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

[Silhouette]

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

OK Montrovant, tell us how, in your own words, the Court would deny someone asking for legal marriage because he said he is sexually attracted to more than one woman, it's the only way he can feel sexually satisfied...and that he has made a lifestyle out of this intimate choice...and all the women he's into are into it too? For them we could make up a word that describes titillation from imagining their husband with another wife. Probably already a word for that. Who are you to draw clear red lines on people's kinks? Once you put your dick in some guys artificial vagina (anus), do you really have room to judge another's sexual compulsions or desires & lifestyles?

C'mon. Pretend you're Kennedy and you're writing up the Opinion that denies the Browns the right to marry in all 50 states. How are you going to word it so that it doesn't conflict with Obergefell...particularly pages 7-12. Read them well, and then craft your Opinion "Justice Kennedy". I'll wait.

********

Obergefell was not about being sexually satisfied. A married couple does not have to have sex or be sexually satisfied. That you think Obergefell was about sexual satisfaction is an example of why very few people put any stock in your legal interpretations.

Polygamous relationships do not fit within the current legal framework of marriage.

Read pages 7-8 in Obergefell. The Court discusses how not just same-sex, but also "gays and lesbians" and *drum roll* "sexual orientation"...even "intimate choices" and lifestyles accompanying them all find protection from discrimination from the states. Those paragraphs even purposefully weave and interchange all those references alternating about every other sentence. On purpose: to show they meant all of it.

So, unless you can tell us how JUST the lifestyle, intimate choices and sexual orientation of the Brown family is not qualifying under ANY of those wide-ranging qualifiers, you're going to have to write an Opinion in favor of forcing all 50 states to recognize polygamy as well. Or, dismantle Obergefell and return the decision to the states. Either or.

And then there's the matter of at least Ginsburg not being legally able to sit on Obergefell. But I'll let you play around a little longer with the lifestyle argument and see if you can't do a little better next time.

*********

Sorry Montrovant...the troll brigade bled off another page with ad hominems and derision but no substance (again) so in case you missed this post ^^

Your answer?

 

[mdk]

 

[Montrovant]

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

OK Montrovant, tell us how, in your own words, the Court would deny someone asking for legal marriage because he said he is sexually attracted to more than one woman, it's the only way he can feel sexually satisfied...and that he has made a lifestyle out of this intimate choice...and all the women he's into are into it too? For them we could make up a word that describes titillation from imagining their husband with another wife. Probably already a word for that. Who are you to draw clear red lines on people's kinks? Once you put your dick in some guys artificial vagina (anus), do you really have room to judge another's sexual compulsions or desires & lifestyles?

C'mon. Pretend you're Kennedy and you're writing up the Opinion that denies the Browns the right to marry in all 50 states. How are you going to word it so that it doesn't conflict with Obergefell...particularly pages 7-12. Read them well, and then craft your Opinion "Justice Kennedy". I'll wait.

********

Obergefell was not about being sexually satisfied. A married couple does not have to have sex or be sexually satisfied. That you think Obergefell was about sexual satisfaction is an example of why very few people put any stock in your legal interpretations.

Polygamous relationships do not fit within the current legal framework of marriage.

Read pages 7-8 in Obergefell. The Court discusses how not just same-sex, but also "gays and lesbians" and *drum roll* "sexual orientation"...even "intimate choices" and lifestyles accompanying them all find protection from discrimination from the states. Those paragraphs even purposefully weave and interchange all those references alternating about every other sentence. On purpose: to show they meant all of it.

So, unless you can tell us how JUST the lifestyle, intimate choices and sexual orientation of the Brown family is not qualifying under ANY of those wide-ranging qualifiers, you're going to have to write an Opinion in favor of forcing all 50 states to recognize polygamy as well. Or, dismantle Obergefell and return the decision to the states. Either or.

And then there's the matter of at least Ginsburg not being legally able to sit on Obergefell. But I'll let you play around a little longer with the lifestyle argument and see if you can't do a little better next time.

*********

Sorry Montrovant...the troll brigade bled off another page with ad hominems and derision but no substance (again) so in case you missed this post ^^

Your answer?

My answer is to stop repeating yourself, especially after your questions have been answered.

