We Need to Legally Revise Marriage Contracts

[Silhouette]

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, I'm not. I'm talking strictly and purely about contract law and the Infant Doctrine. An implicit share of a contract is equally legally binding as an expressed share. The fact that marriage was created over a thousand years ago for the reason of providing both a mother and father to children is a paramount consideration in this argument. Children cannot be deprived of their share of a contract, expressed or implied, without their consent with representation. And, if it's found that what they enjoyed was a necessity to their physical or mental well being, the revision is not allowed, even if they consent to the revision.

In the purest legal sense, children benefited in significant and undeniable ways overall from having both a mother and father provided in marriage. Therefore, removing that enjoyment they had in the marriage contract is not permissible BY LAW....not by "ideal" or "best wishes". Any contract that removes a necessity from an infant isn't merely voidable. It is instantly void before its own ink is dry without challenge.

In short, gay marriage is illegal per the Infant Doctrine and contract necessities for infants.

 

[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, I'm not. I'm talking strictly and purely about contract law and the Infant Doctrine. An implicit share of a contract is equally legally binding as an expressed share. The fact that marriage was created over a thousand years ago for the reason of providing both a mother and father to children is a paramount consideration in this argument. Children cannot be deprived of their share of a contract, expressed or implied, without their consent with representation. And, if it's found that what they enjoyed was a necessity to their physical or mental well being, the revision is not allowed, even if they consent to the revision.

In the purest legal sense, children benefited in significant and undeniable ways overall from having both a mother and father provided in marriage. Therefore, removing that enjoyment they had in the marriage contract is not permissible BY LAW....not by "ideal" or "best wishes". Any contract that removes a necessity from an infant isn't merely voidable. It is instantly void before its own ink is dry without challenge.

Your legal delusions do not have the effect of law. Thank god.

 

[Silhouette]

Your legal delusions do not have the effect of law. Thank god.

Your denial of the Infant Doctrine, contract law and necessities for infants has no effect on their potency. Thank God.

 

[mdk]

Your legal delusions do not have the effect of law. Thank god.

Your denial of the Infant Doctrine, contract law and necessities for infants has no effect on their potency. Thank God.

And yet queers can marry and raise their families in every state despite whatever legal cockamamie you throw against the wall.

 

[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, I'm not. I'm talking strictly and purely about contract law and the Infant Doctrine. An implicit share of a contract is equally legally binding as an expressed share. The fact that marriage was created over a thousand years ago for the reason of providing both a mother and father to children is a paramount consideration in this argument. Children cannot be deprived of their share of a contract, expressed or implied, without their consent with representation. And, if it's found that what they enjoyed was a necessity to their physical or mental well being, the revision is not allowed, even if they consent to the revision.

In the purest legal sense, children benefited in significant and undeniable ways overall from having both a mother and father provided in marriage. Therefore, removing that enjoyment they had in the marriage contract is not permissible BY LAW....not by "ideal" or "best wishes". Any contract that removes a necessity from an infant isn't merely voidable. It is instantly void before its own ink is dry without challenge.

In short, gay marriage is illegal per the Infant Doctrine and contract necessities for infants.

I disagree. PArties that do not yet exist cannot be part of a contract.

And marriage was developed before recorded history, so I dont know where you get this 'thousand years ago;' thing.

 

[Silhouette]

I disagree. PArties that do not yet exist cannot be part of a contract.

And marriage was developed before recorded history, so I dont know where you get this 'thousand years ago;' thing.

Children are anticipated in any marriage. Unless now you're going to insist that marriage and children are not now, nor ever were a melded concept? Whether they arrive naturally or by adoption or other means, statistically, they will be there. And since the married home is now and always was about the anticipation of children; that marriage over a thousand years ago was created to protect those anticipated arrivals with a mom and dad, those arrivals had/have an implicit share in marriage. Otherwise in divorce court, a thing the state reluctantly allows if the environment has become too toxic for the kids, kids would be just marital assets, parsed out like heads of cabbage. But that's not what happens. The court gives great and lengthy consideration to the children of divorce and how best to keep them in contact with BOTH the mother and father..

...because...the court realizes the psychological importance of a child having regular contact with both his or her mother and father.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I disagree. PArties that do not yet exist cannot be part of a contract.

And marriage was developed before recorded history, so I dont know where you get this 'thousand years ago;' thing.

Children are anticipated in any marriage.

That is simply empirally NOT true.

People get married all the time and know that they CANNOT/WILL NOT have children. Some couples are barren, some are simply never going to have children by choice.

Any other false presumptions you want to tackle while I am online?

 

[Silhouette]

People get married all the time and know that they CANNOT/WILL NOT have children. Some couples are barren, some are simply never going to have children by choice.

Any other false presumptions you want to tackle while I am online?

You missed the part where I talked about adoption.

Fail. Next.

 

[JimBowie1958]

People get married all the time and know that they CANNOT/WILL NOT have children. Some couples are barren, some are simply never going to have children by choice.

Any other false presumptions you want to tackle while I am online?

You missed the part where I talked about adoption.

Fail. Next.

No, not fail as plenty of marriages do not ever intend or will have adopted children either.


Look, you are way over reaching in this claim that nonexisting entities are parties to the contracts of others.

Of course that does not mean a legal case cant be built, but then again most of us are aware that law has nothing to do with sanity or reason these days anyway.

 

[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, I'm not. I'm talking strictly and purely about contract law and the Infant Doctrine.

Obviously, you're not. The Infancy Doctrine is a legal rip cord. It allows a minor to exit any explicit contract that isn't advantageous to them. Its used for say, child actors. Or minors who want to enter into a mortgage. It has nothing to do with marriage. Nor have you ever found a single legal source that applies to marriage.

Even the concept is bizarre. As what? Children would be able to exit a marriage with their parents? They were never married to their parents to begin with.

Sorry, Sil....but once again, you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

An implicit share of a contract is equally legally binding as an expressed share.

More pseudo-legal gibberish. With your gibberish changing with virtually every recitation. First you said that children were married to their parents. Then that they were implied parties in the marriage. Now its 'implicit share' nonsense.

Nope. That's just you playing make believe again. And your pseudo-legal nonsense has no relevance to any child, any marriage, or any law. As no child is a party -of any kind- to the marriage of their parents. Nor is marriage conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Get used to the idea. Its not like the silly nonsense you make up changes......well, anything.

 

[Skylar]

Your legal delusions do not have the effect of law. Thank god.

Your denial of the Infant Doctrine, contract law and necessities for infants has no effect on their potency. Thank God.

Its the Infancy Doctrine. And it has nothing to do with marriage. Nor ever has.

Remember....and this point is fundamental: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

I disagree. PArties that do not yet exist cannot be part of a contract.

And marriage was developed before recorded history, so I dont know where you get this 'thousand years ago;' thing.

Children are anticipated in any marriage.

That is simply empirally NOT true.

People get married all the time and know that they CANNOT/WILL NOT have children. Some couples are barren, some are simply never going to have children by choice.

Any other false presumptions you want to tackle while I am online?

You're barking up the wrong tree with 'empirical' anything with Sil. Her entire argument is pure fantasy. No court nor law recognizes a child as a party to the marriage of their parents. Yet she fantasizes that they do. Based on....nothing. She's never found a single law or court ruling that has ever backed any of her gibberish.

The Infancy Doctrine has nothing to do with marriage. Its a legal rip cord that allows minors to exit contracts that aren't advantageous to them. It has nothing to do with marriage. Nor can Sil find a single law or court ruling that has ever applied the Infancy Doctrine to marriage. Yet you fantasizes that they do. Backed by nothing.

You're not going to penetrate her grand wall of pseudo-legal fantasy with something as trivial as reality, the law, or empirical evidence.

 

[IndependantAce]

No, this is not about me; I am happily married, Praise God.

But the concept of what a marriage is is a vestigial legal relic of Western European Christian cultures and it is time to revise those contracts to fit the intent of modern society, whose couples have a different set of desires in many cases than what would have been recognized in 1900.

If a person marries another American today, they dont necessarily know what they or their spouse will think about being married to them ten years afterwards. They may have changed in their beliefs or their partner may have. And some people wont to insure that they and their partners dont change at all.

We have prenuptial agreements that are varied in their effectiveness from state to state and who drew up the agreement. Most marriages do not have such agreements, IIRC, and to reduce confusion later, should be options in the marriage contract by standard contract guidelines.

I am thinking we have need for three basic contracts that may have variation on a couple of issues for each.

1. Open Marriage Contract. Both partners agree to allow their partner to have sexual relationships outside of the marriage. This contract could have multiple partners and is not exclusive. Their property is not communal unless amended to specify so. There is a default prenuptial agreement that each retains their own earned property as calculated by the percentage of property value they brought in plus how much they earned during the marriage. The would have a standard option to define the time frame in which they and their partners have to notify the other partners of extramarital activity.

2. Standard marriage contract that is found in most states today.

3. A Covenant Marriage is a permanent marriage contract as it used to be, in which all property is communal and the prenuptial agreement is that whoever is opting out of the marriage forfeits all accrued property within that marriage as penalty for leaving and violating the contract. The partner that commits adultery is considered to have opted out of the marriage by default, though the spouse may forgive the infidelity. I think most Christian churches would want to see their members take the Covenant Marriage contract as that most fits the New Testament view of marriage. And of course it can be amended by the couple to tweak it to their desire.

Anyway, this would make divorce and communication within a marriage far easier and simpler and less costly. It might help to restore some respect to the institution of marriage by the public.

I'm under the impression that marriage benefits are given out because the state is believed to benefit from it in some way (from an economic perspective children are considered to benefit the economy), so I don't see why they're under any obligation per se to give them out to anyone simply based on their wants.

If the state doesn't feel that an open marriage is conductive to raising children for example, I don't see a reason why they're entitled to recognize it simply because it's "what the couple wants".

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm under the impression that marriage benefits are given out because the state is believed to benefit from it in some way (from an economic perspective children are considered to benefit the economy), so I don't see why they're under any obligation per se to give them out to anyone simply based on their wants.

If the state doesn't feel that an open marriage is conductive to raising children for example, I don't see a reason why they're entitled to recognize it simply because it's "what the couple wants".

People are decreasingly getting married and at much later times in their lives. There is great confusion about what to expect in a marriage and this would help to clear much of that up.

IF you want to see marriage survive as an institution, then we need to make it more adaptable and less one size fits all.

 

[IndependantAce]

I'm under the impression that marriage benefits are given out because the state is believed to benefit from it in some way (from an economic perspective children are considered to benefit the economy), so I don't see why they're under any obligation per se to give them out to anyone simply based on their wants.

If the state doesn't feel that an open marriage is conductive to raising children for example, I don't see a reason why they're entitled to recognize it simply because it's "what the couple wants".

People are decreasingly getting married and at much later times in their lives. There is great confusion about what to expect in a marriage and this would help to clear much of that up.

IF you want to see marriage survive as an institution, then we need to make it more adaptable and less one size fits all.

Consenting adults can cohabitate or have a cermony as they wish without the state's interference.

However I don't see why the state should extend special benefits to a couple unless they expect the society to benefit from it in some way.

If open marriages aren't viewed as productive for raising children adults may do as they wish, but I don't see why they're entitled to have it subsidized by the state in the form of legal privileges.

 

[Silhouette]

Consenting adults can cohabitate or have a cermony as they wish without the state's interference.

However I don't see why the state should extend special benefits to a couple unless they expect the society to benefit from it in some way.

If open marriages aren't viewed as productive for raising children adults may do as they wish, but I don't see why they're entitled to have it subsidized by the state in the form of legal privileges.

Bingo.

Gays wanted marriage because it was a loophole for them to adopt kids. It was really the only thing left they couldn't get their hands on with civil unions. But depriving a child of a mother or father for life involves the child. And so we need to examine how that would affect a child and whether or not the state should subsidize a situation we know will be detrimental to him by this crucial deprivation. Single parents don't get married tax breaks because the state wants them to provide the missing father or mother before they get the breaks.

Gay marriage not only doesn't provide the missing parent, it CAN'T EVER provide the missing parent. And we're encouraging this deprivation of our future citizens (children) why again?

 

[Skylar]

Consenting adults can cohabitate or have a cermony as they wish without the state's interference.

However I don't see why the state should extend special benefits to a couple unless they expect the society to benefit from it in some way.

If open marriages aren't viewed as productive for raising children adults may do as they wish, but I don't see why they're entitled to have it subsidized by the state in the form of legal privileges.

Bingo.

Gays wanted marriage because it was a loophole for them to adopt kids.

There was only one state that required a couple to be married to adopt: Utah. So per your narrative, the only reason gays in any part of the country wanted to get married was so that gays in Utah could adopt?

Laughing......um, no. Look at Obergefell's complaint to the Supreme Court. It never mentioned Utah. You're just making shit up again.

But depriving a child of a mother or father for life involves the child. And so we need to examine how that would affect a child and whether or not the state should subsidize a situation we know will be detrimental to him by this crucial deprivation.

If your reasoning had any legal relevance, single parenthood and divorce would both be illegal. Neither are.

And of course, no 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.

You can ignore the Supreme Court. But you can't make us ignore the Supreme Court. Or the law. Or the courts. Which is why your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Single parents could adopt "hard placements" all the time, sure. But it's not the ideal sought and planned for, indeed the cause of the creation of the marriage contract. Cohabitating adults are usually not permitted to adopt in most states. And that's all gays are no matter what their license says. It doesn't provide the original enjoyment to children: mother and father legally committed for the children's sake.

 

[Skylar]

Single parents could adopt "hard placements" all the time, sure. But it's not the ideal sought and planned for, indeed the cause of the creation of the marriage contract.

Nope. The marriage contract was created because of property. Not 'adoption'. You keep making shit up, backed by nothing. And your pseudo-legal gibberish remains gloriously irrelevant to the actual law.

Cohabitating adults are usually not permitted to adopt in most states. And that's all gays are no matter what their license says. It doesn't provide the original enjoyment to children: mother and father legally committed for the children's sake.

'original enjoyment'? Again, you're just making up gibberish as you go along. First you said that children were married to their parents. Then that they were 'implied parties' to the marriage of their parents. And now your favorite piece of nonsense are ever changing flavors of 'enjoyment'.

None of it has the slightest legal relevance as none of your gibberish is the actual law. Its your imagination. Let me demonstrate:

Show me a single law or court ruling that recognizes that children are parties to the marriage of their parents.

You can't. As you're quoting your imagination.