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

[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."

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.

And not one of them applies the Infancy Doctrine to marriage. Nor could. As children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents.

You're ignoring your own sources and citing your imagination as the law. It isn't.

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

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.

There's no implied contract. A child is no party of the marriage of their parents. Not an 'express party', not an 'implied party', not a party of any kind.

You've made all that up, citing only yourself. And your imagination is pseudo-legal nonsense, signifying nothing.

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

 

[Skylar]

.
I don't know what any 'LGBT apologists' on this site have said, but I'm going to guess none of them said that children are an implied part of the marriage contract.

The only 'we' that agrees marriage anticipates children and implicitly involves them are you and the voices in your head.

They did in fact assert vigorously that children's considerations were paramount when considering whether or not to grant certain people the right to marry.., when we were discussing polygamy over at the Browns thread: Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll

Actually, the courts said explicitly and repeatedly, that the right to marry can not be conditioned on the capacity or intent to procreate.

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.

And as you're prone to doing, when the Supreme Court contradicts you explicitly and repeatedly......you simply ignore the Supreme Court.

And just because you've ignored the Supreme Court doesn't mean their explicit findings magically vanish. This is why your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect, unbroken failure.

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

A child isn't party to the marriage of their parents. The Infancy Doctrine only applies to contracts that the child is a party to.....such as an employment contract for Child Actors. Or minors attempting to purchase a home through a mortgage.

The infancy doctrine is not, nor has ever been applied to marriage. Ever. And every source you've ever cited as confirmed as much.

The only person saying that the Infancy Doctrine applies to marriage....is you, citing your imagination. And your imagination is not the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Yet none of a divorce is about whether children can prevent a divorce....IF children were part of a marriage contract- then they would have a say in allowing a divorce...Indeed- if children were actually part of a marriage contract- they could initiate a divorce themselves- or a third party conservator could do so on their behalf...Where are the judges telling married couples that they must get divorced because the children have decided that they must be divorced?

An implied party to a contract does not necessarily have a share in all of it. They may have a share in part of it. So while children cannot become married or divorced (yet, give the predatory cult LGBT enough time..), they still have implicit enjoyments from marriage. In fact, marriage was created as an institution FOR the benefit of children originally, thousands of years ago.

You're not going to convince any lawyer even vaguely familiar with contract law that children are not implicit parties to the marriage contract. And, divorce would split up children like chattel and assign this one to that parent and the other to the other or whatever, like the family car or a piece of furniture, if children didn't have separate interest derived from and adhered to marriage.

Instead of dividing chattel where the kids are concerned, the court ignores the pleas of the parents in divorce and comes up with it's own custody arrangement etc. based on what is best for the children and the children ALONE. Often the court will sequester the children away from the adults and interview them as to their desires, needs etc. in the divorce. It doesn't do that with furniture, cars or other "possessions of common property". Either children are common property of a marriage or they are separate beings with intrinsic rights surrounding the marriage & divorce. Reality shows us they are separate beings with intrinsic rights surrounding the marriage and divorce...In other words, they are anticipated and implied parties to the marriage contract.

And, weren't you the one arguing that because of children, polygamy marriage shouldn't happen?

 

[ogibillm]

That quote is, once again, in relation to the Infancy Doctrine, which is about children as signatories of contracts. Children are not a member of a marriage contract. They cannot go to court and get a divorce.

You seem unable to separate the idea that many married couples have children with the idea that children are an integral part of marriage. Marriage does not require children, nor are children any sort of legal expectation of marriage. If someone is opposed to polygamy because of children, they do not have to assume that all polygamous marriages will have children.

You mentioned divorce. Good. Let's talk about that. A good deal of any divorce proceeding in court is devoted to the "best interests of the children" as far as alimony, parental contact and custody.
You will find no divorce where children arrived in that marriage, devoid of a large share of time being devoted to "the best interests of children in this divorce". So not only do we find children as an inseparable concept from marriage, we find them as an inseparable concept from divorce.

Thanks for demonstrating my points.

Now given all that, let me ask you again how you feel about this quote, realizing that of course (anticipated or arrived) children are implied parties to any marriage contract and that gay marriage legally strips them of either a mother or father for life:

Yet none of a divorce is about whether children can prevent a divorce....IF children were part of a marriage contract- then they would have a say in allowing a divorce...Indeed- if children were actually part of a marriage contract- they could initiate a divorce themselves- or a third party conservator could do so on their behalf...Where are the judges telling married couples that they must get divorced because the children have decided that they must be divorced?

so where's the divorce that children stopped?

and those parental rights and child support issues are decided by courts outside of marriage as well - meaning they are not questions tied to marriage but questions tied to parenthood

 

[Skylar]

That quote is, once again, in relation to the Infancy Doctrine, which is about children as signatories of contracts. Children are not a member of a marriage contract. They cannot go to court and get a divorce.

You seem unable to separate the idea that many married couples have children with the idea that children are an integral part of marriage. Marriage does not require children, nor are children any sort of legal expectation of marriage. If someone is opposed to polygamy because of children, they do not have to assume that all polygamous marriages will have children.

You mentioned divorce. Good. Let's talk about that. A good deal of any divorce proceeding in court is devoted to the "best interests of the children" as far as alimony, parental contact and custody.

If children were parties to the marriage......then the parents would have to get the child's *permission* before they would be allowed to divorce. A child could contest any divorce they don't like.

But children get no say in whether or not a divorce occurs.....as they aren't party to the marriage of their parents. Utterly disproving your entire argument.

And of course, the Supreme Court has already found that the right to marry can't be conditioned on the capacity or intention to procreate;

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're just straight up ignoring the Supreme Court. And then pretending that because you ignore it, that the ruling doesn't apply or exist.

Um, yeah. That's not how the law works, Jen. That's how your imagination works. And your imagination has nothing to do with the law.

 

[Silhouette]

so where's the divorce that children stopped?

and those parental rights and child support issues are decided by courts outside of marriage as well - meaning they are not questions tied to marriage but questions tied to parenthood

Again, an implicit party to a contract SHARES in the contract, they don't dominate it. But they still are parties to it. And, again, this is evidenced by the care and time the courts devote in divorce SPECIFICALLY AND JUST TO CHILDRENS' INTEREST IN THE DIVORCE.

 

[mdk]

You're not going to convince any lawyer even vaguely familiar with contract law that children are not implicit parties to the marriage contract.

Show me a single contract lawyer that is making such a claim that children are an implicit party to a marriage contract. You can't b/c these vaguely familiar lawyers of contract law only exist in your mind.

Despite all your pissing, moaning, and rambling, gay marriage is still legal in every state.

Find those quotes of mine yet? lol

 

[Skylar]

so where's the divorce that children stopped?

and those parental rights and child support issues are decided by courts outside of marriage as well - meaning they are not questions tied to marriage but questions tied to parenthood

Again, an implicit party to a contract SHARES in the contract, they don't dominate it. But they still are parties to it. And, again, this is evidenced by the care and time the courts devote in divorce SPECIFICALLY AND JUST TO CHILDRENS' INTEREST IN THE DIVORCE.

And no court has ever recognized that children are a party to the marriage of their parents. Not an 'implied' party, not an 'express' party.

Nothing.

That's just you citing your own imaginary pseudo-legal gibberish. Which is legally meaningless.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens. See how that works?

 

[ogibillm]

so where's the divorce that children stopped?

and those parental rights and child support issues are decided by courts outside of marriage as well - meaning they are not questions tied to marriage but questions tied to parenthood

Again, an implicit party to a contract SHARES in the contract, they don't dominate it. But they still are parties to it. And, again, this is evidenced by the care and time the courts devote in divorce SPECIFICALLY AND JUST TO CHILDRENS' INTEREST IN THE DIVORCE.

courts devote that same effort to children's interests outside of divorce as well - making the issues not about marriage but about the rights and responsibilities of parents

 

[Skylar]

You're not going to convince any lawyer even vaguely familiar with contract law that children are not implicit parties to the marriage contract.

Show me a single contract lawyer that is making such a claim that children are an implicit party to a marriage contract. You can't b/c these vaguely familiar lawyers of contract law only exist in your mind.

Despite all your pissing, moaning, and rambling, gay marriage is still legal in every state.

Find those quotes of mine yet? lol

The *actual* law? Or Sil's imaginary version. She's already failed utterly to back her gibberish with the *actual* law.

So imagination is all you're gonna get.

 

[Skylar]

so where's the divorce that children stopped?

and those parental rights and child support issues are decided by courts outside of marriage as well - meaning they are not questions tied to marriage but questions tied to parenthood

Again, an implicit party to a contract SHARES in the contract, they don't dominate it. But they still are parties to it. And, again, this is evidenced by the care and time the courts devote in divorce SPECIFICALLY AND JUST TO CHILDRENS' INTEREST IN THE DIVORCE.

courts devote that same effort to children's interests outside of divorce as well - making the issues not about marriage but about the rights and responsibilities of parents

Exactly. If you never get married......you still have to pay child support.