There is a vast difference between state discrimination based on gender, or sexual orientation, and the fact that polygamous marriage does not fit within the current framework of marriage law. With same sex couples, the only thing that really needs to change is the titles or pronouns used. With polygamy, a whole new set of rules would need to be created to deal with things like alimony, child custody, property allocation, tax filing, etc..

Saying the same things over and over doesn't make them any more real. One day, perhaps, you'll realize that.

 

[Silhouette]

There is a vast difference between state discrimination based on gender, or sexual orientation, and the fact that polygamous marriage does not fit within the current framework of marriage law. With same sex couples, the only thing that really needs to change is the titles or pronouns used. With polygamy, a whole new set of rules would need to be created to deal with things like alimony, child custody, property allocation, tax filing, etc..

(I cut out all the irrelevant ad hominem from your post and will respond to the substance)

And...gay marriage didn't and doesn't fit within the current framework of marriage law in that marriage law anticipates children; which is why custody issues are part of divorce. And they aren't merely divisions of property, but instead go into intricate personal needs of each child.

And, gay marriage DESTROYS the workable model of marriage where children rely upon it for the nucleus world in which they grow and reach adulthood in their formative years. Gay marriage DESTROYS a child's contact for life, of either a mother or father, as a matter of a brand new legal bind to children's detriment. But that was just Jim Dandy with the Court. Gay marriage actually divorces a child even from the hope of a mother, or a father for the duration of their natural life....ever... "Sorry Timmy, no dad for you!" "Sorry Suzie, no mom for you!" A mother or father are not replaceable by another man or woman respectively. There is a void for life; enacted by binding contract no less.... That's a whole "new set of rules" all right.

So, once that TORPEDO was launched, obliterating the very reason marriage was created thousands of years ago (to create a lasting home where both mother and father were available to the growing children within it), you cannot in any ounce of seriousness argue that "polygamous marriage does not fit within the current framework of marriage law." Framework demolished, June 2015.

That ship has sailed already pal. Now, if you have a sexual orientation and you've made an intimate choice about that lifestyle, you're in. "Framework" be damned. You don't use existing law enacted by the majority to extinguish "intrinsic civil rights"...remember? How quickly your ilk forgets when it's expedient to do so...

 

[Montrovant]

There is a vast difference between state discrimination based on gender, or sexual orientation, and the fact that polygamous marriage does not fit within the current framework of marriage law. With same sex couples, the only thing that really needs to change is the titles or pronouns used. With polygamy, a whole new set of rules would need to be created to deal with things like alimony, child custody, property allocation, tax filing, etc..

(I cut out all the irrelevant ad hominem from your post and will respond to the substance)

And...gay marriage didn't and doesn't fit within the current framework of marriage law in that marriage law anticipates children; which is why custody issues are part of divorce. And they aren't merely divisions of property, but instead go into intricate personal needs of each child.

And, gay marriage DESTROYS the workable model of marriage where children rely upon it for the nucleus world in which they grow and reach adulthood in their formative years. Gay marriage DESTROYS a child's contact for life, of either a mother or father, as a matter of a brand new legal bind to children's detriment. But that was just Jim Dandy with the Court. Gay marriage actually divorces a child even from the hope of a mother, or a father for the duration of their natural life....ever... "Sorry Timmy, no dad for you!" "Sorry Suzie, no mom for you!" A mother or father are not replaceable by another man or woman respectively. There is a void for life.

So, once that TORPEDO was launched, obliterating the very reason marriage was created thousands of years ago (to create a lasting home where both mother and father were available to the growing children within it), you cannot in any ounce of seriousness argue that "polygamous marriage does not fit within the current framework of marriage law." Framework demolished, June 2015.

That ship has sailed already pal. Now, if you have a sexual orientation and you've made an intimate choice about that lifestyle, you're in. "Framework" be damned. You don't use existing law to extinguish intrinsic civil rights...remember? How quickly your ilk forgets when it's expedient to do so...

Except, of course, that marriage does not anticipate children. Infertile couples may marry. Adults of any age may marry. And now, same sex couples may marry. Also, an unmarried couple with children that splits up must go through the custody process.

