Since I know you're all obsessed with Maine politics...Follow

Apparently, you have devolved to a 2 year old mentality Joph.

And yet I'm still showing how you make shit up you can't defend. Awesome!

when joph triple posts its srs bisnes.

Every time you post it's over 9,000 x 5.

Words spent insisting he doesn't need to provide evidence: 513
Words spent providing evidence for something "so obvious": 0

Not what I asked for. Go back and try again.

I asked for an example of two same sex partners bringing a "marriage contract" before the court and having it agreed it. You know... something that the courts are signing off on as a "marriage contract", not some random contract Gbaji says is a marriage contract because he really needs to weasel out of this.

This will be quicker if you just admit that you can't. You're up to 628 words by the way.


I never once made that point or even gave an opinion on that part of the thread. But I can see how being exposed as a liar has made you so touchy.

Anyway, I'm off for other things. Have that real cite for me when I get back, okay?

Haha.. who are we kidding? We both know you can't. But I bet you'll raise your word count!

Edited, Nov 6th 2009 8:28pm by Jophiel

What's better (waiting on patch to download) is that his definition doesn't even work!

It says that a "marriage contract" is a "prenuptial agreement or contract". It's speaking about prenuptial contracts ("I get to keep the house and you keep your collection of teacups if we divorce") and not about power of attorney, visitation rights or any of that jazz. Gbaji just took the first thing he could find and slapped it up assuming it fit what he wanted

A contract is a contract Joph. Doesn't matter what you call it. I was very clear as to what I meant when I used the phrase "marriage contract".

And yeah. If you go in front of a court with a contract signed by the other party in which they grant you power of attorney, you have power of attorney. It doesn't matter if you scrawled the words "My Little Marriage Contract" on the top or not.

What are you arguing for here? That a contract ceases to be binding if someone calls it a marriage contract? I'm serious. I have no freaking clue what point you are trying to prove here. You demand I provide a Cite to support a statement I made that if you have a contract which defines the various civil agreements your marriage contains that it's just as legally binding as any other contract, including the one you enter into by default when you apply for a marriage license.


I'm not sure what you need me to prove here. You're making a purely semantic argument. And a really silly one at that.


Tell you what. I'm outta here for the weekend. How about you spend some time clarifying what point you are making and how that point refutes anything I've said. Then, when you've done that, I'll respond. Until then, I'll just assume you're making games out of the phrase "marriage contract" as a means of avoiding discussing the real issue.


And in case you're still confused. The real issue is whether or not a contract written up by a lawyer to mirror that of a default state marriage contract, if signed by two parties, would confer the same set of legally binding civil agreements between them that the default state contract does. Specifically, consider issues of share property, finances, power of attorney (both medical and financial), joint inheritance, joint guardianship, etc. My position is that those agreements are equally legally binding if entered into via a separately written contract as they are if entered into via statute as a result of filing for a marriage license.


If you disagree, please explain why you believe this position is incorrect. I'm getting pretty tired of you ignoring what I'm saying and spinning off on tangents about other alternate meanings of words or phrases I used. Just address the position on that one issue if you can.

Words spent spinning and avoiding admitting that he completely made it up: 1,123

Words spent providing actual evidence of his claims: 0

Edited, Nov 6th 2009 11:22pm by Jophiel

He's wrong. There is no mythical sheath of papers forming a contract of marriage like signing for a car -- it's entirely codified into various laws. For instance, in Illinois (but insert your state here), there's laws stating who can get married. There's laws stating how to handle the dissolution of a marriage. And that's about it.

All the rest of it? There's laws stating who can visit you in the hospital and those laws say "your spouse". There's laws stating who can claim your state pension benefits and those laws say "your spouse". So on and so forth. There's no magical "marriage contract". Once in the OOT, Gbaji insisted that you had to sign a pile of papers "roughly equivalent to that involved in signing a mortgage" in order to get married. That's how unqualified he is to talk about this. He actually argued that there was a real "marriage contract" the size of a mortgage contract that you had to sign off on before you could be married.

Let that sink in for a moment and realize what Gbaji is claiming as "most definite" truth there... Look, Gbaji doesn't know shit about this. Seriously. He just makes this **** up on the fly and, when asked to back it up, will create logical pretzels and resort to chanting "It's obvious!" over and over. I've known plenty of people more ignorant than him but I've never come across anyone as ignorant but who is so filled with self-delusion that just thinking he knows something is right will make it right.

But what does this mean? Well, it means the "You can just create a contract just like the one you get when you're married" argument is completely invalid. That contract does not exist. And you are unable to take the bits of law out and put them into a contract just like it would be otherwise because the state will not honor parts of it. If the state benefits law says "spouse" and the state only recognizes legally married partners as spouses, then you can not take that snippet of law and put it in your contract. You have to selectively pick and chose which parts of the various laws the state will allow you to have as an unmarried person and put them all in one place.

So that's Gbaji's genius solution: Call yourself married and create a contract that only includes the parts of the law you can access without being married anyway and doesn't include any of the parts exclusive to married couples. And then you're.... married? Wait, that makes no sense at all. But then, everyone else here already knew that.

It's not. At least, I looked into it at the time and turned up nothing. Most people thought that Gbaji was either confusing prenup agreements with the "real" marriage paperowrk or else was just sniffing markers. If anyone from the Golden State who has actually been married there wants to chime in, I'd be interested.

Likewise and, frankly, I'd be pretty surprised to find out that it differed significantly in other states.

Edited, Nov 7th 2009 1:53am by Jophiel

Gbaji must love his imaginary contracts. After all, imaginary evidence is the best kind. You can just imagine up a new meaning whenever it fits your argument. Which is also imaginary.

I wonder if Gbaji is imaginary? This would be deeply ironic in the most incorrect sense of the term.


Maybe Gbaji is a unicorn. Maybe he is this unicorn.

Edited, Nov 7th 2009 11:34am by zepoodle