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

[Katzndogz]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

You are so wrong, it's hard to know where to start telling you how wrong you are. The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage. It only allows a child to avoid a contract that the child entered into. No lawyers are sharpening quills in expectation of an explosion in some new children's rights law. I have extensive experience in family law. Right now I am a court appointed advocate for a six year old girl whose parents are in a contentious divorce. If anyone was going to agree with you, it would be me IF there was any merit to what you say. You are really making it up as you go along.

 

[EverCurious]

When I got my divorce I moved two blocks away and my son had a key.

If the parents can afford it, some parenting plans use what's called nesting custody. The parents keep the family home and the child lives there while the parents alternate weeks staying at the home. The have a roommate, stay with relatives or just have a cheapo room for the time they aren't in the custodial residence.

My ex and I did similar, we stayed together for four years after deciding we'd gotten married way too young trying to have one more kid because we trusted each other for that. Originally we were both living in our condo, but he later got a GF and she wasn't keen on him living with his ex so he got an apartment and ultimately sold the condo to my [current] husband.

 

[Silhouette]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

You are so wrong, it's hard to know where to start telling you how wrong you are. The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage. It only allows a child to avoid a contract that the child entered into. No lawyers are sharpening quills in expectation of an explosion in some new children's rights law. I have extensive experience in family law. Right now I am a court appointed advocate for a six year old girl whose parents are in a contentious divorce. If anyone was going to agree with you, it would be me IF there was any merit to what you say. You are really making it up as you go along.

...classic "I don't have a solid rebuttal" comeback, while making yourself appear superior. Did you learn that in the 3rd grade?

Contract law applies to ALL contracts when it comes to infants and necessities. And contracts aren't just written, they are also implied. Such is the case in the contract adults implicitly share with children called "marriage". Marriage was invented for them in fact over a thousand years ago, to provide them with both a mother and father to cure the maladies children found themselves in without one or the other, or both. Marriage was a structure built between a man and woman to provide shelter and necessities, most importantly, guidance, for children that would arrive naturally, or by adoption.

I can see you're against "an explosion in some new children's rights law". You, an advocate for the downtrodden poo-pooing the most downtrodden and suppressed demographic, the most powerless to affect their fate: children. Hypocrite.

Since you are an appointed advocate for a child in a divorce, you must know that the court appointed you because it feels and understands that children have unique rights to the marriage contract separate from either of the adults. Otherwise the court would just look at the child and say "tough luck kid, you'll do whatever the court tells you to do" (Like Obergefell did to all children into the future affected).

How about that folks? Here's the new leftest ideal: a court appointed child advocate against a "new explosion of children's rights laws"... Welcome to your Brave New World..

 

[mdk]

Contract law applies to ALL contracts when it comes to infants and necessities. And contracts aren't just written, they are also implied. Such is the case in the contract adults implicitly share with children called "marriage". Marriage was invented for them in fact over a thousand years ago, to provide them with both a mother and father to cure the maladies children found themselves in without one or the other, or both. Marriage was a structure built between a man and woman to provide shelter and necessities, most importantly, guidance, for children that would arrive naturally, or by adoption.

Please give me a list of states that recognize children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. I'll wait...

Remember, citing your imagination doesn't count.

 

[Silhouette]

Please give me a list of states that recognize children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. I'll wait...

Remember, citing your imagination doesn't count.

That's like me asking you to give me a list of states twenty years ago that recognize gays marrying.... You know civil rights movements take time. What, are you now going to start advocating that children aren't the most powerless demographic with unique rights of their own in marriage?

 

[mdk]

Please give me a list of states that recognize children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. I'll wait...

Remember, citing your imagination doesn't count.

That's like me asking you to give me a list of states twenty years ago that recognize gays marrying.... You know civil rights movements take time.

You mean your claims that children have been an implicit part of a marriage contract in this nation are utter bullshit!? Shocking.

 

[Katzndogz]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

You are so wrong, it's hard to know where to start telling you how wrong you are. The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage. It only allows a child to avoid a contract that the child entered into. No lawyers are sharpening quills in expectation of an explosion in some new children's rights law. I have extensive experience in family law. Right now I am a court appointed advocate for a six year old girl whose parents are in a contentious divorce. If anyone was going to agree with you, it would be me IF there was any merit to what you say. You are really making it up as you go along.

...classic "I don't have a solid rebuttal" comeback, while making yourself appear superior. Did you learn that in the 3rd grade?

Contract law applies to ALL contracts when it comes to infants and necessities. And contracts aren't just written, they are also implied. Such is the case in the contract adults implicitly share with children called "marriage". Marriage was invented for them in fact over a thousand years ago, to provide them with both a mother and father to cure the maladies children found themselves in without one or the other, or both. Marriage was a structure built between a man and woman to provide shelter and necessities, most importantly, guidance, for children that would arrive naturally, or by adoption.

I can see you're against "an explosion in some new children's rights law". You, an advocate for the downtrodden poo-pooing the most downtrodden and suppressed demographic, the most powerless to affect their fate: children. Hypocrite.

Since you are an appointed advocate for a child in a divorce, you must know that the court appointed you because it feels and understands that children have unique rights to the marriage contract separate from either of the adults. Otherwise the court would just look at the child and say "tough luck kid, you'll do whatever the court tells you to do" (Like Obergefell did to all children into the future affected).

How about that folks? Here's the new leftest ideal: a court appointed child advocate against a "new explosion of children's rights laws"... Welcome to your Brave New World..

I'm an advocate BECAUSE a child has no rights arising out of the marriage but certain defined rights separate from the marriage. None of those rights are to a mother and a father. Children have never had a right to a mother or a father. 1,000 years ago and earlier, right up to the 20th century childhood was a very short period of time. The children had no rights in the marriage or out of the marriage. Children worked as soon as they could grasp the concept. Children were born to add to the family 's laborers. Six or seven was normally as long as a childhood lasted,

 

[Skylar]

Keep hoping Skylar. Meanwhile the lawyers who know contract laws, the Infant Doctrine and necessities are sharpening their quills. Children share the marriage contract. That's ever so easy to demonstrate with logic. So, the next step is to ask "were children's unique enjoyments of the marriage contract represented when the contract revision hearing (Obergefell) went down? The answer is "no". You would counter "the Justices discussed how gay marriage was good for children". But they did so as the children's attorneys? Because as you know, judges cannot preside over a case and simultaneously act as an attorney for one of the parties to the case that were conveniently not invited to have representation there...

You are so wrong, it's hard to know where to start telling you how wrong you are. The Infant Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage. It only allows a child to avoid a contract that the child entered into. No lawyers are sharpening quills in expectation of an explosion in some new children's rights law. I have extensive experience in family law. Right now I am a court appointed advocate for a six year old girl whose parents are in a contentious divorce. If anyone was going to agree with you, it would be me IF there was any merit to what you say. You are really making it up as you go along.

...classic "I don't have a solid rebuttal" comeback, while making yourself appear superior. Did you learn that in the 3rd grade?

Contract law applies to ALL contracts when it comes to infants and necessities. And contracts aren't just written, they are also implied. Such is the case in the contract adults implicitly share with children called "marriage".

Oh, the layers of pseudo-legal gibberish. First, the Infancy Doctrine is about explicit contracts. Not implied. There are no such thing as 'implied' contracts for children. Second, the Infancy Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage. Its about Entertainment and Business law. Worse for your argument, no law nor court recognizes that children are parties to the marriage of their parents. Nor that they are third party beneficiaries. Nor that the marriage of parents create a minor contract for children.

And here's the kicker:

You've never been able to find any legal source, any law, any court ruling that finds that children are parties of the marriage of their parents. Nor even one example of the Infancy Doctrine applied to marriage. Its always you citing yourself.

And you have no idea how contract law works.

Marriage was invented for them in fact over a thousand years ago, to provide them with both a mother and father to cure the maladies children found themselves in without one or the other, or both. Marriage was a structure built between a man and woman to provide shelter and necessities, most importantly, guidance, for children that would arrive naturally, or by adoption.

Says you, citing your imagination. And your imagination has no relevance to any law, court ruling, or marriage.

How about that folks? Here's the new leftest ideal: a court appointed child advocate against a "new explosion of children's rights laws"... Welcome to your Brave New World..

Or.....you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You've imagined the 'lawyers sharpening their quills'. And your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.

With you literally being wrong every time you offer us such a prediction.

 

[Skylar]

Please give me a list of states that recognize children being an implicit part of a marriage contract. I'll wait...

Remember, citing your imagination doesn't count.

That's like me asking you to give me a list of states twenty years ago that recognize gays marrying.... You know civil rights movements take time. What, are you now going to start advocating that children aren't the most powerless demographic with unique rights of their own in marriage?

We'll make it easy for you. Name ONE state that recognizes that children are an implicit part of the marriage contract.

You can't. You're making this shit up as you go along. Neither the law nor the courts recognize any of it. As for '20 years from now', you've never once made an accurate legal prediction. You've always been wrong.

On the Windsor decision, you were wrong.

On the implications of 'constitutional guarantees' in the Windsor decision, you were wrong.

On the Obergefell decision you were wrong. On Kennedy's stay for the State of Utah, you were wrong.

On the legal bases for the Obergefell decision, you were wrong.

On the application of the Loving decision, you were wrong.

On Kennedy's mindset regarding same sex marriage and children, you were wrong.

