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

[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.

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.

Using sexual orientation to win a case from a recent precedent citing sexual orientation's "intrinsic rights' is not "blathering legal nonsense". Are you saying that citing legal precedent is "blathering legal nonsense"? Because then all arguments are "blathering legal nonsense" by your definition.

Yes, "as it stands now" they are merely citing religious freedom and rights to privacy. I'd hope they'd be inspired to add sexual orientation to those two by September 10th... providing they want to win...And you DO realize if they can show the Court theirs is a sexual orientation, they're already covered under Obergefell...right? No? Why not?

 

[mdk]

Using sexual orientation to win a case from a recent precedent citing sexual orientation's "intrinsic rights' is not "blathering legal nonsense". Are you saying that citing legal precedent is "blathering legal nonsense"? Because then all arguments are "blathering legal nonsense" by your definition

No, I am saying that you making up legal precedent is blathering nonsense and will not be used by Turley in the Brown case. Sadly for you, lawyers have to cite precedent that actually exists, not whatever bullshit you pull out of thin air.

 

[Syriusly]

Since it is worthless to address each of Silhouette's copy and pastes I will just point out again

• Silhouette's entire purpose is to push her anti-gay agenda
• Nothing Silhouette says is correct.
• Silhouette has a history of making crap up or
• Quoting something- and lying about what the quote says, or who the person quoted is
• And her predictions are always wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Since it is worthless to address each of Silhouette's copy and pastes I will just point out again

• Silhouette's entire purpose is to push her anti-gay agenda
• Nothing Silhouette says is correct.
• Silhouette has a history of making crap up or
• Quoting something- and lying about what the quote says, or who the person quoted is
• And her predictions are always wrong.

And none of those strawmen/ad hominems matter when it comes to discussing the rights of ALL sexual orientations after Obergefell. None of it. Just as none of a lawyer's personal quirks matter when he does criminal defense. A lawyer could hate his client, think he is the scum of the earth. But he goes into the courtroom advocating for him fiercely because that's his job description.

See how that works? Let's try to stick to the topic for once, OK Syriusly?

 

[Silhouette]

Using sexual orientation to win a case from a recent precedent citing sexual orientation's "intrinsic rights' is not "blathering legal nonsense". Are you saying that citing legal precedent is "blathering legal nonsense"? Because then all arguments are "blathering legal nonsense" by your definition

No, I am saying that you making up legal precedent is blathering nonsense and will not be used by Turley in the Brown case. Sadly for you, lawyers have to cite precedent that actually exists, not whatever bullshit you pull out of thin air.

From Obergefell v Hodges; Opinion, pages 7-8: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17....

Your buddies at the APA went gave the Justices their "information" and off that they based their Decision. Kody Brown has an immutable sexual attraction to more than one woman/wife (obviously). And from this he has adopted the Mormon Church offshoot that accepts polygamy, combining his lust with his faith to I suppose legitimize both. In any event, faith notwithstanding, it is his sexual orientation and the consent of his adult wives that will put them over the finish line...

Continued:

in Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996), the Court invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s Constitution that sought to foreclose any branch or political subdivision of the State from protecting persons against discrimination based on sexual orientation..

Oops, there it is again...

More.. (page 9-10)

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

Uh, oh...you mean like the "intimate choices" a polyamorously-oriented man makes towards his wives? If they are consenting and define that choice as a part of their "personal identity and beliefs"...polygamy is a done deal under Obergefell.

And as to "two" being sacred, you can throw that out the window also: (pages 10-11)

..it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present

Well then, if "two" was the past, it surely cannot rule the present, now can it?

And....*drum roll*....Turley's citation du jour: (page 11)

The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

One discord might be granting protections and coverages for just one sexual orientation, "intimate choices" "personal identity" and "beliefs" but denying other sexual orientations, intimate choices, personal identity and beliefs. Can't have a law that applies to just one person's gig but not anothers. And since the Court already said history doesn't constrain marriage, then "two" goes out with the bathwater along with the baby.

 

[mdk]

In what way does any of the above prove that polygamy is a sexual orientation? Hint: it doesn't. It seems rather odd a highly skilled lawyer would overlook such a 'slam dunk' for their case. I wonder why they are not making that claim, though? I am sure it might have something to do with Turley not wanting to cite your imagination as precedent.

Why do the Browns' even have to sue? According to the finding you invented in Obergefell they already can legally marry.

Do you support the Brown family in their case to have polygamous marriages realized? Or do you only support the case in hopes it can be used to end gay marriage? It's a rhetorical questions. We both know the answer is the latter.

 

[Silhouette]

It seems rather odd a highly skilled lawyer would overlook such a 'slam dunk' for their case.

I agree. Which is why I'll be keeping an eye on this as it moves forward. Don't want the second coming of Paul Clement, now do we? You'd also agree it's kind of odd for an attorney to argue FOR the opposition's case. And Paul Clement came with such a pedigree too!...

