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

[mdk]

how long until the idiots in alabama put moore back on the bench after he loses this go around?

Moore is more interested in climbing into the governor's chair. If history is any judge he won't even make it out of the GOP primary.

 

[Silhouette]

how long until the idiots in alabama put moore back on the bench after he loses this go around?

I guess the citizens of Alabama can do as they please. Unless you want all things in the separate states to be controlled under threat by 5 people in DC?...even when harm to children is the result...

they sure can. if they want to keep showing the rest of the country just how dymb and backwards they are theyll keep on placing the disgraced asshole on the bench.

Yeah, what a disgrace! A Chief Justice of a state wanting to stand up to an illegal USSC Ruling that hurts children of Alabama. Disgusting pig!

 

[Montrovant]

The "Infancy doctrine" allows children to disavow contracts they entered as minors, if they choose. That's all it does.

It has no application to this case.

I've tried to explain this to Sil before. She doesn't listen since it doesn't support her anti-gay agenda.

 

[Silhouette]

The "Infancy doctrine" allows children to disavow contracts they entered as minors, if they choose. That's all it does.

It has no application to this case.

I've tried to explain this to Sil before. She doesn't listen since it doesn't support her anti-gay agenda.

So, you wrote the Infants Doctrine? Or did you write the Santa Clara Law Review of it? Because the 35 page intricate review of the Infants Doctrine, with it's last two paragraphs tend to agree with me, not you. Link, post #4....

 

[bodecea]

The "Infancy doctrine" allows children to disavow contracts they entered as minors, if they choose. That's all it does.

It has no application to this case.

I've tried to explain this to Sil before. She doesn't listen since it doesn't support her anti-gay agenda.

So, you wrote the Infants Doctrine? Or did you write the Santa Clara Law Review of it? Because the 35 page intricate review of the Infants Doctrine, with it's last two paragraphs tend to agree with me, not you. Link, post #4....

There is no "Infants Doctrine"....there is an "Infancy Doctrine".....words have meaning.

 

[Montrovant]

The "Infancy doctrine" allows children to disavow contracts they entered as minors, if they choose. That's all it does.

It has no application to this case.

I've tried to explain this to Sil before. She doesn't listen since it doesn't support her anti-gay agenda.

So, you wrote the Infants Doctrine? Or did you write the Santa Clara Law Review of it? Because the 35 page intricate review of the Infants Doctrine, with it's last two paragraphs tend to agree with me, not you. Link, post #4....

With your track record of incorrectly interpreting laws, legal documents, court rulings, and all things related to the US legal system, you might want to rethink your confidence about this.

 

[mdk]

The "Infancy doctrine" allows children to disavow contracts they entered as minors, if they choose. That's all it does.

It has no application to this case.

I've tried to explain this to Sil before. She doesn't listen since it doesn't support her anti-gay agenda.

So, you wrote the Infants Doctrine? Or did you write the Santa Clara Law Review of it? Because the 35 page intricate review of the Infants Doctrine, with it's last two paragraphs tend to agree with me, not you. Link, post #4....

Yes, it clearly agrees with you which is why gay marriage is presently void and the US Constitution is subservient to the Infancy Doctrine.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The "Infancy doctrine" allows children to disavow contracts they entered as minors, if they choose. That's all it does.

It has no application to this case.

I've tried to explain this to Sil before. She doesn't listen since it doesn't support her anti-gay agenda.

So, you wrote the Infants Doctrine? Or did you write the Santa Clara Law Review of it? Because the 35 page intricate review of the Infants Doctrine, with it's last two paragraphs tend to agree with me, not you. Link, post #4....

The "infancy doctrine" isn't written. It's not a law. It's a basic legal principle that has no application outside of it's basic idea that children cannot be forced to abide by contracts made by them as minors.

It does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

 

[Silhouette]

The "infancy doctrine" isn't written. It's not a law. It's a basic legal principle that has no application outside of it's basic idea that children cannot be forced to abide by contracts made by them as minors.

It does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

1. The 35 page treatise from the Law Review linked in post #4 cites hundreds of case law supporting the Infants Doctrine. Our country didn't create the Magna Charta either, but we sure lean on it a lot in law. The history of the Infants Doctrine is in that link. Even you admit it addresses infants and contract law. And, no contract may exist to a child's detriment. That is indisputable.

2. Gay marriage involves an expressed contract. Children are anticipated as implicit parties to any marriage contract; and, this fact is used even by the LGBT cult to deprive polyamorists (aka polygamists) from access to a marriage contract.

3. The gay marriage contract binds a child away from even the hope of a mother or father for life; and that violates the bedrock of the Infants Doctrine.

 

[Skylar]

The "infancy doctrine" isn't written. It's not a law. It's a basic legal principle that has no application outside of it's basic idea that children cannot be forced to abide by contracts made by them as minors.

It does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

1. The 35 page treatise from the Law Review linked in post #4 cites hundreds of case law supporting the Infants Doctrine.

And not one of them applies to marriage. Nor does a single piece of caselaw recognize that children are married to their parents. Or that children are parties to the marriage of their parents.

Or *any* of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

Our country didn't create the Magna Charta either, but we sure lean on it a lot in law. The history of the Infants Doctrine is in that link. Even you admit it addresses infants and contract law. And, no contract may exist to a child's detriment. That is indisputable.

No child is party to the marriage of their parents. Making your 'contract' gibberish just more incoherent nonsense.

See, Sil.....no court recognizes your imagination as the law. And the only one saying that children are parties to the marriage of their parents.....is you. Citing your imagination.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

2. Gay marriage involves an expressed contract. Children are anticipated as implicit parties to any marriage contract; and, this fact is used even by the LGBT cult to deprive polyamorists (aka polygamists) from access to a marriage contract.

Marriage is not, nor can be predicted on the capacity or intent of procreation. Says who? Says the Supreme Court:

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.

You argue the exact opposite. The Supreme Court wins.

And, of course, children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Rendering your pseudo-legal gibberish gloriously irrelevant yet again.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

3. The gay marriage contract binds a child away from even the hope of a mother or father for life; and that violates the bedrock of the Infants Doctrine.

Nope. As the Infancy Doctrine is simply a legal rip cord, allowing a minor in a contract that is detrimental to them to exit the contract.

That's it.

Nor has the Infancy Doctrine ever been applied to marriage.

Nor does the law in any state recognize that children are married to their parents. Or that children are parties to the marriage of their parents. You made all that up, citing your imagination.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

 

[Skylar]

The "Infancy doctrine" allows children to disavow contracts they entered as minors, if they choose. That's all it does.

It has no application to this case.

I've tried to explain this to Sil before. She doesn't listen since it doesn't support her anti-gay agenda.

So, you wrote the Infants Doctrine? Or did you write the Santa Clara Law Review of it? Because the 35 page intricate review of the Infants Doctrine, with it's last two paragraphs tend to agree with me, not you. Link, post #4....

The "infancy doctrine" isn't written. It's not a law. It's a basic legal principle that has no application outside of it's basic idea that children cannot be forced to abide by contracts made by them as minors.

It does not apply to gay marriage in any way.

All the Infancy Doctrine does is allow minors a legal ripcord to exit contracts that are to their detriment. Its contract law regarding child actors or minors trying to purchase a home through the use of the mortgage.

It has nothing to do with marriage, nor does any State nor court ruling ever apply it to marriage.

Ever.

Even hypothetically, all the Infancy Doctrine does is allow a child to leave a contract that is detrimental to them. So what......a child 'leaves' a marriage they aren't even a party to?

Even conceptually, Sil's argument is a meaningless pile of stale pseudo-legal gibberish backed by nothing.

 

[Syriusly]

There exists a legal bedrock document called "The Infants Doctrine".

Please post a link to said document of what I believe is actually referred to as "the infancy doctrine". While such a doctrine does indeed exist for purposes of contract and ownership, I have with a number of inquiries been unable to find any such free standing document.

OK, someone has printed at least parts of it online here; http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=lawreview

LOL

So where is the mention of 'infancy doctrine' in ANY divorce settlement?

 

[Montrovant]

1. From the Law Review you linked, section I A. The Rule : "The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor."

In other words, if a minor signs a contract, the Infancy Doctrine allows them to void that contract. It does not mean that a contract signed by two adults is voided by the children of those signatories. The children of a married couple have not entered into that marriage contract.

2. You have been shown, over and over, that children are in no way a requirement to marriage. There is no assumption that any married couple will have children except in your own mind. I'm curious as to when any LGBT group has used such an assumption to prevent polygamists from marrying.

