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

[Silhouette]

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Exactly. And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father? Why not? Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it. Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract. Ergo, they are parties to it.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm tired of listening to people blame their parents for what shitty people they are.

But since even POTENTIAL Children are more important that the happiness of adults, we need to put people in servitude to their children. THis is the retarded argument that Silly-wet is using to try to hide his psychopathic homophobia (read latent homosexuality) behind

We really are lucky if we were born to two good parents.

After decades of watching families- I think a child is really lucky if they have one really good parent- they hit the jackpot if they have two really good parents.

I hit the jackpot.

So did I. And frankly so has my daughter.

Going to Maker's Faire this year? Its random, but every so often I remember you live in the bay.

I have never actually gone.......does that make me a bad parent? LOL.

I have lots of friends who have gone and said it is great- just always end up missing it.

 

[Skylar]

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.

I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.

There are implied obligations between parents and child, namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.

I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.

It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

Yeah, but that's a cultural anthropological perspective based largely on the concept of legitimate children and bastards. Where a parent was only obligated to support children that arise from marriage. Not those that arise outside it.

That's been expunged from our laws for more than a century. With the obligation for the support of children following the parent child relationship. Not legitimacy. The focus on 'legitimacy' died out about the same time as privity of contracts was dying. And it was the collapse of the privity of contracts that enabling even the concept of third party beneficiaries to exist in US law. So there was never a time children were recognized as third party beneficiaries of marriage in our law.

At least nothing I've been able to find. And certainly nothing in current law.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

It goes back to legitimacy issues and inheritance. Neither of which are part of US law in the presence. And when they were, the privity of contracts kept marriage explicitly between the man and woman who had entered into it. Involving no one else. The privity of contracts explicitly rejected the idea of an implied third party beneficiary. And marital legitimacy arguments overlap with privity.

As for why kids received inheritence and not parents, dunno. I'd guess shorter lifespans when these laws were in effect probably influenced the cultural direction of inheritance: toward the younger generation. That and the assumptions of support for children under the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Exactly. And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? .

Or why not eliminate no fault divorce when there are children? Or- allow the children to testify- or even decide- if the parents are allowed to divorce?

But that doesn't happen of course- because divorce courts don't decide whether a divorce will happen based upon children- but only after divorce is decided upon- then the courts require there be a plan to handle custody of the children- a separate issue from the divorce itself.

 

[Skylar]

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Exactly. And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father? Why not? Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it. Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract. Ergo, they are parties to it.

More pseudo-legal nonsense. Custody isn't marriage. You equating the two demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

Third party beneficiaries posses the power to sue to enforce the contract. Children have no power to sue to stop a divorce. If they were third party beneficiaries of the marriage, they'd have the power to sue to preserve the 'contract' that they were benefiting from.

They have no such power...because they aren't third party beneficiaries. Nor does any law or court recognize them as such.

Parents can divorce for pretty much any reason they wish. And children have no say in it.

 

[Syriusly]

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.

I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.

There are implied obligations between parents and child, namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.

I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.

It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

That is 'a definition'-from Wikipedia- which takes it from an anthropology book- but not 'the definition'

Websters:

Full Definition of marriage

1. 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
   
   
2. 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
   
   
3. 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
   

Oxford English Dictionary

The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

 

[sealybobo]

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Exactly. And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father? Why not? Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it. Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract. Ergo, they are parties to it.

More pseudo-legal nonsense. Custody isn't marriage. You equating the two demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

Third party beneficiaries posses the power to sue to enforce the contract. Children have no power to sue to stop a divorce. If they were third party beneficiaries of the marriage, they'd have the power to sue to preserve the 'contract' that they were benefiting from.

They have no such power...because they aren't third party beneficiaries. Nor does any law or court recognize them as such.

Parents can divorce for pretty much any reason they wish. And children have no say in it.

But you don't get out of the contract you have with the kid. You can break the contract you have with your wife but your contract with your kid is binding till the kid is 18. You CAN'T break that contract, although too many dead beats do.

 

[sealybobo]

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.

I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.

There are implied obligations between parents and child, namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.

I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.

It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

That is 'a definition'-from Wikipedia- which takes it from an anthropology book- but not 'the definition'

Websters:

Full Definition of marriage

1. 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
   
   
2. 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
   
   
3. 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Oxford English Dictionary

The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

Exactly what I said. LOL.

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

 

[Skylar]

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Exactly. And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father? Why not? Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it. Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract. Ergo, they are parties to it.

More pseudo-legal nonsense. Custody isn't marriage. You equating the two demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

Third party beneficiaries posses the power to sue to enforce the contract. Children have no power to sue to stop a divorce. If they were third party beneficiaries of the marriage, they'd have the power to sue to preserve the 'contract' that they were benefiting from.

They have no such power...because they aren't third party beneficiaries. Nor does any law or court recognize them as such.

Parents can divorce for pretty much any reason they wish. And children have no say in it.

But you don't get out of the contract you have with the kid.

You don't have a 'contract' with a kid. You have an obligation for support. And that obligation has nothing to do with marriage. If you're married....the obligation exists. If you're divorced....the obligation exists. If you've never married.....the obligation exists.

The obligation parent-child. It has nothing to do with marriage.

In a distant past, the obligation followed parents only if the child was the product of a marriage. A 'legitimate' child. Parents had no obligation to support 'bastards'. But we haven't used any such law since......wow. The 1830s? And that was during the era of the privity of contracts. So there was no such thing as 'third party beneficiaries'.

 

[Debra K]

. . . when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan. So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.

Do you really think your imaginary tale of prehistoric Og and Thula, cooking goat meat over fire, is "evidence" that supports your concept of marriage and renders the Court's findings in Obergefell a nullity? Really?