 

[Skylar]

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?

Laughing......and after that dense paragraph of meaningless gibberish, polyamory still isn't a sexual orientation. Brown still isn't citing any of the nonsense you made up. And nothing changes.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Well, using Sil's bizarre pseudo-legal standards....since the word 'Democrats' appears in the thread, they must be the basis of it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Except that its meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense that has nothing to do with the law, the case, or any of their arguments.

Remember......you making shit up has no legal relevance. Ever.

 

[Silhouette]

Using sexual orientation to win a case from a recent precedent citing sexual orientation's "intrinsic rights' is not "blathering legal nonsense". Are you saying that citing legal precedent is "blathering legal nonsense"? Because then all arguments are "blathering legal nonsense" by your definition

... I am saying that you making up legal precedent is blathering nonsense and will not be used by Turley in the Brown case. Sadly for you, lawyers have to cite precedent that actually exists, not whatever bullshit you pull out of thin air.

From Obergefell v Hodges; Opinion, pages 7-8: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17....

Your buddies at the APA went gave the Justices their "information" and off that they based their Decision. Kody Brown has an immutable sexual attraction to more than one woman/wife (obviously). And from this he has adopted the Mormon Church offshoot that accepts polygamy, combining his lust with his faith to I suppose legitimize both. In any event, faith notwithstanding, it is his sexual orientation and the consent of his adult wives that will put them over the finish line...

Continued:

in Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996), the Court invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s Constitution that sought to foreclose any branch or political subdivision of the State from protecting persons against discrimination based on sexual orientation..

Oops, there it is again...

More.. (page 9-10)

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

Uh, oh...you mean like the "intimate choices" a polyamorously-oriented man makes towards his wives? If they are consenting and define that choice as a part of their "personal identity and beliefs"...polygamy is a done deal under Obergefell.

And as to "two" being sacred, you can throw that out the window also: (pages 10-11)

..it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present

Well then, if "two" was the past, it surely cannot rule the present, now can it?

And....*drum roll*....Turley's citation du jour: (page 11)

The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

One discord might be granting protections and coverages for just one sexual orientation, "intimate choices" "personal identity" and "beliefs" but denying other sexual orientations, intimate choices, personal identity and beliefs. Can't have a law that applies to just one person's gig but not anothers. And since the Court already said history doesn't constrain marriage, then "two" goes out with the bathwater along with the baby.

*****

Except that its meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense that has nothing to do with the law, the case, or any of their arguments.

Remember......you making shit up has no legal relevance. Ever.

So I "made up" the quotes directly from Obergefell? Or, the exact, plain, clearly discernible words of Obergefell only apply to some citizens, but not others? Citing the 14th no less...?

 

[Silhouette]

Yep ^^ "funny" Hilarious. Remember how they told us the legal slippery slope didn't exist and if you thought it did you were an "idiot" "spouting pseudo-legal nonsense", a "bigot" or a "homophobe"?

Aren't you glad you listened to "reason" and kept your mouth shut when you should've known better? Gonna listen to them again about deranged men in women's restrooms? You HAVE to listen to them about polygamy, now that they've kicked that barn door open.

 

[Skylar]

Using sexual orientation to win a case from a recent precedent citing sexual orientation's "intrinsic rights' is not "blathering legal nonsense". Are you saying that citing legal precedent is "blathering legal nonsense"? Because then all arguments are "blathering legal nonsense" by your definition

... I am saying that you making up legal precedent is blathering nonsense and will not be used by Turley in the Brown case. Sadly for you, lawyers have to cite precedent that actually exists, not whatever bullshit you pull out of thin air.

From Obergefell v Hodges; Opinion, pages 7-8: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17....

Your buddies at the APA went gave the Justices their "information" and off that they based their Decision. Kody Brown has an immutable sexual attraction to more than one woman/wife (obviously). And from this he has adopted the Mormon Church offshoot that accepts polygamy, combining his lust with his faith to I suppose legitimize both. In any event, faith notwithstanding, it is his sexual orientation and the consent of his adult wives that will put them over the finish line...

Continued:

in Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996), the Court invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s Constitution that sought to foreclose any branch or political subdivision of the State from protecting persons against discrimination based on sexual orientation..

Oops, there it is again...

More.. (page 9-10)

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

Uh, oh...you mean like the "intimate choices" a polyamorously-oriented man makes towards his wives? If they are consenting and define that choice as a part of their "personal identity and beliefs"...polygamy is a done deal under Obergefell.

And as to "two" being sacred, you can throw that out the window also: (pages 10-11)

..it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present

Well then, if "two" was the past, it surely cannot rule the present, now can it?

And....*drum roll*....Turley's citation du jour: (page 11)

The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

One discord might be granting protections and coverages for just one sexual orientation, "intimate choices" "personal identity" and "beliefs" but denying other sexual orientations, intimate choices, personal identity and beliefs. Can't have a law that applies to just one person's gig but not anothers. And since the Court already said history doesn't constrain marriage, then "two" goes out with the bathwater along with the baby.

