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

[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.

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?

So your idea is that nobody would recognize that children are implicit parties to marriage; or that marriage anticipates the arrival of children either by adopted or natural birth.

Okee dokee. Yep. Mmm hmmm. Again, good luck arguing that in court. You realize of course that in Obergefell, Kennedy discussed how gay marriage was necessary "for the children's sake"? There's your hint how your "kids aren't part of marriage" or "kids don't derive benefits from marriage" arguments will go.. The Justices have actually already spoken on that. It's just that when they did, they forgot that "gay marriage" legally divorces any children involved from the vital opposite gendered parent. So the kids grow up permanently separated by law, from either a mother or father.

They forgot that little part. Pity the kids didn't have representation at the contract-revision hearing (Obergefell) because if they did, they could've brought that little detail to the Justices' attention before the gavel banged..

 

[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?

So your idea is that nobody would recognize that children are implicit parties to marriage; or that marriage anticipates the arrival of children either by adopted or natural birth.

Okee dokee. Yep. Mmm hmmm. Again, good luck arguing that in court. You realize of course that in Obergefell, Kennedy discussed how gay marriage was necessary "for the children's sake"? There's your hint how your "kids aren't part of marriage" or "kids don't derive benefits from marriage" arguments will go.. The Justices have actually already spoken on that. It's just that when they did, they forgot that "gay marriage" legally divorces any children involved from the vital opposite gendered parent. So the kids grow up permanently separated by law, from either a mother or father.

They forgot that little part. Pity the kids didn't have representation at the contract-revision hearing (Obergefell) because if they did, they could've brought that little detail to the Justices' attention before the gavel banged..

That marriage may have benefits for the children of married couples does not mean that marriage requires children or there is a legal assumption of children. As per usual, you have made that up.

The justices 'forgot'? Good luck arguing that in court.

Once again, I don't need to argue anything in court. I'm not set on seeing the law changed. You are the one who is talking about court cases and changing Supreme Court rulings. You would need to argue in court, not me.

Children are not implicit parties to marriage. Unmarried parents go through custody hearings just like married parents when they split up. Children cannot sue for divorce because their parents are married. You confuse the fact that marriage takes children into account with the idea that children are members of the marriage contract.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation.

And thus your latest round of insane pseudo-legal batshit gets tossed on the same pile as your 'children are married to their parents' gibberish was.

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.

Says you. You've quoted yourself as the courts before, insisting that the court was telling us with the '56' citations of States having the authority to define marriage that the courts were going to side with the states against gay marriage.

How'd that turn out again?

And now you're insisting that the courts are going to rule in favor of polygamy? Um, no Sil. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You've quite literally invented a sexual orientation based on jack shit.

And then laughably insisted that the Supreme Court is bound to your imagination.

No, hun....they're not.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nope. The court has already stated that the right to marry cannot be condition 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.

Destroying your 'assumption' that old married people will be grandparents. They may be. They may not be. And their marriage is just as valid either way.

This is the great fallacy of the lies you tell yourself; you imagine that because you ignore those portions of the Obergefell ruling that are inconvenient to your argument that the Supreme Court *must* ignore them as well.

And no, they don't. No, they won't. No, they haven't.

This is why your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure. You've literally never been right once. Every time you tell us how the courts will rule.....

.....you're comically, ineptly, laughably wrong.

 

[Skylar]

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?

So your idea is that nobody would recognize that children are implicit parties to marriage; or that marriage anticipates the arrival of children either by adopted or natural birth.

Okee dokee. Yep. Mmm hmmm. Again, good luck arguing that in court. You realize of course that in Obergefell, Kennedy discussed how gay marriage was necessary "for the children's sake"? There's your hint how your "kids aren't part of marriage" or "kids don't derive benefits from marriage" arguments will go.. The Justices have actually already spoken on that. It's just that when they did, they forgot that "gay marriage" legally divorces any children involved from the vital opposite gendered parent. So the kids grow up permanently separated by law, from either a mother or father.

They forgot that little part. Pity the kids didn't have representation at the contract-revision hearing (Obergefell) because if they did, they could've brought that little detail to the Justices' attention before the gavel banged..

That marriage may have benefits for the children of married couples does not mean that marriage requires children or there is a legal assumption of children. As per usual, you have made that up.

The justices 'forgot'? Good luck arguing that in court.

Once again, I don't need to argue anything in court. I'm not set on seeing the law changed. You are the one who is talking about court cases and changing Supreme Court rulings. You would need to argue in court, not me.

Children are not implicit parties to marriage. Unmarried parents go through custody hearings just like married parents when they split up. Children cannot sue for divorce because their parents are married. You confuse the fact that marriage takes children into account with the idea that children are members of the marriage contract.

Sil's entire basis of argument is to ignore the Supreme Court. And then to insist that the Supreme Court must then ignore itself.....because Sil has.

Sigh...if only reality worked that way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“Infertile couples adopt.”

Gay couples adopt.

Infertile opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples – both eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where the ability to procreate is not a ‘prerequisite’ to do so, and where it would be un-Constitutional for the state to deny either an infertile opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple access to marriage law solely because of their inability to procreate.

 

[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.

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. .

I know that my 80 year old uncle and his 70 year old wife are not going to be birthing any children or raising any children.

Nor did they get married with any expectation that they will.

Poor Silhouette- first you lie and claim that there is an expectation of children in a marriage- now you lie and claim that there is an expectation of grandchildren.

So why exactly do you oppose polygamous marriage?

