The protectors of children
Comments
-
I'm certainly not reading past the headline here, but if history is any indicator you shouldn't be allowed within 5 miles of a school.
Hope this helps.
-
Means Kobe would have to move out of mom’s basement.pawz said:I'm certainly not reading past the headline here, but if history is any indicator you shouldn't be allowed within 5 miles of a school.
Hope this helps.
Mercer Island isnt that large to escape a 5 mile radius
-
I’m sure the headline accurately reflects the content of the bill. “Legalize child marriage”. “Don’t say gay”
-
To no one's surprise Kobe is lying about this bill that's still being debated and amended and hasn't even been voted on yet.
The pro-pedophile party is desperate to change the topic.
However, claims that HB 0233/SB 0526 is “a bill to legalize child marriage” or “to allow child marriage” were wide of the mark. We could no find no evidence whatsoever that the age-restrictions loophole was a feature, rather than a bug, in the legislation. When asked on March 23 whether his bill contains a minimum age limit, Leatherwood said, “No, there is not an explicit age limit,” but speculated that the common law marriage contract would be implemented in a way that excluded children. He said:
This bill — as the name of it implies — it is a contract, and I believe that this would not allow minors, children under the age of 18 who haven’t even reached the age of consent — I don’t think the courts would uphold, with this bill, that they could enter into a marital contract here. So my thought, to answer your question [about a minimum age], is eighteen.
The factual premise of Leatherwood’s point is questionable. Children aged under 18 can and do regularly enter into contracts, even though the law surrounding those is less clearcut than contract law involving adults. However, it’s clear based on this discussion that Leatherwood, the primary sponsor of HB 0233, does not intend for his bill to “legalize child marriage.” Why the text of his bill does not include the relatively straightforward wording required to ensure that the legislation does not allow child marriage is not clear. -
Weird though, since the tweet cited doesn’t mention child marriage and that this excerpt doesn’t touch on the tweet’s criticism.SFGbob said:To no one's surprise Kobe is lying about this bill that's still being debated and amended and hasn't even been voted on yet.
The pro-pedophile party is desperate to change the topic.
However, claims that HB 0233/SB 0526 is “a bill to legalize child marriage” or “to allow child marriage” were wide of the mark. We could no find no evidence whatsoever that the age-restrictions loophole was a feature, rather than a bug, in the legislation. When asked on March 23 whether his bill contains a minimum age limit, Leatherwood said, “No, there is not an explicit age limit,” but speculated that the common law marriage contract would be implemented in a way that excluded children. He said:
This bill — as the name of it implies — it is a contract, and I believe that this would not allow minors, children under the age of 18 who haven’t even reached the age of consent — I don’t think the courts would uphold, with this bill, that they could enter into a marital contract here. So my thought, to answer your question [about a minimum age], is eighteen.
The factual premise of Leatherwood’s point is questionable. Children aged under 18 can and do regularly enter into contracts, even though the law surrounding those is less clearcut than contract law involving adults. However, it’s clear based on this discussion that Leatherwood, the primary sponsor of HB 0233, does not intend for his bill to “legalize child marriage.” Why the text of his bill does not include the relatively straightforward wording required to ensure that the legislation does not allow child marriage is not clear. -
Are you posting in the right thread?MelloDawg said:
Weird though, since the tweet cited doesn’t mention child marriage and that this excerpt doesn’t touch on the tweet’s criticism.SFGbob said:To no one's surprise Kobe is lying about this bill that's still being debated and amended and hasn't even been voted on yet.
The pro-pedophile party is desperate to change the topic.
However, claims that HB 0233/SB 0526 is “a bill to legalize child marriage” or “to allow child marriage” were wide of the mark. We could no find no evidence whatsoever that the age-restrictions loophole was a feature, rather than a bug, in the legislation. When asked on March 23 whether his bill contains a minimum age limit, Leatherwood said, “No, there is not an explicit age limit,” but speculated that the common law marriage contract would be implemented in a way that excluded children. He said:
This bill — as the name of it implies — it is a contract, and I believe that this would not allow minors, children under the age of 18 who haven’t even reached the age of consent — I don’t think the courts would uphold, with this bill, that they could enter into a marital contract here. So my thought, to answer your question [about a minimum age], is eighteen.
The factual premise of Leatherwood’s point is questionable. Children aged under 18 can and do regularly enter into contracts, even though the law surrounding those is less clearcut than contract law involving adults. However, it’s clear based on this discussion that Leatherwood, the primary sponsor of HB 0233, does not intend for his bill to “legalize child marriage.” Why the text of his bill does not include the relatively straightforward wording required to ensure that the legislation does not allow child marriage is not clear.
-
Want to revisit the last few things you bit on?MelloDawg said:
Weird though, since the tweet cited doesn’t mention child marriage and that this excerpt doesn’t touch on the tweet’s criticism.SFGbob said:To no one's surprise Kobe is lying about this bill that's still being debated and amended and hasn't even been voted on yet.
The pro-pedophile party is desperate to change the topic.
However, claims that HB 0233/SB 0526 is “a bill to legalize child marriage” or “to allow child marriage” were wide of the mark. We could no find no evidence whatsoever that the age-restrictions loophole was a feature, rather than a bug, in the legislation. When asked on March 23 whether his bill contains a minimum age limit, Leatherwood said, “No, there is not an explicit age limit,” but speculated that the common law marriage contract would be implemented in a way that excluded children. He said:
This bill — as the name of it implies — it is a contract, and I believe that this would not allow minors, children under the age of 18 who haven’t even reached the age of consent — I don’t think the courts would uphold, with this bill, that they could enter into a marital contract here. So my thought, to answer your question [about a minimum age], is eighteen.
The factual premise of Leatherwood’s point is questionable. Children aged under 18 can and do regularly enter into contracts, even though the law surrounding those is less clearcut than contract law involving adults. However, it’s clear based on this discussion that Leatherwood, the primary sponsor of HB 0233, does not intend for his bill to “legalize child marriage.” Why the text of his bill does not include the relatively straightforward wording required to ensure that the legislation does not allow child marriage is not clear. -
-
This account is absolute trash. It’s the go to for gullible idiot headline readers like Kobe. Another blue check DIM that Twitter props up as serious.TheKobeStopper said:
