Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Silhouette]

The court never once gave two shits in either my ex-husband and I's divorce nor either of our subsequent remarriages regarding the kids (we have two) because we put on our divorce paperwork that we'd be able to work out everything on our own. And we have, for just about 20 years now, not had a single custody related fight. The /law/ doesn't have an "interest" in children until a custody dispute is brought to them - and that is exactly how it should be. IF the law had an "automatic interest" then they would insert themselves forcibly and /dictate/ to divorcing parents who was going to have custody and so forth. The fact that they do not get involved, unless they are specifically asked to be involved, pretty much destroys any concept of children being third-party to marriage or divorce.

Nope, it doesn't. And if the children disagreed with the arrangement, the court would have appointed them a guardian ad litem as it is required to do by law in such contested situations and come up with a different solution. Children are part of the marriage contract. A fact that is quite obviously making your cult a little nervous because I suspect one of your lawyers has brushed up on the Infant Doctrine and "necessities" laws regarding contracts. So spin spin spin away. But that's not going to save you when the rubber meets the road in arguments..

Obergefell changed the terms of a contract children share and did so without their having representation. It did so even though it had knowledge of the amicus briefs in the link in my signature. Obergefell, therefore, was a mistrial. Onerous contractual terms can't exist in law to the detriment of children.

 

[Syriusly]

Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.

I suppose a child may seek emancipation (from parental control), or the state may seek to terminate parental rights, or a parent may seek to relinquish parental rights, but those things aren't "divorce". Are you referring to any specific case?

The point being that children are legally bound in marriage and must seek formal proceedings to escape or alter or whatever. The courts consider all people in the married home part of the contract..

No- stop listening to the voices in your head.

 

[Syriusly]

The court never once gave two shits in either my ex-husband and I's divorce nor either of our subsequent remarriages regarding the kids (we have two) because we put on our divorce paperwork that we'd be able to work out everything on our own. And we have, for just about 20 years now, not had a single custody related fight. The /law/ doesn't have an "interest" in children until a custody dispute is brought to them - and that is exactly how it should be. IF the law had an "automatic interest" then they would insert themselves forcibly and /dictate/ to divorcing parents who was going to have custody and so forth. The fact that they do not get involved, unless they are specifically asked to be involved, pretty much destroys any concept of children being third-party to marriage or divorce.

. Children are part of the marriage contract. .

Nope- which is why children's opinions regarding whether a divorce should happen is disregarded by the courts.

The courts only ask the children's opinion regarding custody arrangements.

Which is why even when a mom remarries- her children don't automatically become the children of her new husband- the children are not even considered part of that marriage.

 

[EverCurious]

mmhmm And why would I be nervous? My kids are damn near out of the house and I'm in a heterosexual marriage that your ridiculous bullshit can't ever touch.

My kids were never asked by anyone if my ex and I could be divorced, nor if either of us could get remarried. There was no ad litem because it was never even questioned by any court. In fact, having gone through a custody fight with my current husband ex-gf and son, the court did /not/ automatically appoint an ad litem, my husband had to specifically request one and then prove to the judge why it was necessary.

RE: Infancy doctrine, as far as I know we don't mix civil and business law like you want to do here. Can you give me any example where infancy doctrine has been used regarding any marriage?

 

[Skylar]

Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.

I suppose a child may seek emancipation (from parental control), or the state may seek to terminate parental rights, or a parent may seek to relinquish parental rights, but those things aren't "divorce". Are you referring to any specific case?

The point being that children are legally bound in marriage and must seek formal proceedings to escape or alter or whatever.

Except that they aren't. If the parents are never married, a child would have to go through the exact same steps if they want emancipation.

The courts consider all people in the married home part of the contract.

Except that they don't. No court recognizes a child as 'part of the contract'. They aren't parties, they aren't third party beneficiaries, they aren't anything.

You made all that up.

And a contract that has onerous terms to children cannot exist. Therefore depriving a child via contract of either a mother or father for life via contract cannot exist. Therefore gay marriage cannot exist legally.

Except that the Supreme Court has never found that same sex marriage creates 'onerous terms' for a child. But quite the opposite: that same sex marriage is beneficial to children.

And of course, none of your babble about children being 'part of the contract' is actually true. You just made that up.

And of course, the Supreme Court has already found that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them:

"This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot 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."

Apparently the 'point' of your entire post was to demonstrate that you're just making this up as you go along.

 

[Skylar]

mmhmm And why would I be nervous? My kids are damn near out of the house and I'm in a heterosexual marriage that your ridiculous bullshit can't ever touch.

