "for the kids!" when its ratification meant that the chief benefit that kids had always derived from marriage (mother and father both; it was created to remedy single parenthood) indeed was eliminated by Obergefell as a new contractual term eliminating "the benefits of marriage" for kids altogether in that contract.

These things you folks wish no one was talking about. But it's not every day children are forcibly removed from either a mother or father, for life, as a new legal mandate. So, we're going to talk about it. And hopefully Judge Moore will too.

How are the children forcibly removed from a mother or father for life in same sex marriage? Would the parents of those children magically be opposite sex if they weren't married?

Would the children of polygamists magically be of only two parents if they weren't married? We don't set standards based on what's wrong for children in marriage (an institution created to remedy a motherless or fatherless child thousands of years ago until 2015).

'Gay marriage' by its physical construct and via contractual terms "Mr. & Mr." or "Mrs & Mrs." (two males or two females) forcibly removes either a mother or father in that marriage from any children involved, for life. You can play dumb until the cows come home on this point, but the courts don't have the luxury of playing dumb where the obvious is obvious and its impact directly causes a detriment to children.

 

[Syriusly]

The references to internet stalking are amusing and serve as temporary relief for you I'm sure. Meanwhile...
*****
I notice in the last two posts you didn't answer my question.
"?

Silhouette- now she is complaining to herself when she hasn't answered herself.....LOL

 

[Syriusly]

The conspicuous silence speaks louder than words. So I'll talk about that instead..

Silhouette has her own board where she posts to herself.

Why is she coming here to carry on her monologue?

 

[Syriusly]

The conspicuous silence speaks louder than words. So I'll talk about that instead. The bottom line is you can't talk about how Obergefell (gay marriage) was inspired ("for the sake of the kids!") while at the same time talk about how other kids don't need the benefits of marriage from other sexual orientations, can you? Well, not with a straight face anyway..

And we know Obergefell ultimately used the excuse of "for the kids!" when its ratification meant that the chief benefit that kids had always derived from marriage (mother and father both; it was created to remedy single parenthood) indeed was eliminated by Obergefell as a new contractual term eliminating "the benefits of marriage" for kids altogether in that contract.

These things you folks wish no one was talking about. But it's not every day children are forcibly removed from either a mother or father, for life, as a new legal mandate. So, we're going to talk about it. And hopefully Judge Moore will too.

How are the children forcibly removed from a mother or father for life in same sex marriage? Would the parents of those children magically be opposite sex if they weren't married?

Everything you said in that post was pretty much untrue.

Pretty much everything she says in every post is pretty much untrue.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Spam, answering the same poster in three separate posts trying to bleed out a page she doesn't want the world to see...

The references to internet stalking are amusing and serve as temporary relief for you I'm sure. Meanwhile...
*****
I notice in the last two posts you didn't answer my question.
"?

Silhouette- now she is complaining to herself when she hasn't answered herself.....LOL

Thanks for reminding me. The question was put to YOU. And you still have not answered it:

Should the majority be able to regulate the sexual freedoms of a consenting-adult minority Syriusly?...And if "yes" do you hate the children of those sexual orientations left out in the cold? Or do you object because "c'mon...we need to draw the line somewhere because of how those marriages might affect the children involved..."?

 

[Montrovant]

The conspicuous silence speaks louder than words. So I'll talk about that instead. The bottom line is you can't talk about how Obergefell (gay marriage) was inspired ("for the sake of the kids!") while at the same time talk about how other kids don't need the benefits of marriage from other sexual orientations, can you? Well, not with a straight face anyway..

And we know Obergefell ultimately used the excuse of "for the kids!" when its ratification meant that the chief benefit that kids had always derived from marriage (mother and father both; it was created to remedy single parenthood) indeed was eliminated by Obergefell as a new contractual term eliminating "the benefits of marriage" for kids altogether in that contract.

These things you folks wish no one was talking about. But it's not every day children are forcibly removed from either a mother or father, for life, as a new legal mandate. So, we're going to talk about it. And hopefully Judge Moore will too.

How are the children forcibly removed from a mother or father for life in same sex marriage? Would the parents of those children magically be opposite sex if they weren't married?

Would the children of polygamists magically be of only two parents if they weren't married? We don't set standards based on what's wrong for children in marriage (an institution created to remedy a motherless or fatherless child thousands of years ago until 2015).