 

[JoeB131]

We'll see. When challenged, certainly the question of "have children always been an anticipated part of marriage" will come up and be legally dissected. Feeling confident are you that the answer is "No" with thousands of years of precedent and common knowledge staring at you? I underlined "part" because children have a part in marriage, a share in it; and it has always been that way. You can take a break now and go look up "implied parties to contracts"....and the quote in the OP that is in larger text...

You can say that all day, but the thing is, a woman can marry a convicted pedophile, and the state or the child can't say jack shit about it.

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Yeah, I guess little Billy can get all passive aggressive and refuse to call the new girlfriend Mom, but he really doesn't have any legal standing to do anything about it.

 

[Silhouette]

You can say that all day, but the thing is, a woman can marry a convicted pedophile, and the state or the child can't say jack shit about it.

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Yeah, I guess little Billy can get all passive aggressive and refuse to call the new girlfriend Mom, but he really doesn't have any legal standing to do anything about it.

If that's the case then how is Obergefell going to deny polyamorists from marrying?

 

[Silhouette]

the chorus of trolls continues.. ^^

 

[Skylar]

You can say that all day, but the thing is, a woman can marry a convicted pedophile, and the state or the child can't say jack shit about it.

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Yeah, I guess little Billy can get all passive aggressive and refuse to call the new girlfriend Mom, but he really doesn't have any legal standing to do anything about it.

If that's the case then how is Obergefell going to deny polyamorists from marrying?

Bigamy is a crime. That's why.

Remember, all your babble about polyamory being a 'sexual orientation' is legally meaningless gibberish. Your imagination has no relevance to the court.

 

[Silhouette]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“Infertile couples adopt.”

Gay couples adopt.

Infertile opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples – both eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where the ability to procreate is not a ‘prerequisite’ to do so, and where it would be un-Constitutional for the state to deny either an infertile opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple access to marriage law solely because of their inability to procreate.

The difference being that when children arrive, there is either no mother or no father as contractual term for life in "gay marriage". Opposite sex couples always provide that. Pretty crucial difference where a child is concerned. And since marriage was created for and about children; that difference is pivotal. Essentially Obergefell ended marriage and put in place something else that doesn't even remotely resemble the original purpose of marriage.

 

[Skylar]

The difference being that when children arrive, there is either no mother or no father as contractual term for life in "gay marriage". Opposite sex couples always provide that. Pretty crucial difference where a child is concerned.

The child isn't party to the marriage. Making any of your 'contract' babble more meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense.

Remember, the courts use the *actual* law. Not the rhetorical thumbsucking of your imagination.

And since marriage was created for and about children; that difference is pivotal.

Except that it isn't. As no marriage requires children to be valid. Worse, the courts have already found that no marriage can be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to 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.

So your 'legal' argument has again been reduced to insisting the Supreme Court ignore itself.

Gee, I wonder how that's gonna work out?

Essentially Obergefell ended marriage and put in place something else that doesn't even remotely resemble the original purpose of marriage.

Except that it didn't. Essentially, you're offering up your imagination as the law. And its gloriously irrelevant to anyone's marriage.

 

[BettyYeti]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“Infertile couples adopt.”

Gay couples adopt.

Infertile opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples – both eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where the ability to procreate is not a ‘prerequisite’ to do so, and where it would be un-Constitutional for the state to deny either an infertile opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple access to marriage law solely because of their inability to procreate.

The difference being that when children arrive, there is either no mother or no father as contractual term for life in "gay marriage". Opposite sex couples always provide that. Pretty crucial difference where a child is concerned. And since marriage was created for and about children; that difference is pivotal. Essentially Obergefell ended marriage and put in place something else that doesn't even remotely resemble the original purpose of marriage.

Marriage is for children? Who told you that lie? For instance, name a single child, even one, who had standing to stop either a marriage or a divorce? There has never been such a thing.

And are you still fighting against gay marriage? You might as well be fighting against gravity.

 

[ogibillm]

And since marriage was created for and about children

repeating it doesn't make it more true

; that difference is pivotal. Essentially Obergefell ended marriage and put in place something else that doesn't even remotely resemble the original purpose of marriage.

suppose you are right. what difference would that actually make?

 

[Silhouette]

And since marriage was created for and about children

repeating it doesn't make it more true

; that difference is pivotal. Essentially Obergefell ended marriage and put in place something else that doesn't even remotely resemble the original purpose of marriage.

suppose you are right. what difference would that actually make?

A big one to children. Are you really that daft?

 

[Skylar]

And since marriage was created for and about children

repeating it doesn't make it more true

; that difference is pivotal. Essentially Obergefell ended marriage and put in place something else that doesn't even remotely resemble the original purpose of marriage.

suppose you are right. what difference would that actually make?

A big one to children.

Less so than single parenthood, Sil. You denied your daughter a father for years. Yet you don't hold yourself to the same standard that you do gays and lesbians.

And they provide two parent households....while you provided only one. If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks for bumping the thread, troll ^^

 

[ogibillm]

A big one to children. Are you really that daft?

does it?

how about the kids of single parents? does it make a difference to them?

what should we do.with the people that have kids out of wedlock? force them to marry?

what about those who divorce? i guess divorce wouldn't be an option anymore, even for those without kids, since the unborn kods are supposedly part of the contract...

 

[Skylar]

Thanks for bumping the thread, troll ^^

I'm just reality's messenger, Sil. And the numerous bases of your arguments are legally irrelevant.

No, marriage doesn't require children, nor is it conditioned on them. No, children aren't married to their parents, nor parties (implied, express or otherwise) of the marriage of their parents. No, polyamory is no more a sexual orientation than monogamy is.

And all the rhetorical thumbsucking in the world isn't going to change that.