Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
It's simple. Follow the LGBT playbook and use the courts to make a point. They do it ALL the time. Have a group of polygamists sue a state for marriage equality.
Follow the logic.
1. Fact: a majority of Americans openly or secretly despise the court decision last Summer of Obergefell.
2. Fact: an OVERWHELMING majority of Americans will reject polygamy-marriage if they sense a similar verdict.
3. Fact: All Americans associate the unwanted progression of the LGBT cult with the democratic party.
4. Fact: All Americans will blame Obergefell for a polygamy win...or even the well-publicized prediction of a polygamy win...(see numerical points below for details).
So, some things you have to understand about Obergefell is that it wasn't JUST about "gay marriage". It was about states not being able to discriminate against people marrying based on their sexual orientation. Notice in Obergefell in the Opinion on pages 7-8 how the Court weaves the terms "same-sex", "gays and lesbians" and "sexual orientation" in and out of those couple of paragraphs where it is discussing the broad interpretation it is making in the Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
So, if states cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, why are polyamorists (aka polygamists) orientations left out in the cold? Mull that over for a bit while I post the opposing arguments I've heard so far...coming in huge predominance from gays and lesbians, ironically:
The opposition:
1. "Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation!"...
Wrong: it would be the essence of ease for an attorney to argue that some men are predisposed to only feeling sexually satisfied by having sex with more than one woman. Talk about easy street. This one's a no-brainer. Polyamory is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality...if not more..
2. "Obergefell wasn't about sexual orientation. It was about same-sex marriage!"
Wrong: The Court made it clear in the Opinion on pages 7-8 and elsewhere that Obergefell was in fact about states not being able to deny marriage to people based on sexual orientation.
3. "Property rights! Think of all the complex situations to rights to property and children and health care visitation! New laws will have to be created!"
Sorry: Already being done in complex divorces currently. Like where grandparents claim rights, ex-spouses, step children, aunts & uncles etc. Even if a bunch of new laws had to be created, what does it matter in the face of something as important as equal rights? Saying "new laws have to be created" didn't stop the LGBT crusade from having Justices create new laws out of thin air in order to justify Obergefell's conclusions...
4. "Obergefell meant it was only homosexual orientation! Other sexual groups have to apply one by one. They have to fight their own fight!"
Wrong: The Court made liberal use of and citations of various statutes and the Constitution itself to insist that equality was the mainstay of the fabric of Obergefell. It (wrongly) interpreted the 14th Amendment to say that a behavior (homosexuality-orientation) was covered and protected as to privileges others enjoy in the 50 states. Especially marriage in the case of Obergefell. To deny polygamists marriage would defy the spirit of equality. So in a real and legal sense, polygamy is already legal if it is found to be a sexual orientation. Since gays and lesbians walk in and out of their orientations at will (think: Anne Heche), and it is at best a poorly understood fixation of which they have given their own label "gays and lesbians", there is nothing banning polyamorists from giving themselves a label like "polygamists", declaring theirs is a compulsive need sexually, and therefore an orientation. Having done that, there is no legal mechanism left to bar them from marriage after Obergefell.
5. "Ah, but yes there is! There have been studies done that polygamy is terrible for children. Think of Warren Jeffs! Because there are so many, their children suffer from want of attention of a parent or parents!"
Perhaps: But where that is a somewhat bigoted generalization (irony coming from the LGBT camp), there are many polygamist families where the children thrive and do well. On a different note, with "gay marriage", there exists a legal contract which divorces kids involved from either a mother or father for life. And "gay marriage" doesn't just do this sometimes; it does it 100% of the time. So weighed on a scale, gay marriage is predictably and reliably worse for children 100% of the time than polygamy marriage.
6. "Don't talk about children being implied partners in the marriage contract!! Marriage is about the adults. Children do not share in the marriage contract!!"
OK: But if that's the case, why do you object to polygamy-marriage? (See #5)
*************
So, all that being said, how this helps GOP congressionals is that the shock of a polygamy marriage lawsuit making these arguments in the press as election approaches, the populace will see the horrible mistake Obergefell is. And guess who they're going to blame the most? And guess who they will then vote to keep out of Congress? And guess who they're going to want in the Senate to control any Justices Hillary will appoint when she wins this Fall?
It's a gold mine. I have 100% faith it will work. Now watch the GOP fumble this one too, as Cheney whispers in their ears on behalf of his gay daughter and his democratic roots. "Don't screw up Obergefell or even bring it up! The public has accepted it. Time to move on! This won't work!!"...
I just want to add that if they don't do something of this caliber to save GOP congressionals, I sincerely wish them all the best of luck this Fall. Because they're going to need it by the time Trump is done with them.
Brown v Utah...you're on deck! It's going to happen in the very near future anyway. Why not have it happen when it would make a difference in favor of the GOP? Congressionals coming out strongly opposed to polygamy marriage would seal the deal in every state but perhaps Utah. All it would take is for one group to file suit and a comprehensive media discussion about it. I know Fox would do it, but maybe CNN too? Certainly talk radio could keep up the drum beat. Newpapers on the front page. Continuing editorials about it. MSNBC will put its fingers in its ears and go "lalalalalal...I can't HEAR you...lalalalalal"..
...and um...yeah...*giggles*...maybe even an interview with Hillary about how she feels about polyamory-orientation having equal rights?
Local TV outlets or newspapers/radio might bring in congressionals vying for a seat from either side of the aisle and ask them "so how do you stand with regards to this new polygamy lawsuit filed?" ...lol..
No Benghazi...no emails...no violence or weird scary health outbreaks conveniently near election day...FAR less money for sure. I mean, how much does it cost to file a lawsuit vs all that other bullshit?