Gay marriage does not destroy a child's contact for life of a mother or a father. If a same sex couple adopts a child, whether or not they are married will not change the fact that the child's parents are both of the same gender. Nor is it necessarily for life, as the divorce rates of opposite sex couples makes clear. More, any child adopted by a same sex couple is coming from a situation in which they have no parents, but apparently you find that preferable.

You keep saying marriage was created for a particular reason without providing evidence that is the case. Regardless, marriage in the US is not reliant upon having children.

Polygamous marriage does not fit within the current framework of marriage law. I will continue to argue that because it is true. Current marriage law does not provide for the distribution of property to more than 2 participants in case of divorce, or for custody of children amongst more than 2 parents, or for filing taxes with more than 1 spouse, and probably myriad other issues.

Polygamy is not a sexual orientation, however many times you want to claim it is.

 

[Silhouette]

Except, of course, that marriage does not anticipate children. Infertile couples may marry. Adults of any age may marry. And now, same sex couples may marry.

Infertile couples adopt. Older couples grandparent. In man/woman this provide a father AND mother for the children or grandfather AND grandmother for the children.

You are NEVER going to convince any judge, anywhere, anytime that children are not anticipated as implicit partners in the marriage contract. And that is because more than any other persons in the home, the children in a marriage derive the most life-lasting benefits; far outreaching either of the adults in impact to themselves and society at large.

Some shoeboxes don't contain shoes. But most of them do. We regard shoeboxes therefore as containers for shoes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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!

Moore is in fact a disgrace, a jurist who violated his oath of office to obey the Constitution of the United State.

Indeed, he’s at war with the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law – he has no business serving in any official judicial capacity.

The supremacy of the courts is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Rulings of the Supreme Court are the law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, and binding on the officers of the states:

‘The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P. 358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.’ Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

 

[mdk]

Except, of course, that marriage does not anticipate children. Infertile couples may marry. Adults of any age may marry. And now, same sex couples may marry.

Infertile couples adopt. Older couples grandparent. In man/woman this provide a father AND mother for the children or grandfather AND grandmother for the children.

You are NEVER going to convince any judge, anywhere, anytime that children are not anticipated as implicit partners in the marriage contract. And that is because more than any other persons in the home, the children in a marriage derive the most life-lasting benefits; far outreaching either of the adults in impact to themselves and society at large.

Some shoeboxes don't contain shoes. But most of them do. We regard shoeboxes therefore as containers for shoes.

Judges are so convinced that children are an implicit partner in a marriage contract that every state recognizes them as such. Oh, wait...not a single state does. For the record, nobody is bound by your delusional nonsense.

If you spent a fraction of your time worrying about your own family instead gays and their families then perhaps you could a find husband. After all, children need a mother and a father. lol

 

[mdk]

A mother or father are not replaceable by another man or woman respectively. There is a void for life; enacted by binding contract no less.... That's a whole "new set of rules" all right.

But hope replaces a mother or a father when it your argument becomes inconvenient. Too funny.

 

[Montrovant]

Except, of course, that marriage does not anticipate children. Infertile couples may marry. Adults of any age may marry. And now, same sex couples may marry.

Infertile couples adopt. Older couples grandparent. In man/woman this provide a father AND mother for the children or grandfather AND grandmother for the children.

You are NEVER going to convince any judge, anywhere, anytime that children are not anticipated as implicit partners in the marriage contract. And that is because more than any other persons in the home, the children in a marriage derive the most life-lasting benefits; far outreaching either of the adults in impact to themselves and society at large.

Some shoeboxes don't contain shoes. But most of them do. We regard shoeboxes therefore as containers for shoes.

Now we're adding grandparents?

 

[Syriusly]

Except, of course, that marriage does not anticipate children. Infertile couples may marry. Adults of any age may marry. And now, same sex couples may marry.

Infertile couples adopt. Older couples grandparent. In man/woman this provide a father AND mother for the children or grandfather AND grandmother for the children.

You are NEVER going to convince any judge, anywhere, anytime that children are not anticipated as implicit partners in the marriage contract. And that is because more than any other persons in the home, the children in a marriage derive the most life-lasting benefits; far outreaching either of the adults in impact to themselves and society at large.

Some shoeboxes don't contain shoes. But most of them do. We regard shoeboxes therefore as containers for shoes.

Now we're adding grandparents?

