Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll

[Silhouette]

Again, if three or more persons wish to marry they’re at liberty to petition their state government to amend marriage contract law to indeed accommodate three or more persons.

But this isn’t an issue for the courts; no ‘rights’ are being ‘violated’ – citizens can’t be ‘denied access’ to a law that doesn’t exist.

No, if three or more persons have a sexual orientation to that lifestyle, then there is no petition needed. Obergefell took care of them already. Again, gays and lesbians DO NOT have a monopoly on all sexual orientations possible.

 

[Skylar]

Rights are being violated if states are discriminating based on someone's sexual orientation. You folks think you have the monopoly on sexual orientation?

The only one saying that 'polyamory is a sexual orientation'...is you, citing your imagination.

And your imagination isn't legally relevant. See how that works?

 

[Silhouette]

The only one saying that 'polyamory is a sexual orientation'...is you, citing your imagination.

And your imagination isn't legally relevant. See how that works?

Then the imagination of a man saying he is a "woman trapped in a man's body" isn't legally relevant either. The 14th says our imaginations are equal. See how that works?

It's becoming unquestionably clear that you folks are after special rights, not equal rights.

 

[mdk]

You really are fighting this tooth and nail for someone who pretended to be all for everyone having access to marriage. What skin is it off your teeth if polyamorists (making it part of their faith or not) enjoy marriage equality? Like I said, if man/woman isn't sacred then neither is "two". Either your for all Americans having access to marriage, even when the majority says "no", or you aren't. Which is it?

The only thing I am fighting tooth and nail is your delusional and batshit claims about Obergefell. What am I also doing is exposing you as a gross hypocrite. Your claim is that if you support gay marriage then you have to support polygamous marriages. Using your logic, if you support the religious freedoms of Davis then you must do so as well for the Brown family. Notice how you never have to live by the standards you set for others.

For the record, I support the fight of the Brown family. Polygamous marriage should be legal so long as everyone involved legally consents to the marriage. Do you support the Brown's religious freedoms or not? How many times will you flee this question? lol

 

[mdk]

Rights are being violated if states are discriminating based on someone's sexual orientation. You folks think you have the monopoly on sexual orientation?

Rights are being violated if states are discriminating based on someone's religious freedoms. You folks think you have the monopoly on religious freedoms?

 

[mdk]

The only one saying that 'polyamory is a sexual orientation'...is you, citing your imagination.

And your imagination isn't legally relevant. See how that works?

Then the imagination of a man saying he is a "woman trapped in a man's body" isn't legally relevant either. The 14th says our imaginations are equal. See how that works?

It's becoming unquestionably clear that you folks are after special rights, not equal rights.

This that the same amendment where you claimed the courts based Obergefell on the word sex in the 14th?

It becoming quite clear you're all for special religious freedoms when they can be used against gay people, but not for the Brown family. In reality, you don't care about the Browns' or religious freedoms. You only care about finding lame legal gibberish to end gay marriage. Good thing you have as much success in that crusade as you do in finding a husband. lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nah, we're just not accepting your imagination as legal evidence.

As it never is.

So your response to "can men self-diagnose as a woman trapped in a man's body" is "neener neener neener!"?? Let me know when you feel up to answering the question. After all, you accept a layman's self-diagnosis as "transgender" as "legal evidence". It's OK for you to do that but not other people?

If a layman can self-diagnose as "woman trapped in a man's body", then polyamorists can self-diagnose as having a sexual orientation to multiple women.

Wrong.

The issue concerns denying citizens access to state laws they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than who they are, such as gay Americans being denied access to state marriage law absent a rational basis, evidence in support, pursuant to a proper legislative end.

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or personal choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – the right to decide is entitled to Constitutional protections (Lawrence v. Texas).

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate for no other reason than being gay violates the 14th Amendment; the same is true with regard to transgender Americans: they have the right to decide how to live their private lives, to make decisions about who they are, absent unwarranted interference from the state.

All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with three or more persons wishing to marry.

Three or more persons are not able to marry for reasons having nothing to do with who they are, having nothing to do with personal, private decisions they’ve made as how to live, and having nothing to do with a man wishing to have several wives, or a woman wishing to have several husbands.

Three or more persons are not able to marry because no law exists to accommodate such a union.

 

[Silhouette]

The issue concerns denying citizens access to state laws they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than who they are,

Great! We're on the same page then. The Browns are polygamists expressing their polyamory in their lifestyle. Just as gays express their homosexuality in their lifestyle. You're getting good at this! You're aware I'm assuming that Obergefell is now federal law, not "state law"? That dominates any state laws that interfere with its findings about sexual orientation and marriage. (Providing of course that your ilk wants a foundation upon which to prosecute Judge Moore of Alabama?)

BTW, do you think it's fair that a "transgender" gets to self-diagnose himself while a polyamorist does not? Just wondering where you stand on that little snag?

 

[Silhouette]

"Funny"...but you still haven't answered how it is that a transgender gets to self-diagnose while polyamorous people somehow don't get to call themselves a sexual orientation....

 

[Silhouette]

Such a slew of commentary by the team, but when I asked "how is it that a transgender gets to self-diagonose while polyamorous people somehow don't get to call themselves a sexual orientation"... *crickets*.

The silence has a reason of course. And that reason is that once the LGBT cult admits trannies self-diagnosis is all there is to them, then they cannot disallow a polygamist to self-diagnose as having a sexual orientation to more than one person. Once that's been established, Obergefell applies to polygamy. And, that's a little dirty secret the LGBTs don't want out right now. Hence the reason for the poll I posted..

 

[mdk]

Why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown family, but unwaveringly support Kim Davis religious freedoms? You can't support one without the other.

I love that you now have to deflect you're own thread to trannies. Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

Why don't you start a thread about religious freedom and the Browns' lawsuit? This thread is about sexual orientation's freedom and the Browns' lawsuit.

You never did say how it is that a "transgender" gets to self-diagnose and then use that as a legal term, while you say polygamists don't get to self-diagnose as polyamorist-orientation? Would you care to address that or will there be another eight posts from you and your buddies using ad hominems and strawmen to try to make that question (and another page here) go away?

 

[Silhouette]

For instance, look at what Skylar says here:

No, it isn't. And you're not quoting 'polyamorists'. You're quoting your imagination. Your imagination is legally irrelevant.

"Quoting the imagination" is something trannies do and are supposed to then be allowed to use that as a legally-binding term/syndrome. Yet everyone on earth knows there are some men sexually incapable of another life except sex with multiple women. To prove that would be to prove water is wet. Yet, good luck proving "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body". Still, we are supposed to turn a blind eye to the demented man's imagination and let him in the women's rooms with full legal blessing. And at the same time we are supposed to say "a man being sexually oriented towards multiple women is a farce! It's made-up I tell you!!" and with that, deny them any legal standing of having polyamory-orientation. And protection under Obergefell.

Sweet. Any other double-standards you guys want to serve up?

 

[mdk]

Why don't you start a thread about religious freedom and the Browns' lawsuit? This thread is about sexual orientation's freedom and the Browns' lawsuit

The Browns' are not claiming polygamy is a sexual orientation. Their case is built on the claims that their religious freedoms and their right to privacy are being violated. Why would we discuss something that you've made-up and assigned it to the Brown family?

You never did say why you unwaveringly support Kim Davis' religious freedoms, but ignore the same freedoms of the Brown family? After all, using your own standards, you can't support one and not the other.

Without double standards you wouldn't have any.

 

[Michelle420]

If somebody wants to have more than one wife who gives a shit? There are some cultures that do this routinely

or more than one husband

 

[Michelle420]

I guess there would be a great tax benefit in claiming several spouses.

 

[Silhouette]

Why don't you start a thread about religious freedom and the Browns' lawsuit? This thread is about sexual orientation's freedom and the Browns' lawsuit

The Browns' are not claiming polygamy is a sexual orientation. Their case is built on the claims that their religious freedoms and their right to privacy are being violated.

There is nothing precluding them from adding sexual orientation to their pleadings. Pleadings are as open as the seven seas. Look at how they can make the connection.

1. Yes, their initial claims were based on religious freedoms. Their religious freedoms talk about their ability to express their sexual orientation with the blessings of God (in this particular polyamorist-orientation case, but not all of them).

2. Yes, their initial claims were based on rights to privacy. Their rights to privacy merely augment how gays said the government(s) should not be able to punish them for what they do in their bedrooms. Sexual orientations between consenting adults belong in private, right? Isn't that what Lawrence v Texas was all about? Do you think sodomy is some special exception or just part of a broader spectrum of this right to privacy between consenting adults? We both know the answer to that. And so does Jonathan Turley.

Bottom line is, sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of BOTH their pleadings for religious freedoms and rights to privacy. In fact, without that key component mentioned and argued, the other two would be washed-out and vaporous at best...longshots both of them. The sexual orientation factor ADDED TO their other points is what will make the case for them.

 

[mdk]

Why don't you start a thread about religious freedom and the Browns' lawsuit? This thread is about sexual orientation's freedom and the Browns' lawsuit

The Browns' are not claiming polygamy is a sexual orientation. Their case is built on the claims that their religious freedoms and their right to privacy are being violated.

There is nothing precluding them from adding sexual orientation to their pleadings. Pleadings are as open as the seven seas. Look at how they can make the connection.

1. Yes, their initial claims were based on religious freedoms. Their religious freedoms talk about their ability to express their sexual orientation with the blessings of God (in this particular polyamorist-orientation case, but not all of them).

2. Yes, their initial claims were based on rights to privacy. Their rights to privacy merely augment how gays said the government(s) should not be able to punish them for what they do in their bedrooms. Sexual orientations between consenting adults belong in private, right? Isn't that what Lawrence v Texas was all about? Do you think sodomy is some special exception or just part of a broader spectrum of this right to privacy between consenting adults? We both know the answer to that. And so does Jonathan Turley.

Bottom line is, sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of BOTH their pleadings for religious freedoms and rights to privacy. In fact, without that key component mentioned and argued, the other two would be washed-out and vaporous at best...longshots both of them. The sexual orientation factor ADDED TO their other points is what will make the case for them.

Let me know when the Brown family actually uses your blathering legal nonsense in their pleadings. As it stands now they are using the right to privacy and their religious freedoms to make their case. You can pretend they are suing under the guise that polygamy is a sexual orientation until the cows come home, but it still doesn't change the claims that they are actually making.

By the way, anti-polygamy cohabitation laws were struck down in Utah as a result of the Brown family. The law described polygamy as them even living together in the same house. That was found to be unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

Funny, a third person has actually attempted to baldface lie and say they believe the gay marriage thing was a republican concept. Sure, and I suppose abortion is too? Why not. If you're going to lie, lie BIGLY.

 

[mdk]

Funny, a third person has actually attempted to baldface lie and say they believe the gay marriage thing was a republican concept. Sure, and I suppose abortion is too? Why not. If you're going to lie, lie BIGLY.

Just count all the 'thread views' as votes for the Democrats in your poll.