A Legal Lesson Guaranteed To Restore GOP Congressional Hopefuls As Trump Nose-Dives

[Silhouette]

Babble away Jake. But in the end all that will matter is 1 court case and 1 panel of judges/Justices stating that it is discrimination to grant one sexual orientation the privilege of marriage while denying it to another sexual orientation: polyamory. Right now it's just as illegal for polygamists to marry as it was for gays to marry in California the day after Prop 8 passed. And we know what happened there. You folks have done the ground work for the polygamists because as I said, "equality" demands that any sexual orientation the majority objects to is ALREADY LEGAL to marry. It has to be. The 14th Amendment demands it.

Knock yourself out, but in the end we all know where the verdict must land. The Justices have tied their own hands in Obergefell Opinion, pages 7-8..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues to babble. She affirms that she believes children of gay and or polygamous parents are better off if their parents are not married.

Sil does not care about children. Her position abuses them.

Californians by a majority of 63% approve gay marriage. Californians' Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage (PPIC Publication)

She knows the 14th amendment protects gay parents and all marriage of adults. End of story.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil continues to babble. She affirms that she believes children of gay and or polygamous parents are better off if their parents are not married.

Sil does not care about children. Her position abuses them.

Californians by a majority of 63% approve gay marriage. Californians' Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage (PPIC Publication)

She knows the 14th amendment protects gay parents and all marriage of adults. End of story.

Actually she cares enough about children to argue for policies that she knows would harm children.

She encourages harm to children- if they are children of gay couples.

Because that is who she is.

 

[Syriusly]

The Justices have tied their own hands in Obergefell Opinion, .

Not in the least.

Silly bigots like you just can't understand the Constitution or Obergefell.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay Americans in Massachusetts have been able to marry for over 10 years.

Still no polygamous marriage in Massachusetts.
.

Yet.

All it takes is one case...

It takes a successful case.

Of course to be successful would mean that the State could find no reason to deny marriage to polygamous families.

Are you in favor of polygamous marriage Silhouette?

If you aren't- why aren't you?

Based on what you faggot lovers argued in favor of homos marrying, all it takes for polygamous marriages to take place is consenting adults that love each other. .

You racists and haters of Americans just are so ignorant and so bigoted that you don't know why the courts said you couldn't stop mixed race couples or same gender couples from marrying.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Fact- you should stop listening to the voices in your head that tell you what 'Americans' secretly are thinking.

Fact- majority of Americans support marriage equality for Americans who happen to be gay.

Fact- you are delusional- and a homophobic bigot.

Fact - those that claimed they supported equal protection when it came to marriage are really nothing but a bunch of faggot lovers.

Yep- 55% of Americans are 'a bunch of faggot lovers'- and then there are racists like you who call a 50 year old black man 'boy' in the other 45%

Whatever the percentage happens to be for faggot lovers, yes. The number is irrelevant. The point is that you are..

You think that 55% of Americans are 'faggot lovers' and you call a 50 year old black man 'boy'.

You are:
a) a Trump voter and
b) a racist and a bigot.

Did Stormfront get too lonely for you?

If you say it's 55%, I accept your number.

Since he acts like a boy by running from responsibility for his actions, I call him one.

You must be another one of the Pinocchio's.

 

[Conservative65]

Gay Americans in Massachusetts have been able to marry for over 10 years.

Still no polygamous marriage in Massachusetts.
.

Yet.

All it takes is one case...

It takes a successful case.

Of course to be successful would mean that the State could find no reason to deny marriage to polygamous families.

Are you in favor of polygamous marriage Silhouette?

If you aren't- why aren't you?

Based on what you faggot lovers argued in favor of homos marrying, all it takes for polygamous marriages to take place is consenting adults that love each other. .

You racists and haters of Americans just are so ignorant and so bigoted that you don't know why the courts said you couldn't stop mixed race couples or same gender couples from marrying.

The reasoning was equal protection under the 14th Amendment. If you choose to deny certain types of marriages because you oppose those marriages despite their meeting the consenting adults that want to marry criteria you used for homos, it proves two things. One, you're a liar in claiming you support equal protection and two, you're a hypocrite by only supporting that criteria when it suits you.

 

[Conservative65]

Sil continues to babble. She affirms that she believes children of gay and or polygamous parents are better off if their parents are not married.

Sil does not care about children. Her position abuses them.

Californians by a majority of 63% approve gay marriage. Californians' Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage (PPIC Publication)

She knows the 14th amendment protects gay parents and all marriage of adults. End of story.

Actually she cares enough about children to argue for policies that she knows would harm children.

She encourages harm to children- if they are children of gay couples.

Because that is who she is.

How can a gay couple have children? It might belong to one of them when they were doing things the normal way but a gay couple can't have children. It's biologically impossible for the two of them to do that.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil continues to babble. She affirms that she believes children of gay and or polygamous parents are better off if their parents are not married.

Sil does not care about children. Her position abuses them.