You're welcome.
Follow the logic.
1. Fact: a majority of Americans openly or secretly despise the court decision last Summer of Obergefell.
2. Fact: an OVERWHELMING majority of Americans will reject polygamy-marriage if they sense a similar verdict.
3. Fact: All Americans associate the unwanted progression of the LGBT cult with the democratic party.
4. Fact: All Americans will blame Obergefell for a polygamy win...or even the well-publicized prediction of a polygamy win...(see numerical points below for details).
So, some things you have to understand about Obergefell is that it wasn't JUST about "gay marriage". It was about states not being able to discriminate against people marrying based on their sexual orientation. Notice in Obergefell in the Opinion on pages 7-8 how the Court weaves the terms "same-sex", "gays and lesbians" and "sexual orientation" in and out of those couple of paragraphs where it is discussing the broad interpretation it is making in the Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
So, if states cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, why are polyamorists (aka polygamists) orientations left out in the cold? Mull that over for a bit while I post the opposing arguments I've heard so far...coming in huge predominance from gays and lesbians, ironically:
The opposition:
1. "Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation!"...
Wrong: it would be the essence of ease for an attorney to argue that some men are predisposed to only feeling sexually satisfied by having sex with more than one woman. Talk about easy street. This one's a no-brainer. Polyamory is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality...if not more..
2. "Obergefell wasn't about sexual orientation. It was about same-sex marriage!"
Wrong: The Court made it clear in the Opinion on pages 7-8 and elsewhere that Obergefell was in fact about states not being able to deny marriage to people based on sexual orientation.
3. "Property rights! Think of all the complex situations to rights to property and children and health care visitation! New laws will have to be created!"
Sorry: Already being done in complex divorces currently. Like where grandparents claim rights, ex-spouses, step children, aunts & uncles etc. Even if a bunch of new laws had to be created, what does it matter in the face of something as important as equal rights? Saying "new laws have to be created" didn't stop the LGBT crusade from having Justices create new laws out of thin air in order to justify Obergefell's conclusions...
4. "Obergefell meant it was only homosexual orientation! Other sexual groups have to apply one by one. They have to fight their own fight!"
Wrong: The Court made liberal use of and citations of various statutes and the Constitution itself to insist that equality was the mainstay of the fabric of Obergefell. It (wrongly) interpreted the 14th Amendment to say that a behavior (homosexuality-orientation) was covered and protected as to privileges others enjoy in the 50 states. Especially marriage in the case of Obergefell. To deny polygamists marriage would defy the spirit of equality. So in a real and legal sense, polygamy is already legal if it is found to be a sexual orientation. Since gays and lesbians walk in and out of their orientations at will (think: Anne Heche), and it is at best a poorly understood fixation of which they have given their own label "gays and lesbians", there is nothing banning polyamorists from giving themselves a label like "polygamists", declaring theirs is a compulsive need sexually, and therefore an orientation. Having done that, there is no legal mechanism left to bar them from marriage after Obergefell.
5. "Ah, but yes there is! There have been studies done that polygamy is terrible for children. Think of Warren Jeffs! Because there are so many, their children suffer from want of attention of a parent or parents!"
Perhaps: But where that is a somewhat bigoted generalization (irony coming from the LGBT camp), there are many polygamist families where the children thrive and do well. On a different note, with "gay marriage", there exists a legal contract which divorces kids involved from either a mother or father for life. And "gay marriage" doesn't just do this sometimes; it does it 100% of the time. So weighed on a scale, gay marriage is predictably and reliably worse for children 100% of the time than polygamy marriage.
6. "Don't talk about children being implied partners in the marriage contract!! Marriage is about the adults. Children do not share in the marriage contract!!"
OK: But if that's the case, why do you object to polygamy-marriage? (See #5)
*************
So, all that being said, how this helps GOP congressionals is that the shock of a polygamy marriage lawsuit making these arguments in the press as election approaches, the populace will see the horrible mistake Obergefell is. And guess who they're going to blame the most? And guess who they will then vote to keep out of Congress? And guess who they're going to want in the Senate to control any Justices Hillary will appoint when she wins this Fall?
It's a gold mine. I have 100% faith it will work. Now watch the GOP fumble this one too, as Cheney whispers in their ears on behalf of his gay daughter and his democratic roots. "Don't screw up Obergefell or even bring it up! The public has accepted it. Time to move on! This won't work!!"...
I just want to add that if they don't do something of this caliber to save GOP congressionals, I sincerely wish them all the best of luck this Fall. Because they're going to need it by the time Trump is done with them.
Brown v Utah...you're on deck! It's going to happen in the very near future anyway. Why not have it happen when it would make a difference in favor of the GOP? Congressionals coming out strongly opposed to polygamy marriage would seal the deal in every state but perhaps Utah. All it would take is for one group to file suit and a comprehensive media discussion about it. I know Fox would do it, but maybe CNN too? Certainly talk radio could keep up the drum beat. Newpapers on the front page. Continuing editorials about it. MSNBC will put its fingers in its ears and go "lalalalalal...I can't HEAR you...lalalalalal"..
...and um...yeah...*giggles*...maybe even an interview with Hillary about how she feels about polyamory-orientation having equal rights?
Local TV outlets or newspapers/radio might bring in congressionals vying for a seat from either side of the aisle and ask them "so how do you stand with regards to this new polygamy lawsuit filed?" ...lol..No Benghazi...no emails...no violence or weird scary health outbreaks conveniently near election day...FAR less money for sure. I mean, how much does it cost to file a lawsuit vs all that other bullshit?
You're welcome.
Last edited:
