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

[mdk]

Strangely, marriage contracts are dissolved without the permission of affected minors, routinely

Only when the psychological atmosphere in the home becomes so abusive to endure that there is no other remedy. There is nothing worse for a child to be in a home where two people outwardly or inwardly despise each other to their core. And don't forget where a large share of the time in divorce court is spent: tending to the children's NEEDS to have access to BOTH their mother and father after the divorce. Still, even in divorce that baseline provision of the thousands-years-old original contract is maintained. Thus bolstering my points and not detracting from them. Thanks for bringing up divorce court and the marriage contract to underscore what I'm talking about..

Not all divorces end in joint custody. Custody is not always a source of contention. A divorce is not contingent on permission from the children (or their lawyers )

Don't bother. You would have better luck getting through to a house plant and at least those provide oxygen. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Strangely, marriage contracts are dissolved without the permission of affected minors, routinely

Only when the psychological atmosphere in the home becomes so abusive to endure that there is no other remedy. There is nothing worse for a child to be in a home where two people outwardly or inwardly despise each other to their core. And don't forget where a large share of the time in divorce court is spent: tending to the children's NEEDS to have access to BOTH their mother and father after the divorce. Still, even in divorce that baseline provision of the thousands-years-old original contract is maintained. Thus bolstering my points and not detracting from them. Thanks for bringing up divorce court and the marriage contract to underscore what I'm talking about..

Not all divorces end in joint custody. Custody is not always a source of contention. A divorce is not contingent on permission from the children (or their lawyers )

True, but the children then possess new hope of a new marriage restoring their mother and father rights to them per contract's original intent. You are dancing around the FACT that the marriage contract was invented precisely to remedy childhood woes of not having both a mother and father around to raise them.

In this question of law, the intent of the marriage contract re: children will be discussed at length.

 

[Skylar]

Strangely, marriage contracts are dissolved without the permission of affected minors, routinely

Only when the psychological atmosphere in the home becomes so abusive to endure that there is no other remedy.

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

By your psuedo-legal gibberish, does that mean that most every divorce is a 'mistrial'? Or do you just not have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

 

[Skylar]

Strangely, marriage contracts are dissolved without the permission of affected minors, routinely

Only when the psychological atmosphere in the home becomes so abusive to endure that there is no other remedy. There is nothing worse for a child to be in a home where two people outwardly or inwardly despise each other to their core. And don't forget where a large share of the time in divorce court is spent: tending to the children's NEEDS to have access to BOTH their mother and father after the divorce. Still, even in divorce that baseline provision of the thousands-years-old original contract is maintained. Thus bolstering my points and not detracting from them. Thanks for bringing up divorce court and the marriage contract to underscore what I'm talking about..

Not all divorces end in joint custody. Custody is not always a source of contention. A divorce is not contingent on permission from the children (or their lawyers )

True, but the children then possess new hope of a new marriage restoring their mother and father rights to them per contract's original intent.

Save that;

1) No law nor court ruling recognizes that children are married to their parents. You imagined it.

2) No law nor court ruling recognizes that the marriage of parents creates a 'contract of minors' for children. You imagined that too.

3) Denying marriage to same sex couples doesn't help any child while hurting tens of thousands. As forbidding marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees their children never have married parents. Which hurts those children and help none.

Obliterating your entire basis of argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen as a main concern of the courts upon divorce"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

....good luck with that one!...

 

[Skylar]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary.

And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce.

Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[jillian]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary.

And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce.

Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

pseudo-legal" is probably being more than polite. he clearly knows nothing about how the system works.

 

[Skylar]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary.

And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce.

Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

pseudo-legal" is probably being more than polite. he clearly knows nothing about how the system works.

Not a fucking thing. Its like listening to a 4 year old lecture heart surgeons on heart surgery.

 

[jillian]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary.

And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce.

Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

pseudo-legal" is probably being more than polite. he clearly knows nothing about how the system works.

Not a fucking thing. Its like listening to a 4 year old lecture heart surgeons on heart surgery.

exactly. he thinks his bigotry is enforceable by law.

it's kind of funny.

 

[Skylar]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary.

And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce.

Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

pseudo-legal" is probably being more than polite. he clearly knows nothing about how the system works.

Not a fucking thing. Its like listening to a 4 year old lecture heart surgeons on heart surgery.

exactly. he thinks his bigotry is enforceable by law.

it's kind of funny.

Its kind of sad. She has 39 threads on the topics of gays. Each with dozens if not hundreds of pages of insane rants like the one's she's offered here. Go to any conspiracy website and read the demented prattle on government mind control rays, the flat earth, or the illuminati. They are obsessive, elaborate, multiparagraph piles of self referencing batshit.

That read just Sil's posts. With Sil in her more lucid moments admitting how much these rants damage her mentally and physically, harm her relationships, worsen her health. And how she has to stop to save herself. And yet she can't stop. Her compulsion is far more powerful than her capacity to control.

And while its occasionally satisfying to poke fun at her........she's genuinely ill. We're making fun of mental illness. And watching a person's addiction and obsessive compulsions consume her life in slow motion.

 

[Syriusly]

Strangely, marriage contracts are dissolved without the permission of affected minors, routinely

\. There is nothing worse for a child to be in a home where two people outwardly or inwardly despise each other to their core.\

You have made this kind of claim before- really?

