Foundation of American Law at Risk: Obergefell 2015 A Reversible Ruling?

[mdk]

The marriage contract. Children are implicit parties to it. It was created for them over a thousand years ago to provide a mother and father to girls and boys. Those necessities can't be revoked by a new contract called "marriage" which still involves them, which strips them of those necessities for which the contract was originally written. Any contract called "marriage" that strips children of either a mother or father is void upon its face.

You do realize saying the exact same nonsense over and over again doesn't make it true, right?

You can claim gay marriage is void until the cows come home but the those of us living the real world are not bound by your bullshit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has been rebutted over and over and over and over.

Every predictions she has made, like Orly Taitz, has failed. Miserably.

Yes, it could be reversed.

No, it won't be reversed in our lifetimes.

 

[Syriusly]

..
none of your babble about 'infants and contract law' has thing to do with either infants or contract law. What you're offering is your *imagination* on contract law. Where you imagine that children are married to thier parents...

From my signature:.

Silhouette- quoting herself- quoting herself.

Typical.

 

[Syriusly]

The marriage contract. Children are implicit parties to it. It was created for them over a thousand years ago to provide a mother and father to girls and boys. Those necessities can't be revoked by a new contract called "marriage" which still involves them, which strips them of those necessities for which the contract was originally written. Any contract called "marriage" that strips children of either a mother or father is void upon its face.

There isn't a single true statement in that post.

No one.

 

[Skylar]

..
none of your babble about 'infants and contract law' has thing to do with either infants or contract law. What you're offering is your *imagination* on contract law. Where you imagine that children are married to thier parents...

From my signature:

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

And no one, no law, no court, not one of your own sources, nothing....recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors' for their children.

Ending your entire argument.

Remember, Sil....and this point is fundamental: You don't know a thing about the law. You know what you *imagine* about the law. And your imagination has no legal relevance. Which is why your every legal prediction, without exception, has been wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

From my signature:

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

And no one, no law, no court, not one of your own sources, nothing....recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors' for their children.

Ending your entire argument..

Can you cite where the specific question of infants/necessities and contract law were tested against the description of the marriage contract and infants lost the rights to both a mother and father? Please cite that case law and provide a link.

Otherwise, get ready. That test is coming.

 

[mdk]

From my signature:

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

And no one, no law, no court, not one of your own sources, nothing....recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors' for their children.

Ending your entire argument..

Can you cite where the specific question of infants/necessities and contract law were tested against the description of the marriage contract and infants lost the rights to both a mother and father? Please cite that case law and provide a link.

Otherwise, get ready. That test is coming.

Get ready for what? Another one of your failed predictions? Don't worry, we're all used to that by now.

 

[Skylar]

From my signature:

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

And no one, no law, no court, not one of your own sources, nothing....recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors' for their children.

Ending your entire argument..

Can you cite where the specific question of infants/necessities and contract law were tested against the description of the marriage contract and infants lost the rights to both a mother and father? Please cite that case law and provide a link.

Can you cite any law or court ruling that recognizes infants being married to their parents? Or of a marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors'? Or the marriage of people who never have kids as a 'contract of minors'?

Nope. As you hallucinated the entire thing. And your hallucinations have no legal relevance.

Otherwise, get ready. That test is coming.

Nope. As once again you're citing your imagination as the law. And your imagination predicts no legal outcome.

As your perfect record of failure in predicting the outcome of any case demonstrates elegantly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Come on, Sil, just stop the nonsense.

 

[Silhouette]

Nonsense? You have a mother and father I'll bet..

 

[Silhouette]

1. Can you cite any law or court ruling that recognizes infants being married to their parents? 2. Or of a marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors'? 3. Or the marriage of people who never have kids as a 'contract of minors'?

.

1. The marriage contract was created FOR children, over a thousand years ago to provide children with both a mother and father. So I cite that.

2. A "contract of minors" is a contract in which children either expressly or implicitly share in the terms of a contract. See #1.