Yep- because Grandparents are an implicit part of the marriage contract.

LOL
I guess Silhouette is trying to find some wiggle room for my 80 year old uncle and his 70's wife- since there is no anticipation that they will be having any children. Under any circumstances.

Meanwhile- Silhouette still refuses to say why she opposes polyamorous marriage.

Funny isn't it?

Almost like she knows her answer would defeat her arguments on gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Except, of course, that marriage does not anticipate children. Infertile couples may marry. Adults of any age may marry. And now, same sex couples may marry.

Infertile couples adopt. Older couples grandparent. In man/woman this provide a father AND mother for the children or grandfather AND grandmother for the children.

You are NEVER going to convince any judge, anywhere, anytime that children are not anticipated as implicit partners in the marriage contract. And that is because more than any other persons in the home, the children in a marriage derive the most life-lasting benefits; far outreaching either of the adults in impact to themselves and society at large.

Some shoeboxes don't contain shoes. But most of them do. We regard shoeboxes therefore as containers for shoes.

Yep- because Grandparents are an implicit part of the marriage contract.

LOL
I guess Silhouette is trying to find some wiggle room for my 80 year old uncle and his 70's wife- since there is no anticipation that they will be having any children. Under any circumstances.

I know quite a few old couples who are grandparenting/parenting in their home because their adult children are dead or in jail or on drugs. In fact, this has become quite an epidemic as your "do anything that feels good" 'morality" has taken hold over the last couple decades. Still, in the home there is a grand FATHER and a grand MOTHER. Not so in gay marriage. Ever.

Even Dolce and Gabbana (gay fashion guys) said having both a mother and father was irreplaceable. Until the Gaystapo showed up at their doorstep urging them to revise their statement under duress.

 

[Silhouette]

Moore could use the harm to child angle of defense, or the Ginsburg-recusal angle. In either event, he is not required to force his state to comply with illegally-gotten Rulings. As a contract revision hearing, Obergefell required that children be present or have representation. Neither happened and a contract was revised to their detriment. That is illegal. So is advertising that you're pitching for one set of litigants months in advance as their case pends in your court, and then refusing to recuse yourself. He could pick either one of those to say "Alabama ain't going to listen to Obergefell; and I was right saying so."

 

[Montrovant]

Moore could use the harm to child angle of defense, or the Ginsburg-recusal angle. In either event, he is not required to force his state to comply with illegally-gotten Rulings. As a contract revision hearing, Obergefell required that children be present or have representation. Neither happened and a contract was revised to their detriment. That is illegal. So is advertising that you're pitching for one set of litigants months in advance as their case pends in your court, and then refusing to recuse yourself. He could pick either one of those to say "Alabama ain't going to listen to Obergefell; and I was right saying so."

Let me paraphrase for you :

"I don't like the ruling! It must be illegal since I disagree!"

 

[Montrovant]

Except, of course, that marriage does not anticipate children. Infertile couples may marry. Adults of any age may marry. And now, same sex couples may marry.

Infertile couples adopt. Older couples grandparent. In man/woman this provide a father AND mother for the children or grandfather AND grandmother for the children.

You are NEVER going to convince any judge, anywhere, anytime that children are not anticipated as implicit partners in the marriage contract. And that is because more than any other persons in the home, the children in a marriage derive the most life-lasting benefits; far outreaching either of the adults in impact to themselves and society at large.

Some shoeboxes don't contain shoes. But most of them do. We regard shoeboxes therefore as containers for shoes.

Yep- because Grandparents are an implicit part of the marriage contract.

LOL
I guess Silhouette is trying to find some wiggle room for my 80 year old uncle and his 70's wife- since there is no anticipation that they will be having any children. Under any circumstances.

I know quite a few old couples who are grandparenting/parenting in their home because their adult children are dead or in jail or on drugs. In fact, this has become quite an epidemic as your "do anything that feels good" 'morality" has taken hold over the last couple decades. Still, in the home there is a grand FATHER and a grand MOTHER. Not so in gay marriage. Ever.

Even Dolce and Gabbana (gay fashion guys) said having both a mother and father was irreplaceable. Until the Gaystapo showed up at their doorstep urging them to revise their statement under duress.

You just love to hear yourself speak, don't you? I've never seen another person so quick to copy & paste their own words.

 

[Silhouette]

I've never seen another person so quick to copy & paste their own words.

Yes and it will happen every time Skylar mdk and Syriusly conspire with substantiveless posts like the last two you just made with the sole intent of bleeding a page out so the conversation will "disappear". Get used to it.

Meanwhile, I notice you haven't replied to the substance of posts # 132 or #133.

 

[mdk]

I've never seen another person so quick to copy & paste their own words.

Yes and it will happen every time Skylar mdk and Syriusly conspire with substantiveless posts like the last two you just made with the sole intent of bleeding a page out so the conversation will "disappear". Get used to it.

Meanwhile, I notice you haven't replied to the substance of posts # 132 or #133.

You've always spammed your own threads. Your nonsense has been addressed on numerous occasions, but since you don't like the answers you just spam instead.

 

[Montrovant]

I've never seen another person so quick to copy & paste their own words.

Yes and it will happen every time Skylar mdk and Syriusly conspire with substantiveless posts like the last two you just made with the sole intent of bleeding a page out so the conversation will "disappear". Get used to it.

Meanwhile, I notice you haven't replied to the substance of posts # 132 or #133.

Substance? What substance? You (once again) moved the goal posts of the argument you've created out of whole cloth, changing it from marriage being about children to marriage being about children or grandchildren. You've also applied your argument that children must have opposite gender parents to their needing opposite gender grandparents.

In neither case have you explained how same sex parents or grandparents are inferior to no parents at all, as is the case for children waiting to be adopted.

Nor have you shown any court ruling in which children have attempted to sue for divorce. Nor have you shown any court ruling which states that children are a party to the marriage contract. Nor have you shown a single bit of evidence that anyone other than yourself believes that Ginsberg not recusing herself was illegal, nor that children needed to be represented in Obergefell, nor any of the other crackpot wanna-be legal gibberish you periodically come up with. Every legal prediction you have made has turned out to be false. None of the supposed legal arguments you've put forth have been taken up by any lawyers that I'm aware of. You spent months claiming the Prince's Trust study would be part of the Obergefell ruling because of various lies you created about what that survey said.

Very little that you post has any real substance. You flail about, throwing out new arguments as they occur to you (or you read them elsewhere) without any real understanding of the cases, rulings, or law involved. Even for a layman, most of the arguments you make are obviously ridiculous.

When you come up with one single legal argument regarding same sex marriage which turns out to have the slightest bit of merit, it will be the first time.

What's next, when old enough couples marry, it is assumed they will great-grandparent?

 

[Silhouette]

What's next, when old enough couples marry, it is assumed they will great-grandparent?

Absolutely. We anticipate that by the time couples are old they will have grandchildren. Just as we anticipate that a stunning majority of marriages have children either naturally or adopted at some point.

Again, occasionally you find the empty shoebox. But we anticipate and set dialogue to reflect that shoeboxes have such a name because they contain shoes. Marriage was created thousands of years ago and has been maintained thus up until 2015 with the anticipation that children will arrive, by adoption or naturally. And that children more than any other party to marriage stand to be affected most by its atmosphere for the duration of their entire lives. Its conditions affect them directly and society indirectly as a whole.

Good luck convincing a judge otherwise.

 

[Montrovant]

What's next, when old enough couples marry, it is assumed they will great-grandparent?

Absolutely. We anticipate that by the time couples are old they will have grandchildren. Just as we anticipate that a stunning majority of marriages have children either naturally or adopted at some point.

Again, occasionally you find the empty shoebox. But we anticipate and set dialogue to reflect that shoeboxes have such a name because they contain shoes. Marriage was created thousands of years ago and has been maintained thus up until 2015 with the anticipation that children will arrive, by adoption or naturally. And that children more than any other party to marriage stand to be affected most by its atmosphere for the duration of their entire lives. Its conditions affect them directly and society indirectly as a whole.

Good luck convincing a judge otherwise.

I don't need to convince any judge of anything. You are the only one who needs to do that. Considering your track record of misunderstanding the law and court rulings, good luck with that.

I wonder, why isn't marriage called something like child-joining? Wouldn't that be the way to set dialogue to reflect that marriage anticipates children?