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

[Silhouette]

• Nothing Silhouette says is correct.

Have you read post #231 yet Syriusly? Maybe some things Obergefell v Hodges Opinion says are correct? Or are they making that up too?
*********

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.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Laughing.....Sil, you're throwing shit against the wall hoping something, anything sticks. And your only source is still you, citing your imagination as the law.

It isn't. Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Brown isn't using *any* of your gibberish. And your imagination is still gloriously irrelevant.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Have you read post #231 yet Syriusly?

Have you? As there's no one but you citing yourself that polyamory is a sexual orientation.

And your imagination isn't a legal standard.

You're literally ignoring Brown's legal argument, making up your own, and then imagining that Brown is going to cite you.

Um, no. He's not.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ you're right. My bad. It will be impossible to demonstrate that Kody Brown has a natural sexual attraction to more than one woman; and that he and they have made an "intimate choice" about that lifestyle; even incorporating it into their faith. Demonstrating that some men have a natural sexual orientation to more than one woman indeed will be a most difficult legal task to accomplish!

 

[Syriusly]

^^ you're right. My bad. It will be impossible to demonstrate that Kody Brown has a natural sexual attraction to more than one woman; and that he and they have made an "intimate choice" about that lifestyle; even incorporating it into their faith. Demonstrating that some men have a natural sexual orientation to more than one woman indeed will be a most difficult legal task to accomplish!

Forgot how to use the reply button again?

It will be impossible when no one but you is making up this crap.

 

[mdk]

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.

I don't care what lies you tell yourself. You lie as effortlessly as I breath. It's all you do here to push your rabidly anti-gay agenda.

 

[Skylar]

^^ you're right. My bad. It will be impossible to demonstrate that Kody Brown has a natural sexual attraction to more than one woman; and that he and they have made an "intimate choice" about that lifestyle; even incorporating it into their faith. Demonstrating that some men have a natural sexual orientation to more than one woman indeed will be a most difficult legal task to accomplish!

Sil.....you making up a sexual orientation, citing yourself, is meaningless gibberish. You have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't 'demonstrated' anything. You've babbled about your imagination.

Your imagination isn't a legal standard or any standard of evidence. No matter how many times you repeat the same nonsense.

 

[Spare_change]

Woo or polygamy....called it!!!! Thank the left for all kinds of deviancy!!!!!!!!

Gonna go to a Now convention and pick up a few hotties.....I can have multiple women now!!!!!!

Biggest problem with multiple wives is multiple mothers-in-law.

 

[mdk]

Sil thinks spamming something that in no way proves her claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation somehow proves her claim. It's The Prince's Trust and Ferber all over again. Round and round we go...

 

[Skylar]

Sil thinks spamming something that in no way proves her claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation somehow proves her claim. It's The Prince's Trust and Ferber all over again. Round and round we go...

Of course. But the results are always the same.

Nothing.

 

[mdk]

Sil thinks spamming something that in no way proves her claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation somehow proves her claim. It's The Prince's Trust and Ferber all over again. Round and round we go...

Of course. But the results are always the same.

Nothing.

I wouldn't say always. It is largely and widely accepted that Dylan Roof wasn't really a racist, but a disgruntled queer seeking revenge for a different and unaffiliated church coming out against gay marriage. lol

 

[Skylar]

Sil thinks spamming something that in no way proves her claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation somehow proves her claim. It's The Prince's Trust and Ferber all over again. Round and round we go...

Of course. But the results are always the same.

Nothing.

I wouldn't say always. It is largely and widely accepted that Dylan Roof wasn't really a racist, but a disgruntled queer seeking revenge for a different and unaffiliated church coming out against gay marriage. lol

Laughing.....oh, shit! I'd forgotten about that inane babble. Was that before or after Sil blamed the abdication of the Pope on the gays?

 

[Silhouette]

Uh oh...getting off topic ^^ again...remember where we were? vv

*******

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.

 

[strollingbones]

happens a lot around here...no one cares.....the common comment...well it works for them....

 

[strollingbones]

could you imagine having more than one hubby....omg....what kinda hell would that be?

 

[Skylar]

Uh oh...getting off topic ^^ again...remember where we were? vv

*******

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.

Yeah......and you're still citing your imagination that polyamory is a sexual orientation. And your imagination is still legally meaningless nonsense.

Your 'Dylann Roof' conspiracy is merely another example of the same flawed process: You citing your imagination as evidence.

 

[strollingbones]

o cody brown is all about newer younger thinner wives...rumor has it he wants wife 5...robin has gotten plump and the new has worn off

 

[mdk]

Must be a bumper year for Sil's Spam crop.

 

[Silhouette]

could you imagine having more than one hubby....omg....what kinda hell would that be?

It doesn't matter. It would be hell to get HIV/AIDS from ass-sex from your statistically 100% of the time promiscuous/unfaithful "husband"; but that still didn't stop "gay marriage" did it? Nor will your own misgivings about polyamory/polygamy marriage stop it from it's day in Court.

 

[Silhouette]

o cody brown is all about newer younger thinner wives...rumor has it he wants wife 5...robin has gotten plump and the new has worn off

As long as Robyn and the others are OK with it, who are you to care?