My kids were never asked by anyone if my ex and I could be divorced, nor if either of us could get remarried. There was no ad litem because it was never even questioned by any court. In fact, having gone through a custody fight with my current husband ex-gf and son, the court did /not/ automatically appoint an ad litem, my husband had to specifically request one and then prove to the judge why it was necessary.

RE: Infancy doctrine, as far as I know we don't mix civil and business law like you want to do here. Can you give me any example where infancy doctrine has been used regarding any marriage?

Yeah it was kind of embarrassing to watch Sil quote Entertainment Law as marriage law.

And no, she can't. She can't even show us a law or court ruling that recognizes that a marriage of parents creates a minor contract for children.

She's literally making this up as she goes along.

 

[Skylar]

The court never once gave two shits in either my ex-husband and I's divorce nor either of our subsequent remarriages regarding the kids (we have two) because we put on our divorce paperwork that we'd be able to work out everything on our own. And we have, for just about 20 years now, not had a single custody related fight. The /law/ doesn't have an "interest" in children until a custody dispute is brought to them - and that is exactly how it should be. IF the law had an "automatic interest" then they would insert themselves forcibly and /dictate/ to divorcing parents who was going to have custody and so forth. The fact that they do not get involved, unless they are specifically asked to be involved, pretty much destroys any concept of children being third-party to marriage or divorce.

Nope, it doesn't. And if the children disagreed with the arrangement, the court would have appointed them a guardian ad litem as it is required to do by law in such contested situations and come up with a different solution.

No, that's just more pseud-legal gibberish. You wanted to use the words 'guardian ad litem' is all. Children 'disagreeing' isn't why or when they are assigned. But if the judge feels he or she needs more information.

The judge decides if they are necessary. Not a child.

Children are part of the marriage contract.

Says you. You've never once been able to show us one law or court ruling that recognizes children as either parties or their party beneficiaries of marriage. You merely say it is so. Citing yourself.

And you have no idea what you're talking about.

A fact that is quite obviously making your cult a little nervous because I suspect one of your lawyers has brushed up on the Infant Doctrine and "necessities" laws regarding contracts. So spin spin spin away. But that's not going to save you when the rubber meets the road in arguments..

The Infancy Doctrine doesn't say any of what you did. Its part of Entertainment and Business law for explicit contracts....like for child actors or minors who want to obtain a mortgage. It has nothing to do with marriage. Nor can you show us a single example where it has ever been applied to marriage.

You're just making this shit up as you go along. And none of it has the slightest relevance to any law, any marriage or any court ruling.

Obergefell changed the terms of a contract children share and did so without their having representation.

No Supreme Court hearing has *ever* had a 'representative' for 'all children'. Nor is there any such requirement.

You're just this shit up as you go along.

It did so even though it had knowledge of the amicus briefs in the link in my signature. Obergefell, therefore, was a mistrial. Onerous contractual terms can't exist in law to the detriment of children.

Obergefell wasn't even a trial. It was a hearing followed by a ruling. Making your 'mistrial' babble mere pseudo-legal gibberish.

None of the requirements you insisted that Obergefell failed to meet...actually exist. Nor does any court or law recognize that a marriage of parents is a minor contract for their children. Or that children are third party beneficiaries of marriage. You made all that up.

You genuinely don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Children share the marriage contract.

Name even a single child who ever stopped either a divorce or a marriage? Oh right, there aren't any. You lose, little mental case...

 

[EverCurious]

Good lord can you imagine what would happen in this country if kids got to dictate what their parents were allowed to do or not? I can just see all the murders from parents who want a divorce but the kid(s) won't let them lol

 

[sealybobo]

Good lord can you imagine what would happen in this country if kids got to dictate what their parents were allowed to do or not? I can just see all the murders from parents who want a divorce but the kid(s) won't let them lol

Whoever wants the divorce should leave. I know not in every case but I don't like it mom can throw dad out when he wants to live with his child 7 days a week. It's not natural to give dad weekends. Makes me want to say fuck you ma buy a duplex and live two lives but a kid should have mom and dad at least on the same block

 

[mdk]

Good lord can you imagine what would happen in this country if kids got to dictate what their parents were allowed to do or not? I can just see all the murders from parents who want a divorce but the kid(s) won't let them lol

Just like every one Sil's standards, it would only apply to queers. Straight people can still do whatever they wish without the consent of the child.

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills.

