-4

only way to win

How can the legal system hurt one individual for following church teachings if both of them are of the same religion?

In War Games the quote "The only way to win is to not play the game" (let a father judge another father) is for an end game solution, but if someone is being coerced to try to hurt the other person (i.e. restraining order), and the other person can convince the judge that they're being forced into something can a judge choose to extend spousal immunity to the couple if they're communicating by lying on the stand as a "smoke screen"?
What happens if someone is made aware of the fact the person is mentally incompetent after the trial is over, and the transcript gets lost?

Essentially what I'm asking is spousal privilege a defense for a forced restraining order by a biological father if he won't even speak to a suitor (i.e. may I take your daughter on a date)?

The original question was:
The CHURCH teaches that every relationship is based upon seeing a potential spouse, so does spousal immunity exist?

  • 5
    I'm not sure the question is clear enough to answer. – George White Mar 2 at 3:51
  • it's a question about spousal privileged extending to a suitor due to CHURCH teachings – a coder Mar 4 at 5:02
  • (If I am not mistaken, I had posted this comment the other day and it inexplicably was removed) Please narrow down your description/question and formulate it clearly. It is impossible to know what you mean by "smoke signal"; who is the mentally incompetent; the mentally incompetent person's role in the court proceedings; who was made aware of that person's condition of mentally incompetent; the person to whom the loss of transcript is attributable; the relation you think spousal immunity has with restraining order; why you call the restraining order "forced"; what you mean by suitor. – Iñaki Viggers Mar 4 at 10:06
  • 2
    What are "CHURCH" teachings? I'm assuming since its in capitals all the time you aren't just referring to the religious institution and it must be some acronym. – Lio Elbammalf Mar 4 at 16:27
  • Church means universal and church means denomination like C/catholic – a coder Mar 8 at 4:17
2

is spousal immunity a defense for a forced restraining order by a biological father if he won't even speak to a suitor (i.e. may I take your daughter on a date)?

There is no such thing as "spousal immunity".

Your post is replete with unclear references, unclear statements, and seemingly unrelated questions. But it is noteworthy that spousal privilege (not "immunity") does not preclude obtaining and enforcing a restraining order. The only relevance of spousal privilege is the evidentiary issue of precluding a spouse's testimony from being obtained and entered as admissible evidence in the court proceedings to which the respondent is a party.

In the context of restraining orders, spousal privilege might be available only if the respondent invokes it during the proceedings for civil or criminal contempt that resulted from respondent's violation of the restraining order.

If the restraining order is pursuant to, or in the context of, divorce proceedings, spousal privilege is inapplicable. See, for instance, MCL 600.2162(3)(a) and other exceptions listed therein.

At least in theory (since courts often do whatever they want), a party's conduct & statements (in or outside of court) regarding his/her spouse may forfeit spousal privilege regardless of whether the respondent or spouse ever spoke to a suitor (whatever that means) at all.

| improve this answer | |
  • the argument was duress, or perjury because I knew the ex was lying – a coder Mar 4 at 4:53
  • I think you only got the spousal immunity part, but forgot the part about if it can extend to the suitor in CHURCH teachings of if you don't think you can marry them you can't court them – a coder Mar 4 at 5:00
  • 1
    @acoder "but forgot the part about if it can extend to [...]". It is not that I forgot to address other items of your question. It is just that your post is very unclear. I'm aware that you edited your question, but you did not clarify any of the items I pointed out in a comment (which one of the new moderators inexplicably removed). You only edited to restate the title of your question, but that is still unintelligible. Your initial post had ended with "Essentially what I'm asking [...]", which happened to be the portion I found addressable. – Iñaki Viggers Mar 4 at 8:22
  • 1
    @acoder "the argument was duress, or perjury because I knew the ex was lying". What argument? who was the "ex"? to whom was the "ex" lying? I think you can see how adding disconnected terms only adds confusion. – Iñaki Viggers Mar 4 at 8:25
  • essentially what I'm asking is how the court system can hurt the faithful for following church teachings – a coder Mar 8 at 4:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.