Californians by a majority of 63% approve gay marriage. Californians' Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage (PPIC Publication)

She knows the 14th amendment protects gay parents and all marriage of adults. End of story.

Actually she cares enough about children to argue for policies that she knows would harm children.

She encourages harm to children- if they are children of gay couples.

Because that is who she is.

How can a gay couple have children? It might belong to one of them when they were doing things the normal way but a gay couple can't have children. It's biologically impossible for the two of them to do that.

How did this couple have children?

The same way a gay couple can have children.

You probably hate Bob Hope too. Probably not white enough for you.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay Americans in Massachusetts have been able to marry for over 10 years.

Still no polygamous marriage in Massachusetts.
.

Yet.

All it takes is one case...

It takes a successful case.

Of course to be successful would mean that the State could find no reason to deny marriage to polygamous families.

Are you in favor of polygamous marriage Silhouette?

If you aren't- why aren't you?

Based on what you faggot lovers argued in favor of homos marrying, all it takes for polygamous marriages to take place is consenting adults that love each other. .

You racists and haters of Americans just are so ignorant and so bigoted that you don't know why the courts said you couldn't stop mixed race couples or same gender couples from marrying.

The reasoning was equal protection under the 14th Amendment. If you choose to deny certain types of marriages because you oppose those marriages despite their meeting the consenting adults that want to marry criteria you used for homos, it proves two things. One, you're a liar in claiming you support equal protection and two, you're a hypocrite by only supporting that criteria when it suits you.

Ah you are soooooo very close to knowing something about Obergefell and Loving.

But still you are clueless.

Which proves two things:

a) You are a Trump supporter and
b) You are a racist and a bigot.

But hey- you are no hypocrite- you openly promote your own special brand of hating Americans.

 

[Silhouette]

The Justices have tied their own hands in Obergefell Opinion, .

Not in the least.

Silly bigots like you just can't understand the Constitution or Obergefell.

You'll notice I don't call you names when I respond. And yet you do almost exclusively. Try to restrain your evident anger/fear.

I understand one thing quite clearly. And that is, if one sexual orientation that the majority rejects gets to override the majority based on "no discrimination against sexual orientation", EQUALITY (cite any case you like or the Constitution if you like) demands that any other sexual orientation the majority rejects can use that same premise to have the right to marry. Anything less would be institutionalized arbitrary discrimination; which is, sans legal polygamy-marriage, what Obergefell factually is.

So, my remedy for that flaw in Obergefell is to push the issue. Push it now instead of just a little bit later, when it surely will be pushed (within the next 5 years guaranteed). It'll either be the mormons or the muslims who will champion this other sexual-orientation. Push it now and force the liberal Court to show its hand and come down on one side or another. 1. Either the states actually can set restraints on marriage when it comes to sexual orientation, or 2. They can't: no exceptions allowed, including polygamist-Americans.

At least with a case pending, the GOP might have some new talking points to make a difference other than *yawn* Benghazi or *double yawn* Hillary's emails...

 

[Syriusly]

The Justices have tied their own hands in Obergefell Opinion, .

Not in the least.

Silly bigots like you just can't understand the Constitution or Obergefell.

I understand one thing quite clearly. And that is, if one sexual orientation that the majority rejects gets to override the majority based on "no discrimination against sexual orientation", EQUALITY (cite any case you like or the Constitution if you like) demands that any other sexual orientation the majority rejects can use that same premise to have the right to marry. Anything less would be institutionalized arbitrary discrimination; which is, sans legal polygamy-marriage, what Obergefell factually is...

Again- you only 'undertand' what the voices in your head tell you.

The majority of Americans support marriage equality for gay Americans.
Both Obergefell and Loving were both based upon the rights of Americans to marriage.

If you want to argue you have a Constitutional right to be married to 3 men- I think you have the right to make that argument- to voters- or in the courts. I am not denying you anything.

What Obergefell factually is- just like Loving- was a ruling that ensures that Americans could marry- regardless of the gender or race of their spouse.

 

[Silhouette]

The Justices have tied their own hands in Obergefell Opinion, .

Not in the least.

Silly bigots like you just can't understand the Constitution or Obergefell.

I understand one thing quite clearly. And that is, if one sexual orientation that the majority rejects gets to override the majority based on "no discrimination against sexual orientation", EQUALITY (cite any case you like or the Constitution if you like) demands that any other sexual orientation the majority rejects can use that same premise to have the right to marry. Anything less would be institutionalized arbitrary discrimination; which is, sans legal polygamy-marriage, what Obergefell factually is...

The majority of Americans support marriage equality for gay Americans.
Both Obergefell and Loving were both based upon the rights of Americans to marriage.

What Obergefell factually is- just like Loving- was a ruling that ensures that Americans could marry- regardless of the gender or race of their spouse.

Then we agree. Obergefell was about states not being able to deny anyone marriage based on any sexual orientation. Including polygamy.

 

[Silhouette]

a) You are a Trump supporter and
b) You are a racist and a bigot.

But hey- you are no hypocrite- you openly promote your own special brand of hating Americans.

