Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- Thread starter
- #261
Did, or did not Justice Kennedy put in writing in either US v Windsor or Obergefell v Hodges, that children needed the (their) benefits of marriage?Of course, the Infants Doctrine. I assume you mean the infancy doctrine, that legal doctrine about minors as contract signatories that you want to apply to the children of a married couple, despite the fact those children are not parties to the marriage contract.
You should understand the evidence you try to use to support your claims before you put forth that evidence. The infancy doctrine is about children being able to get out of contracts they enter into, not contracts their parents enter into.
If the answer is "yes", then Justice Kennedy enshrined in law in 2013 &/or 2015, that children are IMPLIED PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Anyone who derives benefits from a contract is an implied party to that contract. There is no disputing that.
So I'm sorry to inform you that children being implicit parties to the marriage contract has already been established quite recently, by the highest court in the nation.
For your debate it gets even worse. THE MAIN benefit children derived from the marriage contract previous to 2015 was BOTH a mother and father. Not a man with an asshole "playing female/mom"; nor a woman with a strapon dildo "playing male/dad". Children derived the real McCoy; for which there is no substitute.
Thousands of studies have been done that show children fall by the wayside compared to their peers (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) if they lack either a mother or father in their life. There are rare exceptions to that rule, but they are rare exceptions to that rule. We don't set standards based on rare exceptions; particularly when we as states subsidize THE MAIN benefit of marriage as a bet on a cheaper, more sane future citizenry. Of the many (unfortunate and expen$ive) maladies plaguing children without either a mother or father (no matter how many other adults they come into regular contact with) are depression, suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, indigency, prison terms and a general sense of not belonging (as found in the Prince's Trust 2010 Survey, the largest of its kind)...particularly when the child missing a father is a boy and the child missing the mother is a girl.
So, Obegefell created contractual conditions as a binding force of law, that results in the DETRIMENT to children sharing that contract. Remember, your premise is that they do not share that contract "and therefore no contractual detriment was created at their expense". Given that Kennedy found there WAS contractual enjoyments children derive from marriage (making their share an implied one; which is equally as binding as expressed), your premise fails. And therefore, your conclusion "the Infants Doctrine doesn't apply to marriage contracts" is a false conclusion. It does apply. It applies to each and every single contract that children share either expressly, or implied.
Therefore, Obergefell was an illegal Ruling on that point. But it is also an illegal Ruling on many other points of which I've pointed out before. Those include Ginsburg (and Kagan) openly telling the world how they would vote on it months in advance; that Windsor said 56 times that the power to define marriage rests with the states; that no words about marriage are mentioned in the constitution at all because it is a state-granted privilege..evidenced by the fact that states can still deny other sexual orientations marriage...the misuse of the 14th to give only some but not other sexual orientations carte blanch for marriage...etc. etc.
Like I said, Judge Moore could just put on a blindfold and throw darts in any direction and he'd hit a bullseye. The hardest part of his defense would be which rock-solid defense to choose.
If my company signs a contract with a new vendor- even if I derive benefit from that contract- I am not party of the contract.
Implied or not.
Kennedy made the whole deal about "doing it for the kids". I think you know that your position is indefensible. Kennedy enjoined children to a contract; and he did so expressly. So perhaps you're right, children no longer are implied parties to the marriage contract, they are expressed parties to the marriage contract.
Indeed Kennedy used the idea of children's benefits and share in marriage as an excuse to rewrite laws across the country with a stroke of his pen. So I stand corrected. Not just implied parties anymore; children are EXPRESSED parties to the marriage contract.