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

[Silhouette]

I was discussing what you stated as a fact that was nothing of the sort.

Stripping the child of a same sex couple of a mother or father for life is not part of the marriage contract...

FACT: the gay marriage contract in its essence undeniably creates the condition of a motherless or fatherless "marriage" for children involved...pay attention here..100% of the time...FOR LIFE.

Again, not for life. Divorce, death, or a relationship with the biological father/mother are all possibilities. It's certainly also possible that such a child would not have a father or mother in their life, but you continue to state things as fact which are not. You know, like saying children are parties to the marriage contract?

Dude, the contract says "for as long as ye both shall live". Don't play dumb. How deceitful can you be? Are you assuming "most people don't know marriage vows are for life so maybe I can pull this one off!" Jesus H. Christ. Give it up. You lost this round.

Gay marriage is a LIFELONG CONTRACT that BIFURCATES ALL CHILDREN INVOLVED from either a mother or father FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR LIFE in its legal terms.

 

[mdk]

I was discussing what you stated as a fact that was nothing of the sort.

Stripping the child of a same sex couple of a mother or father for life is not part of the marriage contract...

FACT: the gay marriage contract in its essence undeniably creates the condition of a motherless or fatherless "marriage" for children involved...pay attention here..100% of the time...FOR LIFE.

Again, not for life. Divorce, death, or a relationship with the biological father/mother are all possibilities. It's certainly also possible that such a child would not have a father or mother in their life, but you continue to state things as fact which are not. You know, like saying children are parties to the marriage contract?

Dude, the contract says "for as long as ye both shall live". Don't play dumb. How deceitful can you be? Are you assuming "most people don't know marriage vows are for life so maybe I can pull this one off!" Jesus H. Christ. Give it up. You lost this round.

Gay marriage is a LIFELONG CONTRACT that BIFURCATES ALL CHILDREN INVOLVED from either a mother or father FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR LIFE in its legal terms.

Caps lock in no way makes your point any more true or valid.

How does prohibiting gay marriage give the children of a gay couple a mother and father again? It doesn't. Since your solution in no way addresses your problem, what is your true end game here then?

 

[Montrovant]

I was discussing what you stated as a fact that was nothing of the sort.

Stripping the child of a same sex couple of a mother or father for life is not part of the marriage contract...

FACT: the gay marriage contract in its essence undeniably creates the condition of a motherless or fatherless "marriage" for children involved...pay attention here..100% of the time...FOR LIFE.

Again, not for life. Divorce, death, or a relationship with the biological father/mother are all possibilities. It's certainly also possible that such a child would not have a father or mother in their life, but you continue to state things as fact which are not. You know, like saying children are parties to the marriage contract?

Dude, the contract says "for as long as ye both shall live". Don't play dumb. How deceitful can you be? Are you assuming "most people don't know marriage vows are for life so maybe I can pull this one off!" Jesus H. Christ. Give it up. You lost this round.

Gay marriage is a LIFELONG CONTRACT that BIFURCATES ALL CHILDREN INVOLVED from either a mother or father FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR LIFE in its legal terms.

*sigh*

Marriage is not a lifelong contract which cannot be dissolved, as the rate of divorce in this country clearly shows. Marriage is not a contract for the life of the children of a married couple, either. So a same sex marriage is not necessarily lifelong because divorce is possible and because death is possible. More, there is nothing in a basic marriage contract which prevents a same sex couple from allowing their child to have contact with whichever biological parent is not part of the marriage. Is there some sort of contractual obligation in marriage to not allow the child of a same sex couple to have contact with its biological parents that I'm unaware of?

In other words, what you have been repeating as fact is, at best, a likelihood. It most certainly is not a fact.

 

[Montrovant]

I was discussing what you stated as a fact that was nothing of the sort.

Stripping the child of a same sex couple of a mother or father for life is not part of the marriage contract...

FACT: the gay marriage contract in its essence undeniably creates the condition of a motherless or fatherless "marriage" for children involved...pay attention here..100% of the time...FOR LIFE.

Again, not for life. Divorce, death, or a relationship with the biological father/mother are all possibilities. It's certainly also possible that such a child would not have a father or mother in their life, but you continue to state things as fact which are not. You know, like saying children are parties to the marriage contract?

Dude, the contract says "for as long as ye both shall live". Don't play dumb. How deceitful can you be? Are you assuming "most people don't know marriage vows are for life so maybe I can pull this one off!" Jesus H. Christ. Give it up. You lost this round.

Gay marriage is a LIFELONG CONTRACT that BIFURCATES ALL CHILDREN INVOLVED from either a mother or father FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR LIFE in its legal terms.

Let me put this another way. A marriage contract is, at most, for the duration of the lives of the parties involved. Marriage does not continue after the death of one of the married parties simply because their children are still alive. At some point, one of a child's married parents is likely to die. Their now widowed parent can marry again, and perhaps they might marry an opposite sex partner this time, providing that opposite sex parent to the child you harp on about!

You are discussing marriage as though the contract continues until the death of the couple's children. One more time : a married couple's children are not parties to the marriage contract.

 

[Silhouette]

Let me put this another way. A marriage contract is, at most, for the duration of the lives of the parties involved. Marriage does not continue after the death of one of the married parties simply because their children are still alive. At some point, one of a child's married parents is likely to die. Their now widowed parent can marry again, and perhaps they might marry an opposite sex partner this time, providing that opposite sex parent to the child you harp on about!

You are discussing marriage as though the contract continues until the death of the couple's children. One more time : a married couple's children are not parties to the marriage contract.

If a contract has terms that bifurcates a child from a mother or father for one year even, it is an illegal contract. The need of a child for both mother and father is such that a contract barring them from that even for a year is punitive to a child. And the Doctrine of Infants says no contract may be punitive to children for even one minute.... ...So.....next?

 

[mdk]

Let me put this another way. A marriage contract is, at most, for the duration of the lives of the parties involved. Marriage does not continue after the death of one of the married parties simply because their children are still alive. At some point, one of a child's married parents is likely to die. Their now widowed parent can marry again, and perhaps they might marry an opposite sex partner this time, providing that opposite sex parent to the child you harp on about!

You are discussing marriage as though the contract continues until the death of the couple's children. One more time : a married couple's children are not parties to the marriage contract.

If a contract has terms that bifurcates a child from a mother or father for one year even, it is an illegal contract. The need of a child for both mother and father is such that a contract barring them from that even for a year is punitive to a child. And the Doctrine of Infants says no contract may be punitive to children for even one minute.... ...So.....next?

I guess that means parents giving up their children for adoption and those that divorce are committing illegal acts. Or you could be talking completly out of your ass. My guess is the latter.

The Infancy Doctrine doesn't effect contracts between two adults. So...next?

 

[Silhouette]

I guess that means parents giving up their children for adoption and those that divorce are committing illegal acts. Or you could be talking completly out of your ass. My guess is the latter.

The Infancy Doctrine doesn't effect contracts between two adults. So...next?

A divorce is a dissolution of a contract. Since the courts have always considered kids part of the marriage contract and it for their benefit, when a marriage goes sour such that there is a hostile environment in which kids are suffering, the courts reluctantly (not with jubilee ever) grant divorce. And as they do this, they consider the children separately as to their best interest and continued contact with both their mother and father.

And as the courts do this, they interfere with free speech of the two parents (reflecting the viability of New York vs Ferber, suspending the parents' constitutional right to say as they please.) Courts where bitter divorces have two ex spouses berating each other will order them not to do this in the presence of the children. It can even affect the amount of custody each parent is granted if they ignore this suspension of their 1st Amendment rights.

Giving a child up for adoption out of a marriage is indeed quite rare. Exceedingly rare. But if it is the child's best interest? BOTH parents in the marriage would have to agree to adopting out that child. Indeed I've never heard of such a case before. It might even be considered child abuse or abandonment. Having said that, you will no doubt search the internet for an example of that happening (probably surrogacy cases) and then offer that up as "the evidence that this is normal and should be taken into account when setting parameters for what children are entitled to out of the marriage contract". Am I right?

 

[Montrovant]

Let me put this another way. A marriage contract is, at most, for the duration of the lives of the parties involved. Marriage does not continue after the death of one of the married parties simply because their children are still alive. At some point, one of a child's married parents is likely to die. Their now widowed parent can marry again, and perhaps they might marry an opposite sex partner this time, providing that opposite sex parent to the child you harp on about!

You are discussing marriage as though the contract continues until the death of the couple's children. One more time : a married couple's children are not parties to the marriage contract.

If a contract has terms that bifurcates a child from a mother or father for one year even, it is an illegal contract. The need of a child for both mother and father is such that a contract barring them from that even for a year is punitive to a child. And the Doctrine of Infants says no contract may be punitive to children for even one minute.... ...So.....next?

The infancy doctrine is about contracts to which minors are signatories.