"nothing worse"

What about child rape?

Child beating?

Child starvation?

 

[Syriusly]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen as a main concern of the courts upon divorce"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

We are recognizing reality- not what the voices in your head say.

 

[Silhouette]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary....And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce....Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

pseudo-legal" is probably being more than polite. he clearly knows nothing about how the system works.

Do you know how infants and contract law works with respect to necessities for children? It's clear you do not. Because if you did, you'd know that the necessity of both a mother and father in marriage (the reason the contract was created in the first place) can't be dissolved.

 

[Montrovant]

Or the parents just don't want to be married anymore. The children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in a divorce.

So you're claiming that preserving contact with both the mother and father after divorce "doesn't happen"...and that this isn't part of the implied intent of the origin of the marriage contract to begin with?

I'm claiming exactly what I typed: married parents can get divorced if they don't want to be married anymore. An 'abusive psychological atmosphere for children' isn't necessary....And children rarely, if ever, have 'representation' in divorce....Making your pseudo-legal gibberish that unless 'children' have 'representation', its a 'mistrial' just more nonsense blather from a person who has no idea what they're talking about.

pseudo-legal" is probably being more than polite. he clearly knows nothing about how the system works.

Do you know how infants and contract law works with respect to necessities for children? It's clear you do not. Because if you did, you'd know that the necessity of both a mother and father in marriage (the reason the contract was created in the first place) can't be dissolved.

Same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. So currently, the way the law works, your claims are smoke in the wind.

Now you will likely respond with something like, "This will be reversed because of the way the law works". One might think that, with your history of being consistently wrong about the law with regards to marriage, you might take a step back and review your claims about the legal realities of marriage. Perhaps you might look at the Contracts of Minors link you get your sig quote from and see that the necessary goods it talks about has nothing to do with parents, or even maintaining contracts for the benefit of children.

Instead, you'll just keep spouting more nonsense. It's like a Geico commercial....."If you're Silhouette, you spout legal nonsense. It's what you do.".

 

[Silhouette]

Same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. So currently, the way the law works, your claims are smoke in the wind.

Marriage was a contract invented to cure children of the deprivation of the vital mother/father pair. It was created to cure single parenthood and a lack of either a mother or more commonly, a father.

Marriage is a contract, and if that contract's new terms deprive children of a necessity, then that contract is void upon its face. Therefore, the more ancient and concrete "infants and contract law" regarding necessities says that any contract stripping them of their vital mother or father for life, is a contract that is invalid while its ink is still wet.

So, same sex marriage is ILLEGAL in all 50 states according to a much more ancient and pernicious set of laws regarding children.

 

[mdk]

So, same sex marriage is ILLEGAL in all 50 states according to a much more ancient and pernicious set of laws regarding children.

And yet...gay marriage is legal in all 50 states and all you can do is whine and piss in the wind. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Montrovant]

Same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. So currently, the way the law works, your claims are smoke in the wind.

Marriage was a contract invented to cure children of the deprivation of the vital mother/father pair. It was created to cure single parenthood and a lack of either a mother or more commonly, a father.

Marriage is a contract, and if that contract's new terms deprive children of a necessity, then that contract is void upon its face. Therefore, the more ancient and concrete "infants and contract law" regarding necessities says that any contract stripping them of their vital mother or father for life, is a contract that is invalid while its ink is still wet.

So, same sex marriage is ILLEGAL in all 50 states according to a much more ancient and pernicious set of laws regarding children.

Unless you're going to claim that US law is beholden to some sort of ancient law you're making up, what you just said is effectively meaningless.

 

[jillian]

Same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. So currently, the way the law works, your claims are smoke in the wind.

Marriage was a contract invented to cure children of the deprivation of the vital mother/father pair. It was created to cure single parenthood and a lack of either a mother or more commonly, a father.

Marriage is a contract, and if that contract's new terms deprive children of a necessity, then that contract is void upon its face. Therefore, the more ancient and concrete "infants and contract law" regarding necessities says that any contract stripping them of their vital mother or father for life, is a contract that is invalid while its ink is still wet.

So, same sex marriage is ILLEGAL in all 50 states according to a much more ancient and pernicious set of laws regarding children.

marriage, is a construct of government intended to convey and control the passing of property.

you're welcome.

 

[Silhouette]

Unless you're going to claim that US law is beholden to some sort of ancient law you're making up, what you just said is effectively meaningless.

Follow the link in my signature and see if I'm making up what I'm saying about infants, necessities and contract law..

 

[Montrovant]

Unless you're going to claim that US law is beholden to some sort of ancient law you're making up, what you just said is effectively meaningless.

Follow the link in my signature and see if I'm making up what I'm saying about infants, necessities and contract law..

Yeah.....as I've already pointed out multiple times, I've gone to your Contracts of Minors link. When it talks about minors, contracts, and necessities, as in the quote in your sig line, it is talking about minors being obligated to honor contracts, not about contracts between adults in which minors are tangentially involved.

Perhaps if you actually read your link, or even your sig line (notice it talks about goods which are necessary, not parents), you would realize that you are making things up. When you ignore the very things you claim to be talking about, you have no credibility.

But hey! You've long since destroyed any credibility you may have had, so I guess it doesn't matter at this point, right? May as well just lie and see if any of it sticks!