'Gay marriage' by its physical construct and via contractual terms "Mr. & Mr." or "Mrs & Mrs." (two males or two females) forcibly removes either a mother or father in that marriage from any children involved, for life. You can play dumb until the cows come home on this point, but the courts don't have the luxury of playing dumb where the obvious is obvious and its impact directly causes a detriment to children.

I never said that polygamous parents would magically become two parents. What are you talking about?

You are the one arguing that same sex marriage removes a mother or father from a child, despite that child not having opposite sex parents even if the same sex couple are unmarried. Explain how the child of an unmarried same sex couple is different, in regards to the gender of that child's parents, than the child of a married same sex couple.

Once again, your argument is not against same sex marriage but against same sex parents. Try to figure out what you are actually arguing.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Spam, answering the same poster in three separate posts trying to bleed out a page she doesn't want the world to see...

The references to internet stalking are amusing and serve as temporary relief for you I'm sure. Meanwhile...
*****
I notice in the last two posts you didn't answer my question.
"?

Silhouette- now she is complaining to herself when she hasn't answered herself.....LOL

Thanks for reminding me. The question was put to YOU. And you still have not answered it:

Should the majority be able to regulate the sexual freedoms of a consenting-adult minority Syriusly?..]

.

That question has already been answered by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas Silhouette.

So no- you cannot outlaw homosexuality

 

[Syriusly]

The conspicuous silence speaks louder than words. So I'll talk about that instead. The bottom line is you can't talk about how Obergefell (gay marriage) was inspired ("for the sake of the kids!") while at the same time talk about how other kids don't need the benefits of marriage from other sexual orientations, can you? Well, not with a straight face anyway..

And we know Obergefell ultimately used the excuse of "for the kids!" when its ratification meant that the chief benefit that kids had always derived from marriage (mother and father both; it was created to remedy single parenthood) indeed was eliminated by Obergefell as a new contractual term eliminating "the benefits of marriage" for kids altogether in that contract.

These things you folks wish no one was talking about. But it's not every day children are forcibly removed from either a mother or father, for life, as a new legal mandate. So, we're going to talk about it. And hopefully Judge Moore will too.

How are the children forcibly removed from a mother or father for life in same sex marriage? Would the parents of those children magically be opposite sex if they weren't married?

Would the children of polygamists magically be of only two parents if they weren't married? We don't set standards based on what's wrong for children in marriage (an institution created to remedy a motherless or fatherless child thousands of years ago until 2015).

'Gay marriage' by its physical construct and via contractual terms "Mr. & Mr." or "Mrs & Mrs." (two males or two females) forcibly removes either a mother or father in that marriage from any children involved, for life. You can play dumb until the cows come home on this point, but the courts don't have the luxury of playing dumb where the obvious is obvious and its impact directly causes a detriment to children.

I never said that polygamous parents would magically become two parents. What are you talking about?

You are the one arguing that same sex marriage removes a mother or father from a child, despite that child not having opposite sex parents even if the same sex couple are unmarried. Explain how the child of an unmarried same sex couple is different, in regards to the gender of that child's parents, than the child of a married same sex couple.

Once again, your argument is not against same sex marriage but against same sex parents. Try to figure out what you are actually arguing.

Don't expect much.

Preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't help any child. She cannot provide an example of how preventing a gay couple would help any child.

And she knows that preventing their parents from marrying harms the children.

The obvious conclusion is that her entire point is to cause harm to the children of gay parents.

 

[Silhouette]

You are the one arguing that same sex marriage removes a mother or father from a child, despite that child not having opposite sex parents even if the same sex couple are unmarried.

The state of "not married" = the state of no contract. The state of "married" = the state of contract. In the first scenario, there is no contract stating a child may never know a mother father. One of the two say lesbians might be Anne Heche. But with a marriage contract, Anne Heche has presumably signed on for life and will aid and abet on stripping any children involved of a father for the duration of that contract.

 

[Montrovant]

You are the one arguing that same sex marriage removes a mother or father from a child, despite that child not having opposite sex parents even if the same sex couple are unmarried.

The state of "not married" = the state of no contract. The state of "married" = the state of contract. In the first scenario, there is no contract stating a child may never know a mother father. One of the two say lesbians might be Anne Heche. But with a marriage contract, Anne Heche has presumably signed on for life and will aid and abet on stripping any children involved of a father for the duration of that contract.