Even ignoring that, unless a marriage contract specifies that a child is not allowed contact with their biological mother or father, the marriage contract does not legally prevent any child from having a mother or father.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ No, the Infancy Doctrine is about ANY contract that is valid. Implied contracts and expressed (signed/written) contracts have the same legal force and effect. And as it so happens, Justice Kennedy in Obergefell just put in writing that children are "signed on" (implied & expressed parties) to the marriage benefits/contract. So, ....next?....

I wanted to say one more thing about the divorce thing and the suspension of parents' 1st Amendment rights to say as they please about berating the ex-spouse father or mother:. Gay marriage is in itself an embodiment of the berating of the missing gender. It says via its very physical structure "the missing gender in this house is not relevant in a functioning adult world." It is a living put-down of the missing gender. This can be especially damaging to the self-esteem of a child in that house who happens to be of the missing gender...

..s/he might even feel like "being born in the wrong body"...so deep that damage might go...

Case in point: Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl

 

[mdk]

A divorce is a dissolution of a contract. Since the courts have always considered kids part of the marriage contract and it for their benefit, when a marriage goes sour such that there is a hostile environment in which kids are suffering, the courts reluctantly (not with jubilee ever) grant divorce. And as they do this, they consider the children separately as to their best interest and continued contact with both their mother and father.

No, the courts have not always considered children a party to a marriage contract of their parents. Not one states recognize this legal doctrine you pulled out of your ass. Also, the courts also do not reluctantly grant divorce, they'll grant one to any marriage so long as the check clears.

Giving a child up for adoption out of a marriage is indeed quite rare. Exceedingly rare. But if it is the child's best interest? BOTH parents in the marriage would have to agree to adopting out that child. Indeed I've never heard of such a case before. It might even be considered child abuse or abandonment. Having said that, you will no doubt search the internet for an example of that happening (probably surrogacy cases) and then offer that up as "the evidence that this is normal and should be taken into account when setting parameters for what children are entitled to out of the marriage contract". Am I right?

It doesn't matter if they are married or not. People that give up their children for adoption are depriving them of a mother or father or both; therefore, this is an illegal act and void on it's face according to your own standards. Sorry.

The crux in all your legal wind pissing is that nobody is bound by these standards you invent. Not the courts, not the law, not gay people, not anyone. The sooner you realize that fact the sooner you can begin to heal your mental illness.

 

[mdk]

^^ No, the Infancy Doctrine is about ANY contract that is valid. Implied contracts and expressed (signed/written) contracts have the same legal force and effect. And as it so happens, Justice Kennedy in Obergefell just put in writing that children are "signed on" (implied & expressed parties) to the marriage benefits/contract. So, ....next?....

I wanted to say one more thing about the divorce thing and the suspension of parents' 1st Amendment rights to say as they please about berating the ex-spouse father or mother:. Gay marriage is in itself an embodiment of the berating of the missing gender. It says via its very physical structure "the missing gender in this house is not relevant in a functioning adult world." It is a living put-down of the missing gender. This can be especially damaging to the self-esteem of a child in that house who happens to be of the missing gender...

Show one me instance of the Infancy Doctrine being used to invalidate a contract between other adults in this nation. You can't because your obviously full of shit.

Are you putting-down the missing gender by being unable to provide a husband in your household? To me, it says that the missing gender in your house is not relevant in a functioning adult word. lol

 

[Montrovant]

^^ No, the Infancy Doctrine is about ANY contract that is valid. Implied contracts and expressed (signed/written) contracts have the same legal force and effect. And as it so happens, Justice Kennedy in Obergefell just put in writing that children are "signed on" (implied & expressed parties) to the marriage benefits/contract. So, ....next?....

I wanted to say one more thing about the divorce thing and the suspension of parents' 1st Amendment rights to say as they please about berating the ex-spouse father or mother:. Gay marriage is in itself an embodiment of the berating of the missing gender. It says via its very physical structure "the missing gender in this house is not relevant in a functioning adult world." It is a living put-down of the missing gender. This can be especially damaging to the self-esteem of a child in that house who happens to be of the missing gender...

..s/he might even feel like "being born in the wrong body"...so deep that damage might go...

Case in point: Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl

Kennedy did no such thing. That is your imagination.

Your pseudo-psychological ramblings are not legally binding any more than your ridiculous interpretations of court rulings.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Kennedy in fact did say that children were the reason he was modifying the marriage contract. In his limited reasoning, he wanted to be sure all children enjoyed "a (any type of) marriage contract" no matter how detrimental its new terms were to them.