*****

Except that its meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense that has nothing to do with the law, the case, or any of their arguments.

Remember......you making shit up has no legal relevance. Ever.

So I "made up" the quotes directly from Obergefell? Or, the exact, plain, clearly discernible words of Obergefell only apply to some citizens, but not others? Citing the 14th no less...?

Then show us the APA recognizing polyamory as a sexual orientation. You can't. You made it up. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

There's a reason why Brown isn't citing any of your pseudo-legal gibberish in his court brief. And that reason would be the 'pseudo-legal gibberish' part.

 

[Skylar]

Yep ^^ "funny" Hilarious. Remember how they told us the legal slippery slope didn't exist and if you thought it did you were an "idiot" "spouting pseudo-legal nonsense", a "bigot" or a "homophobe"?

Aren't you glad you listened to "reason" and kept your mouth shut when you should've known better? Gonna listen to them again about deranged men in women's restrooms? You HAVE to listen to them about polygamy, now that they've kicked that barn door open.

Laughing....you're citing yourself on the 'legal slippery slope'. And then using your conclusion as justification for your own position.

But what does you citing yourself citing yourself have to do with the law?

Nothing. You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

 

[Silhouette]

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

I won't chase this strawman further than to illustrate how your are wrong ^^. But THIS just happened: VICTORY! Federal court blocks Obama’s transgender bathroom order

Let me guess, "ultimately deranged males will be allowed in women's bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, dorms and showers. It's just a matter of time. Be on the right side of history, or else you are a BIGOT!" Did I get that about right? You see, when you push insanity too far, people wake up and start drawing lines in the sand. A line was just drawn in the sand.

Do you think the USSC will allow polygamy or draw a line in the sand with polyamory-orientation? And if they will, how do you think they will legitimize that "legal discord"? And instead of generalizations like "polyamory isn't an orientation!!", how about this time you try to pretend you are Justice writing the Opinion and use the verbiage they would, describing in painstaking detail HOW polyamory is not a sexual orientation on par with homosexual intimate choices and lifestyles?

 

[Skylar]

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

I won't chase this strawman further than to illustrate how your are wrong ^^. But THIS just happened: VICTORY! Federal court blocks Obama’s transgender bathroom order

Let me guess, "ultimately deranged males will be allowed in women's bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, dorms and showers. It's just a matter of time. Be on the right side of history, or else you are a BIGOT!" Did I get that about right? You see, when you push insanity too far, people wake up and start drawing lines in the sand. A line was just drawn in the sand.

Do you think the USSC will allow polygamy or draw a line in the sand with polyamory-orientation? And if they will, how do you think they will legitimize that "legal discord"? And instead of generalizations like "polyamory isn't an orientation!!", how about this time you try to pretend you are Justice writing the Opinion and use the verbiage they would, describing in painstaking detail HOW polyamory is not a sexual orientation on par with homosexual intimate choices and lifestyles?

You're not citing polygamists. You're citing yourself. And no, the courts won't take your word for it.

You keep citing your imagination as the law. And your imagination keeps being legally irrelevant.

See how that works?

 

[Silhouette]

Not a word about the tranny setback and how I was right it will never go anywhere in the courts. Just as I am right now that Obergefell's wording exists (post top of page) polygamy CANNOT be denied. It is an orientation, a lifestyle and an intimate choice between consenting adults. You know I'm right, but all you have left to defend your cult is "neener neener neener". Good luck with that.

 

[Syriusly]

Since it is worthless to address each of Silhouette's copy and pastes I will just point out again

• Silhouette's entire purpose is to push her anti-gay agenda
• Nothing Silhouette says is correct.
• Silhouette has a history of making crap up or
• Quoting something- and lying about what the quote says, or who the person quoted is
• And her predictions are always wrong.

See how that works? Let's try to stick to the topic for once, OK Syriusly?

LOL- as if you really ever stop to your bizarre thread topic.

All of your topics are minor variations of a theme- which is

• Gays must be stopped.
• Gay marriage bad
• Gays have corrupted the courts, the Pope, and everything else

All part of your anti-gay campaign- 80 plus threads all devoted to your anti-gay mania.

 

[mdk]

Not a word about the tranny setback and how I was right it will never go anywhere in the courts. Just as I am right now that Obergefell's wording exists (post top of page) polygamy CANNOT be denied. It is an orientation, a lifestyle and an intimate choice between consenting adults. You know I'm right, but all you have left to defend your cult is "neener neener neener". Good luck with that.

Your major problem is Turley has to cite actual precedent to make his case for the Brown family. Don't be shocked when he doesn't take legal advice from a failed horse breeder.

 

[Silhouette]

Nothing personal right mdk? Your litmus test is showing..

Oh, look, another page is about to be bled off. Good thing I referenced the actual post people should read here instead of just the thread.. That being post #231.