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

[Silhouette]

no, not confused. it's plain there is no connection

Well clearly we are at an impasse. We'll see what the courts say if Moore defends himself and the children of Alabama by citing this quote and following the legal logic back to the Infants Doctrine. You'll have your work cut out for you "proving" that children are not implied parties to the marriage contract. Good luck. You're going to need it. Your task is akin to proving that water isn't wet.

If courts acknowledge the thousands-year-old understanding that marriage is about children, indeed created for children in the first place, then the following is going to be a problem for gay marriage which legally strips children of either a mother or father for life to their detriment:

Any contract which a court deems to be detrimental to the interests of the child is void, plain and simple. It is not voidable - it is void. It is as if it never existed. Of course, this takes a court order to achieve but it is an important deterrent to commercial hustlers who would not hesitate to extract money from a child. Contracts With Children

 

[Silhouette]

Another point of argument Moore could make is this:

Obergefell wasn't a legal decision. Two of the Justices sitting on it openly and publicly displayed bias in favor of one of the litigants months in advance of the Hearing. Capteron v Massey Coal (2009 USSC) concluded that no judge or juror may display bias towards one side of the litigants and still sit on the hearing of their trial.

It shits in the face of the American judicial system by saying a judge can conduct an interview on national TV saying in favor of one set of litigants "their case is something I feel its time has come for America", and then pretend to be impartial at the hearing. And as you know, that's what Justice Ginsburg did around January 2015...that is when she wasn't busy along with Kagan performing gay weddings as federal representatives of the highest court in the land with the case pending, publicly with huge smiles on their faces.

Even an amoeba would suspect bias in such a judge. And so, Obergefell was a mistrial. It is no more legal or enforceable than if I sat on its Hearing in the woods with a bunch of my friends in a kangaroo court.

 

[JoeB131]

An implied party to a contract does not necessarily have a share in all of it. They may have a share in part of it. So while children cannot become married or divorced (yet, give the predatory cult LGBT enough time..), they still have implicit enjoyments from marriage. In fact, marriage was created as an institution FOR the benefit of children originally, thousands of years ago.

again, by that logic, Children can object to divorces legally.

Or their parents getting remarried.

 

[Silhouette]

An implied party to a contract does not necessarily have a share in all of it. They may have a share in part of it. So while children cannot become married or divorced (yet, give the predatory cult LGBT enough time..), they still have implicit enjoyments from marriage. In fact, marriage was created as an institution FOR the benefit of children originally, thousands of years ago.

again, by that logic, Children can object to divorces legally.

Or their parents getting remarried.

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...

Meanwhile, what do you think about post #82? Any thoughts on Ginsburg's early 2015 interview where she said gay marriage is an idea whose time has come? Maybe judge Roy Moore and the State of Alabama have some thoughts on the issue of a biased Justice presiding over a case that's being used to pummel him legally?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: America is ready for gay marriage Ruth Bader Ginsburg: America is ready for gay marriage

The Washington Times - Thursday, February 12, 2015

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said America has come a long way in recent years on the issue of gay rights and is now ready to accept same-sex marriage as national law.....“The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous,” she said in an interview with Bloomberg. “In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor — we’re very fond of them. Or, it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”

Charming sentiments, if one wasn't supposed to be a mute impartial Justice in the Highest Court of our land, the last stop of justice.

More:
Justice Ginsburg asked to recuse herself in Supreme Court gay marriage case Justice Ginsburg asked to recuse herself in Supreme Court gay marriage case

The Washington Times - Friday, February 13, 2015

A national organization that supports traditional marriage is asking U.S. Supreme CourtJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the upcoming gay marriage case since she has spoken and acted in favor of gay marriage....The catalyst was an interview with Bloomberg Business released Thursday in which Justice Ginsburg said “it would not take a large adjustment” for the American people to accept a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage....The justice, 81, also opined that as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people have revealed their sexual orientation, “the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”...These comments “brought disrepute on the Supreme Court and eliminated any pretext that she will approach the marriage issue with an open mind when it comes before her,” Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), said Friday.

 

[Montrovant]

What's funny is that you feel confident despite a consistent record of failure when it comes to predicting legal outcomes, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

What's funny is that you feel confident despite a consistent record of failure when it comes to predicting legal outcomes, Sil.