Nope. You're citing yourself, not any lawyer. Which is why when we ask you to show us a single example of the Infancy Doctrine of Entertainment and Business law applied to marriage........you quietly avoid the question.

For crying out loud, last night you were citing UK law as overturning Obergefell. There's no such thing as Contract Imposition in US law.

Its just you citing yourself. And your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure. You've literally never been right.

Children share the marriage contract.

Nope. Not even close.. No law nor court recognizes that children are parties to marriage of their parents or third party beneficiaries. You made all that up. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

See how that works?

That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no".

Nope. Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Or third party beneficiaries. And the Supreme Court already explicitly contradicted you, finding that same sex marriage benefits children. With the Supreme Court also finding that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Your argument literally shatters *four* times. Which might explain why same sex marriage is legal in 50 of 50 States. And no court recognizes any of your pseudo-legal gibberish.

You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

Nope. None of that is the law either. Nor was any child a party in the Obergefell case. Nor is there any requirement that the Supreme Court have a 'representative' for 'all children' at a hearing.

You made that up. In fact, the Supreme Court has *never* had a 'representative' for 'all children' at any hearing in the history of the court.

Ever.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal gibberish remains gloriously irrelevant to any case, any court, any marriage, any law.

 

[mdk]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.

 

[Skylar]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.

Don't bother. Sil can never back up her pseudo-legal gibberish. She'll just restate it.

She knows she's completely full of shit. We know she's full of shit. And she knows we know she's full of shit.

These entire threads (all 53 of them now) are merely thumb sucking excercises in self soothing for Sil. Where she repeated the same comforting nonsensical gibberish to herself, hoping it will sooth the dissonance between what she predicted reality would be.....and what it actually is.

Sil is literally her own target audience for this nonsense.

 

[mdk]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.

Don't bother. Sil can never back up her pseudo-legal gibberish. She'll just restate it.

She knows she's completely full of shit. We know she's full of shit. And she knows we know she's full of shit.

These entire threads (all 53 of them now) are merely thumb sucking excercises in self soothing for Sil. Where she repeated the same comforting nonsensical gibberish to herself, hoping it will sooth the dissonance between what she predicted reality would be.....and what it actually is.

Sil is literally her own target audience for this nonsense.

Hardly. This poll totally means 90% of Americans, from the farm to the factories, are opposed to gay marriage. lol

 

[Skylar]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.

Don't bother. Sil can never back up her pseudo-legal gibberish. She'll just restate it.

She knows she's completely full of shit. We know she's full of shit. And she knows we know she's full of shit.

These entire threads (all 53 of them now) are merely thumb sucking excercises in self soothing for Sil. Where she repeated the same comforting nonsensical gibberish to herself, hoping it will sooth the dissonance between what she predicted reality would be.....and what it actually is.

Sil is literally her own target audience for this nonsense.

Hardly. This poll totally means 90% of Americans, from the farm to the factories, are opposed to gay marriage. lol

But....but 56 times. And the Prince's Trust!

 

[Katzndogz]

Good lord can you imagine what would happen in this country if kids got to dictate what their parents were allowed to do or not? I can just see all the murders from parents who want a divorce but the kid(s) won't let them lol

Whoever wants the divorce should leave. I know not in every case but I don't like it mom can throw dad out when he wants to live with his child 7 days a week. It's not natural to give dad weekends. Makes me want to say fuck you ma buy a duplex and live two lives but a kid should have mom and dad at least on the same block

When I got my divorce I moved two blocks away and my son had a key.

If the parents can afford it, some parenting plans use what's called nesting custody. The parents keep the family home and the child lives there while the parents alternate weeks staying at the home. The have a roommate, stay with relatives or just have a cheapo room for the time they aren't in the custodial residence.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hey Sil, the sperm wants a divorce but the ovum say no. Now what?

 

[mdk]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

Show me any state that recognizes that children share a marriage contract. You can't b/c these states only exist in your addled one-track mind.

Don't bother. Sil can never back up her pseudo-legal gibberish. She'll just restate it.

She knows she's completely full of shit. We know she's full of shit. And she knows we know she's full of shit.

These entire threads (all 53 of them now) are merely thumb sucking excercises in self soothing for Sil. Where she repeated the same comforting nonsensical gibberish to herself, hoping it will sooth the dissonance between what she predicted reality would be.....and what it actually is.

Sil is literally her own target audience for this nonsense.

Hardly. This poll totally means 90% of Americans, from the farm to the factories, are opposed to gay marriage. lol

But....but 56 times. And the Prince's Trust!

This is a form speech suppression!