3. Gay marriage does nothing of the sort. That is, again, something you've made up in what passes for your mind.

 

[Skylar]

There exists a legal bedrock document called "The Infants Doctrine".

Please post a link to said document of what I believe is actually referred to as "the infancy doctrine". While such a doctrine does indeed exist for purposes of contract and ownership, I have with a number of inquiries been unable to find any such free standing document.

OK, someone has printed at least parts of it online here; http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=lawreview

LOL

So where is the mention of 'infancy doctrine' in ANY divorce settlement?

Why in the '35 page treatise' about the Infancy Doctrine is there not a single mention of marriage in any capacity?

Same answer as to your question: Because Sil made all that shit up and doesn't have the slightest clue what she's talking about.

 

[Skylar]

1. From the Law Review you linked, section I A. The Rule : "The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor."

Exactly. That's it. The Infancy Doctrine allows a child to exit a contract that is disadvantageous to them. So lets apply Sil's conception of the Infancy Doctrine, even conceptually. A couple is married. They have a child. The child isn't party to their marriage.

Um.....then what? The child will 'leave' their parents marriage....despite never being a party to it?

Even conceptually, Sil has no idea. And the law certainly has no use it, never once applying the Infancy Doctrine to marriage, nor recognizing any child as a party to their parents marriage.

From top to bottom, its all Sil's glorious, meaningless, pseudo-legal clap trap, where Sil insists the courts are bound to her imagination.

Which, of course, they aren't.

 

[Silhouette]

1. From the Law Review you linked, section I A. The Rule : "The doctrine, although subject to many exceptions, allows minors to disaffirm or "void" a contract that they entered as a minor."

In other words, if a minor signs a contract, the Infancy Doctrine allows them to void that contract. It does not mean that a contract signed by two adults is voided by the children of those signatories. The children of a married couple have not entered into that marriage contract.

.

Dude there are 35 pages of quotes from that link in post #4. You cherry picked one sentence to represent the comprehensive whole of that document? You're hilarious. Yes, that's true about children actually signing a contract with adults. But there are IMPLIED contracts as well, not just expressed ones. And unless you or one of your buddies here is going to lie and say that implied contracts aren't equally weighty or enforceable as expressed ones, you have to admit that implied = contract.

I'll rebut the remainder of your point thusly: Children are absolutely anticipated when the word "marriage" is spoken. You would have thousands of years of precedent against you to assert the opposite. In fact, your cult often brings up the intrinsic bind of children to the word "marriage" and even pushed Kennedy to "do it for the children"...when not all gays had children or even wanted them...who sought to be married. Following the link in the OP here to the Browns case for polygamy, just count the number of posts from mdk, Skylar, Syriusly and other LGBT apologists here at USMB that say "polygamy can't happen because of the children". You can't walk both sides of the fence like that. I'm drawing a line in the sand.

So since WE ALL AGREE THAT MARRIAGE ANTICIPATES CHILDREN AND IMPLICITLY INVOLVES THEM, we have to look at how a marriage contract that strips them of the hope of either a mother or father for life, fits into the broad spirit of the Infants Doctrine. That being said, I will leave you with another quote from the OP:

.

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed. Of course, this takes a court order to achieve but it is an important deterrent to commercial hustlers who would not hesitate to extract money from a child. Contracts With Children

 

[mdk]

Following the link in the OP here to the Browns case for polygamy, just count the number of posts from mdk, Skylar, Syriusly and other LGBT apologists here at USMB that say "polygamy can't happen because of the children". You can't walk both sides of the fence like that. I'm drawing a line in the sand.

You're such a stinking liar. I've stated on many occasions that I think polygamous marriage should be legal so long as the parties involved legally consent to the marriage. This why you don't have any credibility b/c you lie as effortlessly as I breathe.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So since WE ALL AGREE THAT MARRIAGE ANTICIPATES CHILDREN AND IMPLICITLY INVOLVES THEM

Ummmm ... who is this mysterious "we"?

My brother's been married 20+ years, and children were never anticipated.

 

[mdk]

So since WE ALL AGREE THAT MARRIAGE ANTICIPATES CHILDREN AND IMPLICITLY INVOLVES THEM, we have to look at how a marriage contract that strips them of the hope of either a mother or father for life, fits into the broad spirit of the Infants Doctrine. That being said, I will leave you with anothe

And by 'we all agree' you mean the numerous voices in head.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ No, I mean you and me, "we" agree children are anticipated parties to marriage.