On the relationship between parents and children recognized under Obergefell you were wrong.

On Kim Davis' appeal to the Supreme Court, you were wrong.

Not once, in any capacity, have you ever been right about any legal prediction you've ever made. And the reason is obvious: you keep citing your imagination as the law.

And it isn't.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm an advocate BECAUSE a child has no rights arising out of the marriage but certain defined rights separate from the marriage. None of those rights are to a mother and a father. Children have never had a right to a mother or a father.

Children need a father and a mother. Children who are deprived of this are at a significant disadvantage, and are likely to have less favorable life outcomes, than those who are not so deprived. Since before I was born, our society has been well aware of the tragic consequences of children coming from “broken homes”, and of the need society has to discourage this from happening. But foolishly, not only have we come to disregard this, and to treat “broken homes” as normal and proper, but we even now encourage the creation of ersatz “homes” that are inherently and irreparably broken to begin with. I suppose you're glad of this, as this creates the circumstances by which you make your living. You're like a dentist who advocates against brushing and flossing, because neglected teeth mean more income for you.

The purpose of marriage is rooted in biology. Men and women are driven by instinct to couple in a way that tends to result in the creation of new human beings, who, for quite some time, require the care of both parents. Marriage is about establishing the family relationship, and holding men and women responsible to each other, and to the children that they produce; and seeing that the rights of all—especially that of the children to the care and support of both parents—are protected.

The idea that children do not have a right to both parents is a Marxist principle. Marx saw marriage and family as“bourgeois” elements of the sort of society that he wanted to eliminate. Children being rendered fatherless or motherless—something that any rational person would recognize as a tragic, harmful circumstance—plays right into Marx's ideas of a collectivist society, where the care of children, like everything else, was a collective responsibility of the whole society rather than of the parents and families of each child. Oddly, we've gone much farther in pushing this Marxist ideal here in what is ostensibly a free, individualistic society, than it has ever been taken in any overtly-Marxist societies.

 

[Skylar]

The purpose of marriage is rooted in biology. Men and women are driven by instinct to couple in a way that tends to result in the creation of new human beings, who, for quite some time, require the care of both parents. Marriage is about establishing the family relationship, and holding men and women responsible to each other, and to the children that they produce; and seeing that the rights of all—especially that of the children to the care and support of both parents—are protected.

Say who? Infertile couples can still marry. Couples too old to have kids can still marry. Couples too old to have kids can *stay* married. Nor does any State require that a couple have kids or be able to have kids in order to marry.

You're offering us your subjective opinion and then insisting that this opinion defines marriage objectively.

Nope.

The idea that children do not have a right to both parents is a Marxist principle. Marx saw marriage and family as“bourgeois” elements of the sort of society that he wanted to eliminate. Children being rendered fatherless or motherless—something that any rational person would recognize as a tragic, harmful circumstance—plays right into Marx's ideas of a collectivist society, where the care of children, like everything else, was a collective responsibility of the whole society rather than of the parents and families of each child. Oddly, we've gone much farther in pushing this Marxist ideal here in what is ostensibly a free, individualistic society, than it has ever been taken in any overtly-Marxist societies.

Dear God, do *all* of your arguments rely on the ignorance of your audience?

Marx argued against the institution of marriage existing at all. Same sex marriage enthusiastically argues for the institution of marriage. Making same sex marriage about as far from Marxism as it is philosophically possible to be.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm an advocate BECAUSE a child has no rights arising out of the marriage but certain defined rights separate from the marriage. None of those rights are to a mother and a father. Children have never had a right to a mother or a father.

Children need a father and a mother. Children who are deprived of this are at a significant disadvantage, and are likely to have less favorable life outcomes, than those who are not so deprived. Since before I was born, our society has been well aware of the tragic consequences of children coming from “broken homes”, and of the need society has to discourage this from happening. But foolishly, not only have we come to disregard this, and to treat “broken homes” as normal and proper, but we even now encourage the creation of ersatz “homes” that are inherently and irreparably broken to begin with. I suppose you're glad of this, as this creates the circumstances by which you make your living. You're like a dentist who advocates against brushing and flossing, because neglected teeth mean more income for you.

The purpose of marriage is rooted in biology. Men and women are driven by instinct to couple in a way that tends to result in the creation of new human beings, who, for quite some time, require the care of both parents. Marriage is about establishing the family relationship, and holding men and women responsible to each other, and to the children that they produce; and seeing that the rights of all—especially that of the children to the care and support of both parents—are protected.