 

[Skylar]

. . . when Og and Thula built their fire and fried their goat meat over it for sustenance, their society bonded them together for the sake of not wanting orphaned kids or a single mother where then that was a death sentence to any children she would bear or an undue burden upon the clan. So, marriage WAS invented to cure the ills of children not having a mother & father...LATER..marriage included some shady shit where kids were treated badly.

Do you really think your imaginary tale of prehistoric Og and Thula, cooking goat meat over fire, is "evidence" that supports your concept of marriage and renders the Court's findings in Obergefell a nullity? Really?

She really does.

 

[Debra K]

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.

I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.

There are implied obligations between parents and child, namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.

I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.

It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Sealybobo: Your state statutes define marriage, the obligations of spouses under the marriage contract, and the obligations of parents, etc. Children and in-laws are not parties to the marriage contract.

There are many areas of the law, however, that touch upon the subject of marriage and the parent-child relationship. For instance, laws related to paternity, support, probate, intestate succession, etc., establish rules. Some of those rules are default rules. For example, if you don't leave a valid will, then your state statutory rules governing intestate succession govern. And that should answer your question on "who gets the money."

I am not aware of any laws in my state that endow any rights or impose any obligations upon me with respect to my in-laws, e.g., my husband's parents or siblings.

 

[Skylar]

As a matter of law, children are not "third party beneficiaries" of the marriage contract. The only legal relevance of the designation "third party beneficiary" is that the third party has the right to enforce the contract. Those are the kind of contracts wherein the contract is made for the express purpose of benefitting the third person.

I've searched the law looking for anyone, any court, any law that says that children are third party benefices of the 'marriage contract'. I've found absolutely nothing. Not a single state law, state ruling, federal law or federal ruling that has found this.

There are implied obligations between parents and child, namely support. But none I could find regarding marriage and any implied or explicit obligation to children. Nor any recognition of children as third party beneficiaries to marriage.

I've even found courts that found that marriage was a three party contract between two people and the State.
But never two people and their children.

It appears Sil pulled this sideways out of her ass.

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Sealybobo: Your state statutes define marriage, the obligations of spouses under the marriage contract, and the obligations of parents, etc. Children and in-laws are not parties to the marriage contract.

There are many areas of the law, however, that touch upon the subject of marriage and the parent-child relationship. For instance, laws related to paternity, support, probate, intestate succession, etc., establish rules. Some of those rules are default rules. For example, if you don't leave a valid will, then your state statutory rules governing intestate succession govern. And that should answer your question on "who gets the money."

I am not aware of any laws in my state that endow any rights or impose any obligations upon me with respect to my in-laws, e.g., my husband's parents or siblings.

What Seal offered was a description from a general Cultural Anthropology text. Not a legal description, or even specifically related to our culture.

 

[Debra K]

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Exactly. And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father? Why not? Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it. Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract. Ergo, they are parties to it.

You're so silly. In a custody dispute, a court considers and weighs the best interests of the child. Generally, there are several statutory factors for determining which parent (regardless of gender) will better serve the best interests. Whether the parties to the marriage are of the opposite sex or the same sex, the factors don't change. Although a court may decide the issue of custody when the parents cannot agree, the children are not parties to their parents' marriage contract and they are not parties to their parents' divorce action, (which involves dissolution of the personal relationship between the parties and termination of their marriage contract). The parents are not divorcing their children.

 

[sealybobo]

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Exactly. And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father? Why not? Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it. Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract. Ergo, they are parties to it.

You're so silly. In a custody dispute, a court considers and weighs the best interests of the child. Generally, there are several statutory factors for determining which parent (regardless of gender) will better serve the best interests. Whether the parties to the marriage are of the opposite sex or the same sex, the factors don't change. Although a court may decide the issue of custody when the parents cannot agree, the children are not parties to their parents' marriage contract and they are not parties to their parents' divorce action, (which involves dissolution of the personal relationship between the parties and termination of their marriage contract). The parents are not divorcing their children.

Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Although you can divorce your parents and visa versa.

Ummmm...

When a husband and wife get divorced, they are no longer husband and wife.

I've not heard of a child divorcing their parents. There is a process where a minor can go to court and become an "emancipated minor". An emancipated minor is no longer under the care and control of the parents and, depending on the court, may or may not receive living expenses from the parents.

That is not the same as a divorce since the parents are still the parents of an emancipated minor.


>>>>

 

[Debra K]

Define marriage and you find that:

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

How about when 2 parents die? Who gets their money? Clearly the children are the closing living relatives and beneficiaries of the estate, no? Why not the parents? They are just as close with mom and dad as the kids are.

Exactly. And in divorce courts when it comes to custody, why not just have the parents flip a coin to see who gets the kids? Or maybe just give the daughters to the mother and the sons to the father? Why not? Because the courts recognize the importance of BOTH to the implicit parties to marriage: the children in or from it. Children do bear legal weight upon and from the marriage contract. Ergo, they are parties to it.

You're so silly. In a custody dispute, a court considers and weighs the best interests of the child. Generally, there are several statutory factors for determining which parent (regardless of gender) will better serve the best interests. Whether the parties to the marriage are of the opposite sex or the same sex, the factors don't change. Although a court may decide the issue of custody when the parents cannot agree, the children are not parties to their parents' marriage contract and they are not parties to their parents' divorce action, (which involves dissolution of the personal relationship between the parties and termination of their marriage contract). The parents are not divorcing their children.

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?

 

[Silhouette]

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. 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.

 

[Katzndogz]

Mother and father are no longer legal terms. It's parent and can be same sex parents.

 

[EverCurious]

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.

Frankly, I would be pretty pissed if I was informed that because my ex and I had kids we couldn't get divorced, or get remarried, or stay single as we wished...