We Need to Legally Revise Marriage Contracts

[mdk]

It in fact does exist. You can't spin-away a child's enjoyment of a contract, conspicuous for over a thousand years.

Zero are the number of states where children a party to marriage contract in this nation. Stomping your delusional feet doesn't change reality. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, conspicuous marriage contractual-term children have enjoyed for over a thousand years worldwide; including the US and all 50 states: having both a mother and father. All the spin in the world won't erase that Mt. Everest of fact.

 

[mdk]

Again, conspicuous marriage contractual-term children have enjoyed for over a thousand years worldwide; including the US and all 50 states: having both a mother and father. All the spin in the world won't erase that Mt. Everest of fact.

Again, nobody is bound by the hapless legal poppycock you pull out of your ass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It in fact does exist. You can't spin-away a child's enjoyment of a contract, conspicuous for over a thousand years.

But all that has been thrown out the window by the SCOTUS and only a Constitutional amendment can restore it.

In the meantime, why not mop up the mess and put a legal framework to what is happening to shore up the meaning of the institution of marriage.

Right now it equates to a guy marrying a woman pays for a house for her and two kids, then he gets dumped while she lives with some new guy or girl and the ex-hubby gets shat on by the family court system. Most guys these days see absolutely no value to traditional marriage and just keep girl friends that cant take them for alimony.

We need to have a multiplicity of marriage contracts that can address these concerns.

 

[Silhouette]

It in fact does exist. You can't spin-away a child's enjoyment of a contract, conspicuous for over a thousand years.

But all that has been thrown out the window by the SCOTUS and only a Constitutional amendment can restore it.

.

Except a new challenge that overturns it based on the fact that two of the Justices were publicly displaying bias going into Obergefell; and that Obergefell made a policy of divorcing children from a contractual enjoyment they had for over a thousand years without children having representation at that Hearing, and that children cannot be deprived of a necessity in contract even if they were present and agreed themselves. Also, New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) Found that even if a person has an explicit and delineated constitutional right, if that right impinges on children's mental or physical well being, that right must not be exercised.

No Constitutional Amendment needed. However, there would be a Constitutional Amendment needed to find people doing weird sex stuff were also anticipated in the 14th Amendment. There is no wording protecting sexual behaviors in the 14th. Also, there's no wording in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says "men who are pretending to be women have the civil right to do that and to force others to play along".

 

[Skylar]

That was an implicit enjoyment children had to the contract until last Summer. Gay marriage cruelly deprives all children involved to that contract of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. It is a life sentence of deprivation.

"Explicit Enjoyment'? It always cracks me up when you try to sound all legal. Back in reality, children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Not 'implied' parties. Not 'explicit' parties. Not 'explicit enjoyment' parties.

You made all that up.

And of course, no one's marriage is conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Remember......you don't actually know what you're talking about

 

[mdk]

It in fact does exist. You can't spin-away a child's enjoyment of a contract, conspicuous for over a thousand years.

But all that has been thrown out the window by the SCOTUS and only a Constitutional amendment can restore it.

.

Except a new challenge that overturns it based on the fact that two of the Justices were biased going into Obergefell and that Obergefell made a policy of divorcing children from a contractual enjoyment they had for over a thousand years without children having representation at that Hearing, and that children cannot be deprived of a necessity in contract even if they were present and agreed themselves. Also, New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) Found that even if a person has an explicit and delineated constitutional right, if that right impinges on children's mental or physical well being, that right must not be exercised.

No Constitutional Amendment needed. However, there would be a Constitutional Amendment needed to find people doing weird sex stuff were also anticipated in the 14th Amendment. There is no wording protecting sexual behaviors in the 14th. Also, there's no wording in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says "men who are pretending to be women have the civil right to do that and to force others to play along".

Divorce, single-parenthood, and, putting your child up for adoption are now illegal using your idiotic interpretation of Ferber. You are twisting yourself into legal knots in a lame attempt to stop gay marriage. Good thing nobody is buying what you're selling.

 

[Skylar]

It in fact does exist. You can't spin-away a child's enjoyment of a contract, conspicuous for over a thousand years.

But all that has been thrown out the window by the SCOTUS and only a Constitutional amendment can restore it.

.

Except a new challenge that overturns it based on the fact that two of the Justices were publicly displaying bias going into Obergefell;

Nope. They showed explicit bias toward Windsor v. US. As the marriages they performed were in States that had already chosen to include same sex couples in the union. Exactly as Windsor indicated they had these States had the authority to do.

Smiling......don't you remember your '56 times' babble?

and that Obergefell made a policy of divorcing children from a contractual enjoyment they had for over a thousand years without children having representation at that Hearing, and that children cannot be deprived of a necessity in contract even if they were present and agreed themselves.

More pseudo-legal gibberish. Children aren't parties to the marriage of their parents. Nor does any court or law recognize them as such. You're citing your imagination.

There's no requirement that any supreme court hearing include a 'representative for all children'. Nor has there ever been such a 'representative' in any supreme court hearing. You made up both the requirement and the representative, citing your imagination again.

Also, New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) Found that even if a person has an explicit and delineated constitutional right, if that right impinges on children's mental or physical well being, that right must not be exercised.

Ferber never so much as mentions marriage, same sex or otherwise. You made that up, citing your imagination. Nor does it find that same sex marriage harms any child or impinges on a child's mental or physical wellbeing.

That's just you....making shit up again. And like all your other citations of your imagination, is legally meaningless.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

It in fact does exist. You can't spin-away a child's enjoyment of a contract, conspicuous for over a thousand years.

But all that has been thrown out the window by the SCOTUS and only a Constitutional amendment can restore it.

.

Except a new challenge that overturns it based on the fact that two of the Justices were biased going into Obergefell and that Obergefell made a policy of divorcing children from a contractual enjoyment they had for over a thousand years without children having representation at that Hearing, and that children cannot be deprived of a necessity in contract even if they were present and agreed themselves. Also, New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) Found that even if a person has an explicit and delineated constitutional right, if that right impinges on children's mental or physical well being, that right must not be exercised.

No Constitutional Amendment needed. However, there would be a Constitutional Amendment needed to find people doing weird sex stuff were also anticipated in the 14th Amendment. There is no wording protecting sexual behaviors in the 14th. Also, there's no wording in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says "men who are pretending to be women have the civil right to do that and to force others to play along".

Divorce, single-parenthood, and, putting your child up for adoption are now illegal using your idiotic interpretation of Ferber. You are twisting yourself into legal knots in a lame attempt to stop gay marriage. Good thing nobody is buying what you're selling.

Oh, single parents are exempt....because Sil was one. See, her standards would never apply to her or her daughter. Only the 'gheys'.

 

[mdk]

It in fact does exist. You can't spin-away a child's enjoyment of a contract, conspicuous for over a thousand years.

But all that has been thrown out the window by the SCOTUS and only a Constitutional amendment can restore it.

.

Except a new challenge that overturns it based on the fact that two of the Justices were biased going into Obergefell and that Obergefell made a policy of divorcing children from a contractual enjoyment they had for over a thousand years without children having representation at that Hearing, and that children cannot be deprived of a necessity in contract even if they were present and agreed themselves. Also, New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982) Found that even if a person has an explicit and delineated constitutional right, if that right impinges on children's mental or physical well being, that right must not be exercised.

No Constitutional Amendment needed. However, there would be a Constitutional Amendment needed to find people doing weird sex stuff were also anticipated in the 14th Amendment. There is no wording protecting sexual behaviors in the 14th. Also, there's no wording in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says "men who are pretending to be women have the civil right to do that and to force others to play along".

Divorce, single-parenthood, and, putting your child up for adoption are now illegal using your idiotic interpretation of Ferber. You are twisting yourself into legal knots in a lame attempt to stop gay marriage. Good thing nobody is buying what you're selling.

Oh, single parents are exempt....because Sil was one. See, her standards would never apply to her or her daughter. Only the 'gheys'.

Hope replaces a mother and father in Sil's legal fantasy world. Having both a mother and father are very important to Sil...until it isn't anymore.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hope replaces a mother and father in Sil's legal fantasy world. Having both a mother and father are very important to Sil...until it isn't anymore.

To be fair, I think Silhouete is speaking of an ideal for marriage, of which reality often falls way short, to our childrens loss.

 

[Skylar]

Hope replaces a mother and father in Sil's legal fantasy world. Having both a mother and father are very important to Sil...until it isn't anymore.

To be fair, I think Silhouete is speaking of an ideal for marriage, of which reality often falls way short, to our childrens loss.

Sil is talking of her obsession with gays. Her standards are nonsensical horseshit that even she doesn't believe.....as they would have long since outlawed divorce and single parenthood if they were the actual law.

 

[Skylar]

Again, conspicuous marriage contractual-term children have enjoyed for over a thousand years worldwide; including the US and all 50 states: having both a mother and father. All the spin in the world won't erase that Mt. Everest of fact.

Again, children are not parties of the contract of the marriage of their parents. Nor is any marriage conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Feel free to make up whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you'd like. Its still gloriously irrelevant to the actual law.

 

[mdk]

Hope replaces a mother and father in Sil's legal fantasy world. Having both a mother and father are very important to Sil...until it isn't anymore.

To be fair, I think Silhouete is speaking of an ideal for marriage, of which reality often falls way short, to our childrens loss.

No, she literally believes that children a party to marriage contract in all 50 states. Don't underestimation the power of her self-delusion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hope replaces a mother and father in Sil's legal fantasy world. Having both a mother and father are very important to Sil...until it isn't anymore.

To be fair, I think Silhouete is speaking of an ideal for marriage, of which reality often falls way short, to our childrens loss.

No, she literally believes that children a party to marriage contract in all 50 states. Don't underestimation the power of her self-delusion.

How can they literally be a party to a contract before they exist? She may have given that impression but I dont think she literally means it except in some abstract way.

 

[Skylar]

Hope replaces a mother and father in Sil's legal fantasy world. Having both a mother and father are very important to Sil...until it isn't anymore.

To be fair, I think Silhouete is speaking of an ideal for marriage, of which reality often falls way short, to our childrens loss.

No, she literally believes that children a party to marriage contract in all 50 states. Don't underestimation the power of her self-delusion.

How can they literally be a party to a contract before they exist? She may have given that impression but I dont think she literally means it except in some abstract way.

Nope. She means it literally. I can quote her dozens of times making the same pseudo-legal claim.

 

[ZackB]

Marriage contracts should be like sports contracts - they have to be periodically negotiated and can have performance bonuses.

 

[mdk]

Hope replaces a mother and father in Sil's legal fantasy world. Having both a mother and father are very important to Sil...until it isn't anymore.

To be fair, I think Silhouete is speaking of an ideal for marriage, of which reality often falls way short, to our childrens loss.

No, she literally believes that children a party to marriage contract in all 50 states. Don't underestimation the power of her self-delusion.

How can they literally be a party to a contract before they exist? She may have given that impression but I dont think she literally means it except in some abstract way.

Silly, isn't it? She has stated in this very thread that children were a party to marriage contract up until last June. A claimed she has made on numerous occasions.

 

[jwoodie]

Domestic Partnership should be available to all couples who want to share living expenses, health insurance and property ownership/inheritance. Easy to enter into and easy to dissolve (no fault required).

Civil Marriage should be available to couples with one or more children who want to be financial responsible for each other and obtain commensurate tax benefits (joint returns). Once entered into, Divorce would be granted only if it would not harm the interests of the children. Otherwise, Legal Separation would remain available.

 

[EverCurious]

Marriage has /never/ been a "contract" between children, /ever/. It wasn't "changed," it never existed. First hand knowledge here, my husband went through a custody situation - the judge very specifically told us step-parents that /neither/ of us had any say in /anything/ to do with the kids. In fact, he chided both of us for taking the child to the doctor on behalf of the parents and ordered both of us to stop regardless of our spouses requests. IF children were part of the marriage contract, then step-parents would have a de-facto parental right to tend to the medical care of their step-children, but in reality, the opposite is true.