The idea that children do not have a right to both parents is a Marxist principle. Marx saw marriage and family as“bourgeois” elements of the sort of society that he wanted to eliminate. Children being rendered fatherless or motherless—something that any rational person would recognize as a tragic, harmful circumstance—plays right into Marx's ideas of a collectivist society, where the care of children, like everything else, was a collective responsibility of the whole society rather than of the parents and families of each child. Oddly, we've gone much farther in pushing this Marxist ideal here in what is ostensibly a free, individualistic society, than it has ever been taken in any overtly-Marxist societies.

While I might agree with you in principle, legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights. So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract. You just proved those points! What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights. So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract. You just proved those points! What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...

Name even one child that ever had standing to stop a marriage or a divorce? Oh right, you can't...

 

[Skylar]

...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights. So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract. You just proved those points! What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?

Nope. Children are not nor were part of the 'marriage contract'. No law nor court recognizes them as such. Not as parties, not as third party beneficiaries. And contrary to your claims, children are not 'married' to their parents.

And you're citing parentage as the source of obligations and authority. Not marriage. Killing your argument yet again.

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...

Um, Sil? No one has to 'disprove' any of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Remember, same sex marriage is already legal in 50 of 50 States.

Its you that has to prove your argument is legally factual. And you can't. As your only source is you, citing your imagination.

That's not a legal argument.

 

[Skylar]

...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights. So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract. You just proved those points! What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...

Name even one child that ever had standing to stop a marriage or a divorce? Oh right, you can't...

Or one Supreme Court case where 'all children' have had a 'representative'....

Or one instance of the Infancy Doctrine from Business law every being applied to marriage....

Or one law or court that recognize the marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children....

Or one law or court that recognize children as third party beneficiaries of marriage....

Or one law or court that recognizes that children are 'married' to their parents....


The list of Sil's empty, pseudo-legal gibberish is nearly endless. And in every case, its just Sil, citing Sil...insisting her imagination is the law.

 

[mdk]

...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights. So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract. You just proved those points! What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...

Children are an implicit part of a marriage contract in modern society and that is why every state recognizes them as such in a marriage contract. Oh wait...not a single state does. Perhaps you're thinking of Imaginationland again?

 

[Katzndogz]

...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights. So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract. You just proved those points! What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...

You are mixed up. Even a first born son had no rights in the marriage and had no rights of inheritance at all. While children were traded they were no more a part of the marriage contract than a horse and had no more rights than a goat or heifer.

You find this so important, that of course children as important human beings must have rights to a loving family with a mother and a father. In fact, children have no such rights. If the mother in the family decides to chuck it all and leave, no child has the right or power to drag her back. If the father decides to bring in a same sex partner the child has no right or power to stop him. There is no emerging area of law in children's rights to a mother and father. There is no power to force a woman to be a mother and certainly no court has ever forced a man to be a father.

 

[Katzndogz]

...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights. So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract. You just proved those points! What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...

Name even one child that ever had standing to stop a marriage or a divorce? Oh right, you can't...

Or one Supreme Court case where 'all children' have had a 'representative'....

Or one instance of the Infancy Doctrine from Business law every being applied to marriage....

Or one law or court that recognize the marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children....

Or one law or court that recognize children as third party beneficiaries of marriage....

Or one law or court that recognizes that children are 'married' to their parents....


The list of Sil's empty, pseudo-legal gibberish is nearly endless. And in every case, its just Sil, citing Sil...insisting her imagination is the law.

When you and I agree, you know this poor soul has it all wrong.

 

[Skylar]

...legally children have never had rights in a marriage, don't now and never will. The concept of marriage has never been about children. Marriage has always been about property rights not biological rights. This includes the right of a male to have his property inherited by his biological son. Since historically women couldn't inherit, daughters had far less rights than sons. Meaning that children have no rights in parental marriage.

Apparently first born sons...long after marriage was established to create a structure to keep children without either a mother or father having them instead...did have rights. So, ergo, children even during the dark ages of marriage where children were traded, they were part of the marriage contract. You just proved those points! What would've happened if a man and wife tried to marry off someone else's daughter for example?

Proving that children aren't implicit parties to the modern (and original) concept of marriage (mother and father) is going to be so friggin' hard for your cult, that you should find not just the best lawyers in the country, you should start searching the four corners of the earth...

Name even one child that ever had standing to stop a marriage or a divorce? Oh right, you can't...

Or one Supreme Court case where 'all children' have had a 'representative'....

Or one instance of the Infancy Doctrine from Business law every being applied to marriage....

Or one law or court that recognize the marriage of parents as creating a minor contract for their children....

Or one law or court that recognize children as third party beneficiaries of marriage....

Or one law or court that recognizes that children are 'married' to their parents....


The list of Sil's empty, pseudo-legal gibberish is nearly endless. And in every case, its just Sil, citing Sil...insisting her imagination is the law.

When you and I agree, you know this poor soul has it all wrong.

Laughing......its kinda weirding me out too.