^^ No, the Infancy Doctrine is about ANY contract that is valid. Implied contracts and expressed (signed/written) contracts have the same legal force and effect. And as it so happens, Justice Kennedy in Obergefell just put in writing that children are "signed on" (implied & expressed parties) to the marriage benefits/contract. So, ....next?....I wanted to say one more thing about the divorce thing and the suspension of parents' 1st Amendment rights to say as they please about berating the ex-spouse father or mother:. Gay marriage is in itself an embodiment of the berating of the missing gender. It says via its very physical structure "the missing gender in this house is not relevant in a functioning adult world." It is a living put-down of the missing gender. This can be especially damaging to the self-esteem of a child in that house who happens to be of the missing gender...

Are you putting-down the missing gender by being unable to provide a husband in your household? To me, it says that the missing gender in your house is not relevant in a functioning adult word. lol

If you are trolling using internet stalking and discussion of people's personal lives to use the example of single parents, remember, we are not talking about a contractual bind in that case.

Remember, the point of there being a contract creating those conditions is what violates the Infancy Doctrine. No single parent I know of has a contract expressed or implied "you will be without the missing gendered parent for the rest of your life" to the detriment of their kids.

 

[mdk]

If you are trolling using internet stalking and discussion of people's personal lives to use the example of single parents, remember, we are not talking about a contractual bind in that case.

Your inability to provide a father is telling children that the missing gender is not relevant in your household. I get that applying your own standards to you makes you upset, but tough shit.

Remember, the point of there being a contract creating those conditions is what violates the Infancy Doctrine. No single parent I know of has a contract expressed or implied "you will be without the missing gendered parent for the rest of your life" to the detriment of their kids

Tell me, how does stopping gays from marrying provide the missing gendered parent in their household? It doesn't. Your solution in no way addresses your problem. Again, what's your true end game here?

 

[mdk]

It seems odd that Sil has been unable to show a single case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between adults in this nation. It should be remarkably easy if it's such a well established legal fact.

 

[Montrovant]

It seems odd that Sil has been unable to show a single case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between adults in this nation. It should be remarkably easy if it's such a well established legal fact.

So you'd think.....

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
2. He said "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?" s.

Why don't you think those children are important in that case Silhouette?

Why don't you think that preventing harm to the children of gay couples is important?

More importantly- why do you advocate policies you know would harm those children?

There is no harm to children of gays .

Justice Kennedy clearly disagrees with you.

Why do you cite Justice Kennedy when you disagree with him?

As Justice Kennedy noted

There is an immediate legal injury and that’s the voice of these children,” he said. “There’s some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

Now you oppose those children having legally married parents- which Justice Kennedy says harms those children- so according to Justice Kennedy- you are advocating a position you know will harm children.

Meanwhile- not a single child benefits from preventing their gay parents from marrying.

Not one.

So why do you want to harm the children of gay couples?

 

[Syriusly]

It is a 100% undeniable FACT that a gay marriage contract legally strips children involved of either a father or mother for life. There is not one person who would argue differently because there is no argument to stark, cold reality like "two men do not include a mother" or "two women do not include a father".

That is not a fact. It is entirely possible for a same sex couple to have a child and for that child to have opposite sex parents in their lives, even if that is not the norm. Married couples get divorced all the time, so the child of a same sex couple is not necessarily going to have the same married parents for life. I doubt the children of same sex couples usually have opposite sex parents that are either alive or part of their lives, so they aren't being stripped of anything; one must have something before one can be stripped of it. You shouldn't toss out things as FACTS when they aren't.

But that isn't 1. The norm or 2. Part of the marriage contract.

You're aware by now that we are discussing the terms of a contract, right?

No- you are discussing your imaginary terms.

That is competeley different

 

[Syriusly]

It seems odd that Sil has been unable to show a single case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between adults in this nation. It should be remarkably easy if it's such a well established legal fact.

The voices in her head tell her it is well established.

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, the point of there being a contract creating those conditions is what violates the Infancy Doctrine. No single parent I know of has a contract expressed or implied "you will be without the missing gendered parent for the rest of your life" to the detriment of their kids.

No gay parents I know of has a contract expressed or implied that says you will be without the missing gendered parent for the rest of your life to the detriment of your kids'.

Because as the courts have already established- there is no detriment to the kids.

Meanwhile- even though polygamous families would not be 'missing' the mythical gendered parent- you oppose polygamous marriage.

Why?

Why indeed......