That's it? That's your rebuttal to my last post? What's funny is you feel that ad hominems and personal insults are a perfectly legitimate substitute for a lucid legal argument. That may serve you on a message board but it certainly won't serve the cult of LGBT in hammering Judge Moore if he presents a decent legal argument defending his state's right to self-determine on "marriage equality".

I mean, it's still a privilege where sexual orientation is concerned. Just ask polyamorists. So why do homosexuals have a federal bully by their side while the Brown family stands out in the cold? I guess states still can decide sometimes, depending on which sexual orientation you're talking about. But can the Fascist 5 legitimately cite the 14th Amendment to wield their Hammer on Moore while at the same time allow states to discriminate against other sexual orientations?

 

[mdk]

That's it? That's your rebuttal to my last post? What's funny is you feel that ad hominems and personal insults are a perfectly legitimate substitute for a lucid legal argument

Ignoring the actual findings of court rulings and citing your imagination are not lucid legal arguments.

Why are you leaving the Browm family out in the cold? You're all for religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Why not for this family? Their religious freedoms don't allow you prop up your anti-gay narrative so they are beneath your concern.

 

[Silhouette]

Why are you leaving the Browm family out in the cold? You're all for religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Why not for this family? Their religious freedoms don't allow you prop up your anti-gay narrative so they are beneath your concern.

I haven't been arguing a religious-freedom angle here. But nice try at the strawman! Can't blame a troll for trying..

 

[mdk]

Why are you leaving the Browm family out in the cold? You're all for religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Why not for this family? Their religious freedoms don't allow you prop up your anti-gay narrative so they are beneath your concern.

I haven't been arguing a religious-freedom angle here. But nice try at the strawman! Can't blame a troll for trying..

Of course you haven't. You only care about religious freedoms when it comes to clerks and bakers. The religious freedoms of the Brown family do not matter to you. I guess they need to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple to get your support. lol

 

[Syriusly]

i wonder why it matters? i mean let's pretend that children somehow are party to their parents' marriage - what does that have to do with gay marriage?

Again, the amount of time the courts devote solely to the childrens' interest in a divorce definitively demonstrates that the law considers children as implicit parties to the marriage contract and its dissolution. That's indisputable

Since every poster in this thread has indeed disputed your bizarre delusional claim.

 

[Silhouette]

Why are you leaving the Browm family out in the cold? You're all for religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Why not for this family? Their religious freedoms don't allow you prop up your anti-gay narrative so they are beneath your concern.

I haven't been arguing a religious-freedom angle here. But nice try at the strawman! Can't blame a troll for trying..

Of course you haven't. You only care about religious freedoms when it comes to clerks and bakers. The religious freedoms of the Brown family do not matter to you. I guess they need to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple to get your support. lol

What? If I was arguing the bakers and photographers' cases I'd be in keeping with what I've said all along here: that religions can object to participation in behaviors their faith says is an abomination.

And I can simultaneously hold that stance while also arguing that if states cannot legally deny someone marriage based on sexual orientation, that this doesn't just mean homosexuals...and I can do that all while being opposed to "gay marriage" as well as polygamy marriage....arguing thus as a didactic device to show the logical flaws in Obergefell.

YOU are trying your troll work to meld the two topics together because you're scared to death that if the Browns latch onto the sexual orientation thing, there is quite literally no way the Court can say "No" to them. And all this in an election year no less where the looney left told the public "you're insane to think there was a slippery slope". Obergefell is a very vulnerable Ruling. It has more holes than swiss cheese and I've only named a few in my threads. My hope is that Judge Moore closes his eyes and just points in a direction and goes with it as a means to defend himself and the State of Alabama from another cult-left attack on democracy.

There, just called you out. Now I'll wait for derision, trolling, strawmen and ad hominems...your usual fare.

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette delusional as always.

Perhaps its time to remember some of our favorite Silhouette delusions?

Asshole Roof shot all of the African Americans in the church- because he is secretly gay.

Feel free to contribute your next favorite delusion of hers.

 

[Montrovant]

What's funny is that you feel confident despite a consistent record of failure when it comes to predicting legal outcomes, Sil.

That's it? That's your rebuttal to my last post? What's funny is you feel that ad hominems and personal insults are a perfectly legitimate substitute for a lucid legal argument. That may serve you on a message board but it certainly won't serve the cult of LGBT in hammering Judge Moore if he presents a decent legal argument defending his state's right to self-determine on "marriage equality".

I mean, it's still a privilege where sexual orientation is concerned. Just ask polyamorists. So why do homosexuals have a federal bully by their side while the Brown family stands out in the cold? I guess states still can decide sometimes, depending on which sexual orientation you're talking about. But can the Fascist 5 legitimately cite the 14th Amendment to wield their Hammer on Moore while at the same time allow states to discriminate against other sexual orientations?

Your arguments have been rebutted countless times. When you come up with a legal prediction that turns out to be true, perhaps I'll give further legal predictions by you some consideration. Until then, your record of abject failure at prediction the outcome of legal proceedings leaves me feeling pretty good about assuming you are, as usual, wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

Why are you leaving the Browm family out in the cold? You're all for religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Why not for this family? Their religious freedoms don't allow you prop up your anti-gay narrative so they are beneath your concern.

I haven't been arguing a religious-freedom angle here. But nice try at the strawman! Can't blame a troll for trying..

Of course you haven't. You only care about religious freedoms when it comes to clerks and bakers. The religious freedoms of the Brown family do not matter to you. I guess they need to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple to get your support. lol

What? If I was arguing the bakers and photographers' cases I'd be in keeping with what I've said all along here: that religions can object to participation in behaviors their faith says is an abomination.

And I can simultaneously hold that stance while also arguing that if states cannot legally deny someone marriage based on sexual orientation, that this doesn't just mean homosexuals...and I can do that all while being opposed to "gay marriage" as well as polygamy marriage....arguing thus as a didactic device to show the logical flaws in Obergefell.

YOU are trying your troll work to meld the two topics together because you're scared to death that if the Browns latch onto the sexual orientation thing, there is quite literally no way the Court can say "No" to them. And all this in an election year no less where the looney left told the public "you're insane to think there was a slippery slope". Obergefell is a very vulnerable Ruling. It has more holes than swiss cheese and I've only named a few in my threads. My hope is that Judge Moore closes his eyes and just points in a direction and goes with it as a means to defend himself and the State of Alabama from another cult-left attack on democracy.

There, just called you out. Now I'll wait for derision, trolling, strawmen and ad hominems...your usual fare.

Unfortunately for you, polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is a type of relationship.

 

[Silhouette]

Your arguments have been rebutted countless times. When you come up with a legal prediction that turns out to be true, perhaps I'll give further legal predictions by you some consideration. Until then, your record of abject failure at prediction the outcome of legal proceedings leaves me feeling pretty good about assuming you are, as usual, wrong.

I predicted that deranged boys/men would be stopped from using girls/women's restrooms. That just came true.

Unfortunately for you, polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is a type of relationship.

Well you'll be happy to know then that in Obergefell, one's intimate choices and relationship lifestyle is also considered an orientation or legal situation worthy of "civil rights". Might want to give pages 7-8 of the Opinion a read for a refresher before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it.

 

[Montrovant]

Your arguments have been rebutted countless times. When you come up with a legal prediction that turns out to be true, perhaps I'll give further legal predictions by you some consideration. Until then, your record of abject failure at prediction the outcome of legal proceedings leaves me feeling pretty good about assuming you are, as usual, wrong.

I predicted that deranged boys/men would be stopped from using girls/women's restrooms. That just came true.

Unfortunately for you, polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is a type of relationship.

Well you'll be happy to know then that in Obergefell, one's intimate choices and relationship lifestyle is also considered an orientation or legal situation worthy of "civil rights". Might want to give pages 7-8 of the Opinion a read for a refresher before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it.

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

But please, feel free to point out where the USSC described polygamy (or monogamy for that matter) as a sexual orientation. Or point out where any court in the US has done so. Or to get back to your idiocy regarding the Infancy Doctrine, point out any court in the US which has used the Infancy Doctrine to dissolve a marriage, or let a child of a married couple sue for divorce.

 

[Skylar]

Why are you leaving the Browm family out in the cold? You're all for religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Why not for this family? Their religious freedoms don't allow you prop up your anti-gay narrative so they are beneath your concern.

I haven't been arguing a religious-freedom angle here. But nice try at the strawman! Can't blame a troll for trying..

Of course you haven't. You only care about religious freedoms when it comes to clerks and bakers. The religious freedoms of the Brown family do not matter to you. I guess they need to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple to get your support. lol

What? If I was arguing the bakers and photographers' cases I'd be in keeping with what I've said all along here: that religions can object to participation in behaviors their faith says is an abomination.

And I can simultaneously hold that stance while also arguing that if states cannot legally deny someone marriage based on sexual orientation, that this doesn't just mean homosexuals...and I can do that all while being opposed to "gay marriage" as well as polygamy marriage....arguing thus as a didactic device to show the logical flaws in Obergefell.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation anymore than monogamy is. You've literally made up a sexual orientation citing your imagination.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

YOU are trying your troll work to meld the two topics together because you're scared to death that if the Browns latch onto the sexual orientation thing, there is quite literally no way the Court can say "No" to them. And all this in an election year no less where the looney left told the public "you're insane to think there was a slippery slope". Obergefell is a very vulnerable Ruling. It has more holes than swiss cheese and I've only named a few in my threads. My hope is that Judge Moore closes his eyes and just points in a direction and goes with it as a means to defend himself and the State of Alabama from another cult-left attack on democracy.

Nope. Obergefell is rock solid. You *want* Obergefell to be weak, as you don't like the ruling. But as your perfect record of failure in predicting legal outcomes demonstrates, your desires have nothing to do with the law.

This is the core of your failure: you keep equating what you WANT the law to be as the law. And your desires and wishes aren't a legal precedent. You can't tell the difference. The law can.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Moore is likely in some trouble. He's most likely going to be removed from office. As he should. He blatantly violated the standards of judicial ethics in his state, ordering probate judges to ignore a lawful order by the Supreme Court.

And now he has to answer for it.

 

[mdk]

Why are you leaving the Browm family out in the cold? You're all for religious freedoms when it comes to bakers and clerks. Why not for this family? Their religious freedoms don't allow you prop up your anti-gay narrative so they are beneath your concern.

I haven't been arguing a religious-freedom angle here. But nice try at the strawman! Can't blame a troll for trying..

Of course you haven't. You only care about religious freedoms when it comes to clerks and bakers. The religious freedoms of the Brown family do not matter to you. I guess they need to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple to get your support. lol

What? If I was arguing the bakers and photographers' cases I'd be in keeping with what I've said all along here: that religions can object to participation in behaviors their faith says is an abomination.

And I can simultaneously hold that stance while also arguing that if states cannot legally deny someone marriage based on sexual orientation, that this doesn't just mean homosexuals...and I can do that all while being opposed to "gay marriage" as well as polygamy marriage....arguing thus as a didactic device to show the logical flaws in Obergefell.

YOU are trying your troll work to meld the two topics together because you're scared to death that if the Browns latch onto the sexual orientation thing, there is quite literally no way the Court can say "No" to them. And all this in an election year no less where the looney left told the public "you're insane to think there was a slippery slope". Obergefell is a very vulnerable Ruling. It has more holes than swiss cheese and I've only named a few in my threads. My hope is that Judge Moore closes his eyes and just points in a direction and goes with it as a means to defend himself and the State of Alabama from another cult-left attack on democracy.

There, just called you out. Now I'll wait for derision, trolling, strawmen and ad hominems...your usual fare.

That is hysterical. You demand that if you support gay marriage then you have support to support polygamous marriage as well. I am holding you to your own standards when it comes to religious freedoms. Naturally, that hypocrisy upsets you.

Why would be frightened of the case the Brown family is making? I hope they win the day in court. Further more, why would I be frightened of one your legal predictions? Your track record thus far has been utter shit.

 

[Silhouette]

Should've said that ^^ before Obergefell loud and clear. Weren't you one of the choir who said people talking about the slippery legal slope were "bigots"? etc. etc....