Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[NYcarbineer]

That makes no sense. Monogamy and Polygamy are two distinct forms of marriage, as the Supreme Court has already determined.

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

Reynolds in Reynolds v United States used the religious freedom argument, and lost.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Why hasn't polygamy become legal in the states that now have same sex marriage?

there hasn't yet been a court challenge, but the ACLU is gearing up for one. Its coming, you asked for it

You don't seem to understand that gay rights are not contingent on any other people's rights issues. Gays either have a constitutional right to marry or they don't;

even IF it contributed to the polygamists' argument, which it doesn't, that is not sufficient cause to deny a specific separate to someone who is independently entitled to that right.

btw, by your reasoning, opposite sex civil marriage of ANY kind is the slippery slope to every other kind of civil marriage.

Gays would never get the right to civil marriage if heterosexuals hadn't gotten it in the first place.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Why hasn't polygamy become legal in the states that now have same sex marriage?

there hasn't yet been a court challenge, but the ACLU is gearing up for one. Its coming, you asked for it

You don't seem to understand that gay rights are not contingent on any other people's rights issues. Gays either have a constitutional right to marry or they don't;

even IF it contributed to the polygamists' argument, which it doesn't, that is not sufficient cause to deny a specific separate to someone who is independently entitled to that right.

btw, by your reasoning, opposite sex civil marriage of ANY kind is the slippery slope to every other kind of civil marriage.

Gays would never get the right to civil marriage if heterosexuals hadn't gotten it in the first place.

Please show me the application for marriage license that has a box for sexual orientation.
If you cant then gays have the same right to marry as anyone else.

 

[boilermaker55]

Let's see some proof with what you say!
If not, this is a lie you made up.

It is time for you and your kind to admit that hetero marriage is undermining and making a mockery (not mockertry) of the institue.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

Hetro marriage was fine until the left got their claws on it.

Mark

 

[Redfish]

Yep, and gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are two distinct forms of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy, book it.

Yes, but they did not have the gay marriage precedent back then.

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Why hasn't polygamy become legal in the states that now have same sex marriage?

there hasn't yet been a court challenge, but the ACLU is gearing up for one. Its coming, you asked for it

You don't seem to understand that gay rights are not contingent on any other people's rights issues. Gays either have a constitutional right to marry or they don't;

even IF it contributed to the polygamists' argument, which it doesn't, that is not sufficient cause to deny a specific separate to someone who is independently entitled to that right.

btw, by your reasoning, opposite sex civil marriage of ANY kind is the slippery slope to every other kind of civil marriage.

Gays would never get the right to civil marriage if heterosexuals hadn't gotten it in the first place.

Please show me the application for marriage license that has a box for sexual orientation.
If you cant then gays have the same right to marry as anyone else.

No they don't. Gays can't marry someone of the gender they want to marry. Heterosexuals can.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay marriage is not a religious argument.

BTW, why didn't the Mormons win? I thought religious freedom was trump in the Constitution...

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

If people have a religious belief in plural marriage, who is the US government to deny them the right to that practice?

 

[Redfish]

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

If people have a religious belief in plural marriage, who is the US government to deny them the right to that practice?

so you support polygamy on the basis of religion or who the person (people) love and want to commit to?
how about mother/daughter, father/son, siblings? These could all become marriages in order to take advantage of tax laws and regulations.

Your obsession with gay marriage has blinded you as to where this will lead.

 

[Redfish]

next time they will win, because with the gay marriage precedent there will be no viable legal argument against them.

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

 

[johnwk]

The thread is not about same sex "marriage". The thread is about the 14th Amendment's legislative intent being misconstrue.


JWK

 

[NYcarbineer]

Opposite sex marriage is already the precedent. Polygamy is opposite sex marriage.

btw, again, why didn't the Mormons win with the religious argument?

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The thread is not about same sex "marriage". The thread is about the 14th Amendment's legislative intent being misconstrue.


JWK

Same sex marriage is an equal protection issue.

 

[johnwk]

The thread is not about same sex "marriage". The thread is about the 14th Amendment's legislative intent being misconstrue.


JWK

Same sex marriage is an equal protection issue.

And the tread is about the 14th Amendment's legislative intent being misconstrued, the claim being that it was intended to forbid the states to adopt laws which make distinctions based upon sex.

JWK

 

[Redfish]

wrong, 3 women could marry, it doesn't have to involve both sexes. The mormons lost because there was no legal precedent. Is SCOTUS sanctions gay marriage then there will be plenty of prededents for polygamy of all kinds.

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

 

[johnwk]

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay marriage is not polygamous. Give me an estimate of how many times I will have to post that before it gets through your head.

Why did the Mormons lose on the religious argument?

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

You don't have to if state laws banning gay marriage are ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Redfish]

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

yes, the people spoke. Thats the way it is supposed to work. We live in a country where the majority opinion controls, not the minority opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

 

[Redfish]

You just refuse to get it. If a "marriage" of two men or two women is legal then there is no valid legal argument against 3 men, 3 women, 3 men and 4 women, and all other combinations.

Once the precedent is set that a marriage is something other than one man and one woman, then the barn door is open and we will be dealing with all forms of "marriage".

Its a very simple legal concept. If you have any lawyers in the sanitarium with you, ask them.

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

You don't have to if state laws banning gay marriage are ruled unconstitutional.

true. and such a ruling would open the door for all other forms of marriage using that ruling as a valid legal precedent. The arguments for polygamy would be EXACTLY the same as the arguments for gay marriage. equal rights, discrimination, 14th amendment.

An amendment would prevent that because the amendment could limit marriage to two human beings.

 

[Redfish]

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.