Hmm.. Trump isn't necessarily opposed to gay marriage Syriusly. Have you seen his position on transgenders using women's bathrooms? But you go ahead and pre-judge while you accuse other people of prejudice.

 

[Conservative65]

Sil continues to babble. She affirms that she believes children of gay and or polygamous parents are better off if their parents are not married.

Sil does not care about children. Her position abuses them.

Californians by a majority of 63% approve gay marriage. Californians' Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage (PPIC Publication)

She knows the 14th amendment protects gay parents and all marriage of adults. End of story.

Actually she cares enough about children to argue for policies that she knows would harm children.

She encourages harm to children- if they are children of gay couples.

Because that is who she is.

How can a gay couple have children? It might belong to one of them when they were doing things the normal way but a gay couple can't have children. It's biologically impossible for the two of them to do that.

How did this couple have children?

View attachment 85802

The same way a gay couple can have children.

You probably hate Bob Hope too. Probably not white enough for you.

A gay couple can't HAVE children. I you don't know that, you're an idiot.

 

[Conservative65]

Yet.

All it takes is one case...

It takes a successful case.

Of course to be successful would mean that the State could find no reason to deny marriage to polygamous families.

Are you in favor of polygamous marriage Silhouette?

If you aren't- why aren't you?

Based on what you faggot lovers argued in favor of homos marrying, all it takes for polygamous marriages to take place is consenting adults that love each other. .

You racists and haters of Americans just are so ignorant and so bigoted that you don't know why the courts said you couldn't stop mixed race couples or same gender couples from marrying.

The reasoning was equal protection under the 14th Amendment. If you choose to deny certain types of marriages because you oppose those marriages despite their meeting the consenting adults that want to marry criteria you used for homos, it proves two things. One, you're a liar in claiming you support equal protection and two, you're a hypocrite by only supporting that criteria when it suits you.

Ah you are soooooo very close to knowing something about Obergefell and Loving.

But still you are clueless.

Which proves two things:

a) You are a Trump supporter and
b) You are a racist and a bigot.

But hey- you are no hypocrite- you openly promote your own special brand of hating Americans.

I know those that support faggots marrying because of the equal protection ruling that deny other types of marriages involving consenting adults are hypocrites. You should know. You're one of them.

 

[Silhouette]

Without calling the LGBTs names, I can point out that they cried to the Heavens about children involved with homosexuals "being harmed". Then cry afoul when polygamists want to marry because they say polygamist-Americans are bad for children. Then when I point out that that is a generalization, that some kids in polygamy families are thriving and happy, they grumble because I won't be bigoted like they are against "all polygamists..."

Twisting the pretzel logic even further, when I point out how homosexual marriage harms children by depriving them 100% of the time of either a mother or father for life, they scream even louder that "marriage has nothing to do with children!". How about that load of BS?

Seriously though, as to the topic here..all it would take is one polygamy suit to not only drive the point home to the middle voters who used to think they might support gay marriage. And as an added bonus, the GOP could discuss who would be one of the first groups to champion polygamist-Americans: muslims. It would be a vote-harvest and easy-street.

 

[Silhouette]

It takes a successful case.

Of course to be successful would mean that the State could find no reason to deny marriage to polygamous families.

You mean like how the State could find no reason to deny marriage to homosexual "families"? I use " " because in homosexual "marriages", they are missing either a mother or father 100% of the time. So Obergefell completely redefined marriage from a child's point of view..polygamy doesn't even do THAT...

You'd think talking points like these would find some traction with middle voters. Children... Polygamist-Americans seeking equality..probably should just stick to emails, Benghazi and Trump. That will win the day..

 

[Silhouette]

The thing is that Trump is a loss no matter how you slice it. Proof of that is the number of voters who don't trust Hillary but will vote for her anyway (check the #s against each other) because Trump is worse than worse in "bad or worse".

So even though Trump is to the left of Hillary on the bathroom issue, and dead even with Hillbilly on the polygamy-marriage thing, the gains would be in the Congressional races. Might as well save what you can when you can. And the public would flock back to the GOP in droves. There's one thing that sticks even in the liberal woman's craw and that is the idea of a legal condition in where she might have to share her husband with another woman. Even the young gals won't be keen on that....no matter how kinky they say they are. Another woman to compete with for hubby's credit card over the long haul? Yeah, no.

 

[mdk]

It takes a successful case.

Of course to be successful would mean that the State could find no reason to deny marriage to polygamous families.

You mean like how the State could find no reason to deny marriage to homosexual "families"? I use " " because in homosexual "marriages", they are missing either a mother or father 100% of the time. So Obergefell completely redefined marriage from a child's point of view..polygamy doesn't even do THAT...

You'd think talking points like these would find some traction with middle voters. Children... Polygamist-Americans seeking equality..probably should just stick to emails, Benghazi and Trump. That will win the day..

How is that working out in your "family"? I use " " b/c you're still missing the father.

Not to worry, though. There is always hope. lol