Unless such language is added in, there is nothing in a marriage contract stating a child may never know a mother or father. Perhaps Anne Heche had a child in an opposite sex relationship prior to her same sex marriage. Nothing in her marriage contract would prevent her child from having that child's father in his or her life.

Once again, you are arguing against same sex parents, not same sex marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

You are the one arguing that same sex marriage removes a mother or father from a child, despite that child not having opposite sex parents even if the same sex couple are unmarried.

The state of "not married" = the state of no contract. The state of "married" = the state of contract. In the first scenario, there is no contract stating a child may never know a mother father. One of the two say lesbians might be Anne Heche. But with a marriage contract, Anne Heche has presumably signed on for life and will aid and abet on stripping any children involved of a father for the duration of that contract.

Unless such language is added in, there is nothing in a marriage contract stating a child may never know a mother or father. Perhaps Anne Heche had a child in an opposite sex relationship prior to her same sex marriage. Nothing in her marriage contract would prevent her child from having that child's father in his or her life.

Once again, you are arguing against same sex parents, not same sex marriage.

The marriage contract exists to provide a home within which children are raised. That was it's purpose at its inception over a thousand years ago, and its purpose up until 2015. Which one of the two gay men are the mother to those children? Which one of the two lesbians are the father to those children?

Of what benefits Kennedy was referring to IN MARRIAGE allows for there to be outside parties to the marriage besides children who Kennedy implied?

I'll wait for your pals Syriusly and mdk to bleed off another page to bury my good points until you get around to answering.

 

[Montrovant]

You are the one arguing that same sex marriage removes a mother or father from a child, despite that child not having opposite sex parents even if the same sex couple are unmarried.

The state of "not married" = the state of no contract. The state of "married" = the state of contract. In the first scenario, there is no contract stating a child may never know a mother father. One of the two say lesbians might be Anne Heche. But with a marriage contract, Anne Heche has presumably signed on for life and will aid and abet on stripping any children involved of a father for the duration of that contract.

Unless such language is added in, there is nothing in a marriage contract stating a child may never know a mother or father. Perhaps Anne Heche had a child in an opposite sex relationship prior to her same sex marriage. Nothing in her marriage contract would prevent her child from having that child's father in his or her life.

Once again, you are arguing against same sex parents, not same sex marriage.

The marriage contract exists to provide a home within which children are raised. That was it's purpose at its inception over a thousand years ago, and its purpose up until 2015. Which one of the two gay men are the mother to those children? Which one of the two lesbians are the father to those children?

Of what benefits Kennedy was referring to IN MARRIAGE allows for there to be outside parties to the marriage besides children who Kennedy implied?

I'll wait for your pals Syriusly and mdk to bleed off another page to bury my good points until you get around to answering.

I've been answering far more promptly than you deserve, and unlike you, I haven't just ignored your answers to my questions when they don't suit me.

There are many benefits to marriage, legal and social. Kennedy mentions both the stigma of unmarried parents and the material costs of unmarried parents.

What Kennedy does not do is claim that marriage is based on raising children, nor that having a mother and father is the main benefit of marriage.

It's funny that you say marriage's purpose was to provide a home for raising children up until 2015. Not only is marriage different depending on where and when you are talking about (and considering you talk about marriage's purpose over a thousand years ago, you clearly aren't just talking about the US), there is some evidence of same sex marriages in the distance past.

If we keep this discussion about US law, same sex marriage was legal in multiple states before 2015. You can't even keep recent history in this country straight.

There is no requirement to have children, to plan to have children, or to be capable of having children to marry in the US. Obergefell did not make any change to this. Yet you continue to claim marriage is about children, despite the history of marriages without any plans or ability to have children. You've even moved the goal posts and claimed that an elderly couple marrying gives the 'hope' of that couple becoming grandparents, which is an odd position to take if that couple doesn't have children.

No one but you is making any claims about gay men being mothers or gay women being fathers.

 

[Silhouette]

It's funny that you say marriage's purpose was to provide a home for raising children up until 2015. Not only is marriage different depending on where and when you are talking about (and considering you talk about marriage's purpose over a thousand years ago, you clearly aren't just talking about the US), there is some evidence of same sex marriages in the distance past.

So your legal argument is going to be "marriage wasn't conceived of in its origins as a means of providing both a mother and father for children". Knock yourself out bro. It's just slightly unfortunate for your stance that probably 99.9999999999999% of the world's populations (multiple BILLIONS of people) agree with me and reams of historical facts do too, and not with you. But hey, you know, enjoy the challenge.

Heck even flaming gay fashion designers Dolce & Gabbana agree with me on the down low, before your cult you know, did fiscal terrorism on them to get them to "officially recant"..

 

[Montrovant]

It's funny that you say marriage's purpose was to provide a home for raising children up until 2015. Not only is marriage different depending on where and when you are talking about (and considering you talk about marriage's purpose over a thousand years ago, you clearly aren't just talking about the US), there is some evidence of same sex marriages in the distance past.

So your legal argument is going to be "marriage wasn't conceived of in its origins as a means of providing both a mother and father for children". Knock yourself out bro. It's just slightly unfortunate for your stance that probably 99.9999999999999% of the world's populations (multiple BILLIONS of people) agree with me and reams of historical facts do too, and not with you. But hey, you know, enjoy the challenge.

Heck even flaming gay fashion designers Dolce & Gabbana agree with me on the down low, before your cult you know, did fiscal terrorism on them to get them to "officially recant"..

Actually, were I to make a legal argument (unlike you, I have no need to, as I'm not trying to get any laws changed), I would probably just use the actual court rulings from US courts regarding same sex marriage and marriage in general. Multiple state and federal courts have ruled that denying same sex marriage violates constitutional protection, as has the USSC. Courts allow infertile couples to marry. Marriage contracts contain no requirements to have children, nor to attempt to have children, nor to adopt children. Marriages are not dissolved if the couple do not have children. The laws and precedents of this country disagree with your arguments about marriage. Nor are the courts required to concern themselves with what marriage was conceived of in its origins. If they did, we would probably have polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, and arranged marriages in which the couple have no say in who they marry. If you want to look at the origins of marriage, that is.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, were I to make a legal argument (unlike you, I have no need to, as I'm not trying to get any laws changed), I would probably just use the actual court rulings from US courts regarding same sex marriage and marriage in general. Multiple state and federal courts have ruled that denying same sex marriage violates constitutional protection, as has the USSC. Courts allow infertile couples to marry. Marriage contracts contain no requirements to have children, nor to attempt to have children, nor to adopt children. Marriages are not dissolved if the couple do not have children. The laws and precedents of this country disagree with your arguments about marriage. Nor are the courts required to concern themselves with what marriage was conceived of in its origins. If they did, we would probably have polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, and arranged marriages in which the couple have no say in who they marry. If you want to look at the origins of marriage, that is.

Yes, but courts have yet to rule on any challenge to those rulings on behalf of children and what same sex marriage does to them in its contractual terms. Not so far that I know of has any lawsuit or challenge otherwise been filed stating that gay marriage legally truncates children from either a mother or father for life by its contract. The Infancy Doctrine is real and many deep legal arguments have delved there for good reason. Creating a depriving void in a child's life as a matter of contract is no laughing or trivial matter.

I suppose it never occurred to many of the judges involved in the gay marriage junket that the Infancy Doctrine applies to EVERY contract. I think many judges got swept up in the idea of marriage as a lofty nebulous concept instead of also remembering that it is a contract with solid terms. When Kennedy declared that children are implicit and now expressed parties to the marriage contract, he unwittingly opened up new debates as to old decisions that were vulnerable because they didn't take children's unique interests and benefits of marriage into account on a case by case basis. If suits are filed (or a defense mounted by Judge Moore) challenging these previous findings on the basis of creating a psychological void for children involved; "gay marriage" victories may get a second look all up and down the legal ladder.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, were I to make a legal argument (unlike you, I have no need to, as I'm not trying to get any laws changed), I would probably just use the actual court rulings from US courts regarding same sex marriage and marriage in general. Multiple state and federal courts have ruled that denying same sex marriage violates constitutional protection, as has the USSC. Courts allow infertile couples to marry. Marriage contracts contain no requirements to have children, nor to attempt to have children, nor to adopt children. Marriages are not dissolved if the couple do not have children. The laws and precedents of this country disagree with your arguments about marriage. Nor are the courts required to concern themselves with what marriage was conceived of in its origins. If they did, we would probably have polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, and arranged marriages in which the couple have no say in who they marry. If you want to look at the origins of marriage, that is.

Yes, but courts have yet to rule on any challenge to those rulings on behalf of children and what same sex marriage does to them in its contractual terms. Not so far that I know of has any lawsuit or challenge otherwise been filed stating that gay marriage legally truncates children from either a mother or father for life by its contract. The Infancy Doctrine is real and many deep legal arguments have delved there for good reason. Creating a depriving void in a child's life as a matter of contract is no laughing or trivial matter.

I suppose it never occurred to many of the judges involved in the gay marriage junket that the Infancy Doctrine applies to EVERY contract. I think many judges got swept up in the idea of marriage as a lofty nebulous concept instead of also remembering that it is a contract with solid terms. When Kennedy declared that children are implicit and now expressed parties to the marriage contract, he unwittingly opened up new debates as to old decisions that were vulnerable because they didn't take children's unique interests and benefits of marriage into account on a case by case basis. If suits are filed (or a defense mounted by Judge Moore) challenging these previous findings on the basis of creating a psychological void for children involved; "gay marriage" victories may get a second look all up and down the legal ladder.

It probably never occurred to the judges that the infancy doctrine applies to every contract because it does not. The infancy doctrine is about contracts entered into by minors. It has nothing to do with contracts between adults. I showed you this in a link about the infancy doctrine that you provided.

Kennedy did not declare children are implicit and expressed parties to the marriage contract, no matter how many times you say it. You also continue to not understand what the word expressed means in this context : Kennedy did not say, "Children are party to the marriage contract".

Courts have not ruled on any challenge to their rulings on behalf of pets and what marriage does to them in contractual terms, either. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that any more than your fantasies and misunderstandings about the infancy doctrine and same sex marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

It probably never occurred to the judges that the infancy doctrine applies to every contract because it does not. The infancy doctrine is about contracts entered into by minors. It has nothing to do with contracts between adults. I showed you this in a link about the infancy doctrine that you provided.

Kennedy did not declare children are implicit and expressed parties to the marriage contract, no matter how many times you say it.

Yes Kennedy did say that. And you know that language exists in the Obergefell Opinion. Also, don't be so sure about your 'hard and fast' interpretation of the Infancy Doctrine. The doctrine was created so that children could not step foolishly into things that are to their peril; AND so that adults could also not create legal conditions that are to children's peril. New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) will bolster this fact in argument because it says that even when adults enjoy freedom of association (entering into a contract together), that Constitutional freedom ends if that association or what ever else "right" bestowed upon adult citizens of the US impinges upon the physical or emotional well being of any child.

Yes, that's what it says.

 

[Montrovant]

It probably never occurred to the judges that the infancy doctrine applies to every contract because it does not. The infancy doctrine is about contracts entered into by minors. It has nothing to do with contracts between adults. I showed you this in a link about the infancy doctrine that you provided.

Kennedy did not declare children are implicit and expressed parties to the marriage contract, no matter how many times you say it.

Yes Kennedy did say that. And you know that language exists in the Obergefell Opinion. Also, don't be so sure about your 'hard and fast' interpretation of the Infancy Doctrine. The doctrine was created so that children could not step foolishly into things that are to their peril; AND so that adults could also not create legal conditions that are to children's peril. New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) will bolster this fact in argument because it says that even when adults enjoy freedom of association (entering into a contract together), that Constitutional freedom ends if that association or what ever else "right" bestowed upon adult citizens of the US impinges upon the physical or emotional well being of any child.

Yes, that's what it says.

Again, however often you may repeat it, Kennedy did not say that children are in any way party to the marriage contract. You have been given various examples of someone benefiting from a contract without being party to it. You ignore those examples because they refute your imagined legal argument.

You clearly don't understand the infancy doctrine so I'm certainly not going to accept your new interpretation of it.

You also clearly make up whatever BS you feel like about court rulings saying things that bolster your anti-same sex marriage (which is really anti-gay in general) rants. Your imagination has no impact on US law. Your history of utter failure when it comes to predicting legal outcomes and the results of the courts ruling on same sex marriage are clear proof of that. Will you ever accept it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, but courts have yet to rule on any challenge to those rulings on behalf of children and what same sex marriage does to them in its contractual terms.

Actually they did, it was the SCOTUS in Obergefel. You take one small part out of context, then twist it, and try to present it hoping others have one eye closed and won't actually look at what was said in the decision.

What Obergefel 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]

Windsor also said 56 times that states are who determines the privilege of marriage. Are you aware that other sexual orientations still can't marry at the discretion of the various states?

Mull that one over for a bit...