The obligation is in having children. Not in getting married. As the obligation exists regardless of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet none of a divorce is about whether children can prevent a divorce....IF children were part of a marriage contract- then they would have a say in allowing a divorce...Indeed- if children were actually part of a marriage contract- they could initiate a divorce themselves- or a third party conservator could do so on their behalf...Where are the judges telling married couples that they must get divorced because the children have decided that they must be divorced?

An implied party to a contract does not necessarily have a share in all of it. They may have a share in part of it. So while children cannot become married or divorced (yet, give the predatory cult LGBT enough time..), they still have implicit enjoyments from marriage. In fact, marriage was created as an institution FOR the benefit of children originally, thousands of years ago.

Wow- don't you ever get embaressed making this crap up?

Not one divorce has been stopped because a Judge has ruled that children are part of the marriage contract.

Not one.

 

[Skylar]

Yet none of a divorce is about whether children can prevent a divorce....IF children were part of a marriage contract- then they would have a say in allowing a divorce...Indeed- if children were actually part of a marriage contract- they could initiate a divorce themselves- or a third party conservator could do so on their behalf...Where are the judges telling married couples that they must get divorced because the children have decided that they must be divorced?

An implied party to a contract does not necessarily have a share in all of it. They may have a share in part of it. So while children cannot become married or divorced (yet, give the predatory cult LGBT enough time..), they still have implicit enjoyments from marriage. In fact, marriage was created as an institution FOR the benefit of children originally, thousands of years ago.

Wow- don't you ever get embaressed making this crap up?

Not one divorce has been stopped because a Judge has ruled that children are part of the marriage contract.

Not one.

Not an actual judge and actual divorce. But Sil's not citing actual law. She's citing her imagination.

And in her imagination, this happens all the time.

So you are offering apples to her oranges. Just close your eyes and 'believe'.

 

[Syriusly]

What is even better about Silhouette's delusion is that she believes that non-existent people are implicit partners in a contract.

Yes- this is the rabbit hole Silhouette lives in.

She thinks that Sheila and Sandy cannot get married- because their children- which in their case don't exist- would be part of their marriage contract.

Hmmm that makes me think of something.......

 

[Syriusly]

So Silhouette says that children are part of the marriage contract- well because of something.

Has any child- born of invitro-fertilization- ever sued a clinic as being an implicit partner in the contract between the parents and the clinic?

Has any child born from an invitro-procedure with anonymous genetic donors ever been able to claim that the he or she had an implicit contract with the clinic or the donor?

 

[ogibillm]

What is even better about Silhouette's delusion is that she believes that non-existent people are implicit partners in a contract.

Yes- this is the rabbit hole Silhouette lives in.

She thinks that Sheila and Sandy cannot get married- because their children- which in their case don't exist- would be part of their marriage contract.

Hmmm that makes me think of something.......

i wonder why it matters? i mean let's pretend that children somehow are party to their parents' marriage - what does that have to do with gay marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

i wonder why it matters? i mean let's pretend that children somehow are party to their parents' marriage - what does that have to do with gay marriage?

Again, the amount of time the courts devote solely to the childrens' interest in a divorce definitively demonstrates that the law considers children as implicit parties to the marriage contract and its dissolution. That's indisputable.

That established...

What it has to do with gay marriage is that the gay marriage contract legally divorces children from either a mother or father for life. Which literally hundreds of studies have been done showing that is detrimental to children. Hold that thought..let it sink in.... Then read about the Infants Doctrine regarding children and contracts:

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

Are you following the breadcrumbs yet? Or are you "still confused" as to the connections?

 

[mdk]

What is even better about Silhouette's delusion is that she believes that non-existent people are implicit partners in a contract

I really hope some smart lawyer takes up the cause for these nonexistent people. Figments deserves rights too!

 

[mdk]

Are you following the breadcrumbs yet? Or are you "still confused" as to the connections

The breadcrumbs always lead to the same place. Your imagination.

 

[ogibillm]

i wonder why it matters? i mean let's pretend that children somehow are party to their parents' marriage - what does that have to do with gay marriage?

Again, the amount of time the courts devote solely to the childrens' interest in a divorce definitively demonstrates that the law considers children as implicit parties to the marriage contract and its dissolution. That's indisputable.

no, it's very disputable. the court does nothing for children of divorced parents that it doesn't do for children born out of wedlock

That established...

What it has to do with gay marriage is that the gay marriage contract legally divorces children from either a mother or father for life.

if that was an issue courts would not grant divorces to anyone

Which literally hundreds of studies have been done showing that is detrimental to children. Hold that thought..let it sink in.... Then read about the Infants Doctrine regarding children and contracts:

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

Are you following the breadcrumbs yet? Or are you "still confused" as to the connections?

no, not confused. it's plain there is no connection