3. Since the terms of the marriage contract were invented for children, maintained that way for them for over a thousand years, whether or not children actually arrive is immaterial. A gun may fail to shoot, but they are designed to spiral a bullet out and propel it towards a target. Because a gun fails to shoot doesn't mean you discard the design of all guns.

 

[mdk]

 

[Silhouette]

So then, you don't have a rebuttal to points 1, 2, and 3 I posted at the top of this page... Just loudly colored streaming animation.

 

[mdk]

So then, you don't have a rebuttal to points 1, 2, and 3 I posted at the top of this page... Just loudly colored streaming animation.

The points remain the same, your imagination doesn't have any relevance on the law. The only place you have any real power is in Imaginationland.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you are playing a rerun of Orly Taitz, and yet you seem surprised of the reaction you receive.

 

[Montrovant]

From my signature:

"...some contracts cannot be voided....perhaps the biggest area of enforceable minor contracts deals with necessaries, which consist of goods reasonably necessary for subsistence, health, comfort or education. As such, contracts furnishing these items to a minor cannot be disaffirmed. " Contracts of Minors

And no one, no law, no court, not one of your own sources, nothing....recognizes the marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors' for their children.

Ending your entire argument..

Can you cite where the specific question of infants/necessities and contract law were tested against the description of the marriage contract and infants lost the rights to both a mother and father? Please cite that case law and provide a link.

Otherwise, get ready. That test is coming.

Did you miss where I pointed out that that quote is about minors being obligated to honor contracts? Have you even actually read the link in your sig it comes from?

Enforceable minor contracts are contracts signed by minors which are enforceable despite them being, you know, minors. It is not contracts between adults of which minors are an implied but unstated part.

 

[Montrovant]

1. Can you cite any law or court ruling that recognizes infants being married to their parents? 2. Or of a marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors'? 3. Or the marriage of people who never have kids as a 'contract of minors'?

.

1. The marriage contract was created FOR children, over a thousand years ago to provide children with both a mother and father. So I cite that.

2. A "contract of minors" is a contract in which children either expressly or implicitly share in the terms of a contract. See #1.

3. Since the terms of the marriage contract were invented for children, maintained that way for them for over a thousand years, whether or not children actually arrive is immaterial. A gun may fail to shoot, but they are designed to spiral a bullet out and propel it towards a target. Because a gun fails to shoot doesn't mean you discard the design of all guns.

1. Prove it. Barring that, provide any evidence other than your own words claiming it is true.

2. An "enforceable minor contract" is not a contract in which children expressly or implicitly share in the terms of a contract. It is a contract which is enforceable upon a minor despite their being underage.

3. Ignoring the complete lack of evidence that marriage was invented for children, marriage has not been 'maintained that way for over a thousand years'. Marriage has been viewed differently in different societies as well as changed over time. Further, marriage under US law is not beholden to follow any past rules of marriage. Making this whole point bunk.

 

[Syriusly]

From my signature:.

Silhouette- quoting herself- again.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Can you cite any law or court ruling that recognizes infants being married to their parents? 2. Or of a marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors'? 3. Or the marriage of people who never have kids as a 'contract of minors'?

.

1. The marriage contract was created FOR children, over a thousand years ago to provide children with both a mother and father. So I cite that..

Silhouette- citing herself- and the voices in her head- again.

 

[Skylar]

1. Can you cite any law or court ruling that recognizes infants being married to their parents? 2. Or of a marriage of parents as a 'contract of minors'? 3. Or the marriage of people who never have kids as a 'contract of minors'?

.

1. The marriage contract was created FOR children, over a thousand years ago to provide children with both a mother and father. So I cite that.

No, you cited yourself. And told us what you think marriage is. Which is legally meaningless.

Please cite the law or court ruling that cite any law or court ruling that recognizes that infants are married to their parents. Or that the marriage of parents is a 'contract of minors'. Or that the marriage of people who never have kids is a 'contract of minors'.

You can't. As nothing you've claimed is part of our law. Ending your legal argument.