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

[mdk]

Don't be shocked when they don't make the claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation.

Besides, children don't need a mother or a father according to you. All they need is hope.

I've already taken steps to get a hold of them personally to discuss this. It's not that I don't trust their attorney Jonathan Turley. He seems pretty ethical to me. But I've seen attorneys take money from the opposition to frame a losing case more often than I care to to talk about. It appears that one of those might have been the guy "defending" DOMA. Remember him arguing FOR the opposition at one point? Jesus Christ.

Being a sharp attorney, Turley knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that to include polyamory as a legitimate sexual orientation is an undeniable win. What makes me more uneasy is the blatant loophole the 10th circuit gave them to allow them to appeal. Also, the generosity of Sotomayor to grant them until September to frame their arguments. It's too easy. If Turley fails to discuss sexual orientation with respect to his clients' case, I'll take that as a very strong indicator that he might be corrupt. An attorney's goal is to win a case for his client by exhausting all means. Omitting a clear-win will be a very terrible stain on his record.

That being said, I believe he is ethical and will frame it into their arguments. Especially if the Browns bring it to his attention and insist. They might become very leery of him if he refuses to do what it takes to win.

I am sure the Browns' are sitting by their phone eagerly awaiting your legal counsel.

 

[ptbw forever]

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

Taz is correct in my opinion!

From the Muslim culture to FLDS Mormon Culture Polygamy is part of their culture and who are you to object?

If they can afford the extra spouse then so be it and let them enjoy the misery...

My religion dictates that I can marry all the females in the US and Europe, so.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

This thread has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with sexual orientation. Polyamory. Might want to check the title again.

Not only do you not read the cases you speak about, you don't even read the articles from your own OP:

The reality star and his wives sued Utah in 2012 over its historic ban on plural marriage. The Browns were under investigation for bigamy after their TLC reality show aired. They claim the ban on plural marriage infringes on their religious freedom and right to privacy.​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Don't be shocked when they don't make the claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation.

Besides, children don't need a mother or a father according to you. All they need is hope.

I've already taken steps to get a hold of them personally to discuss this. It's not that I don't trust their attorney Jonathan Turley. He seems pretty ethical to me. But I've seen attorneys take money from the opposition to frame a losing case more often than I care to to talk about. It appears that one of those might have been the guy "defending" DOMA. Remember him arguing FOR the opposition at one point? Jesus Christ.

Being a sharp attorney, Turley knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that to include polyamory as a legitimate sexual orientation is an undeniable win. What makes me more uneasy is the blatant loophole the 10th circuit gave them to allow them to appeal. Also, the generosity of Sotomayor to grant them until September to frame their arguments. It's too easy. If Turley fails to discuss sexual orientation with respect to his clients' case, I'll take that as a very strong indicator that he might be corrupt. An attorney's goal is to win a case for his client by exhausting all means. Omitting a clear-win will be a very terrible stain on his record.

That being said, I believe he is ethical and will frame it into their arguments. Especially if the Browns bring it to his attention and insist. They might become very leery of him if he refuses to do what it takes to win.

I am sure the Browns' are sitting by their phone eagerly awaiting your legal counsel.

Nope, just friendly advice. In fact, I urged them to discuss it with their lawyer to be sure. But nice try.

 

[Silhouette]

They claim the ban on plural marriage infringes on their religious freedom and right to privacy.​

>>>>

Yes, all that and that polyamory is as legitimately able to marry as homosexuality. All of it.

My religion dictates that I can marry all the females in the US and Europe, so.....

No, not automatically-legally it doesn't. But your polyamorous sexual-orientation already has a foundation for you to do that built into recent existing case law: Obergefell (2015). I get what you're saying though. The Muslims will consider the US a new Mecca when polyamorists have the same recognition as other sexual orientations in marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, you can't support religious freedoms unless your support Brown's claims. Either you support religious freedom or you don't.

Unless we apply Silogic. In which case she supports religious freedoms as long as those religious freedoms hurt gay people. And doesn't support religious freedoms if those religious freedoms don't hurt gay people.

There's always one common denominator in all of Sil's reasoning.

 

[Silhouette]

Unless we apply Silogic. In which case she supports religious freedoms as long as those religious freedoms hurt gay people. And doesn't support religious freedoms if those religious freedoms don't hurt gay people.

There's always one common denominator in all of Sil's reasoning.

It's not my reasoning that matters, it's the reasoning of Obergefell which says no state may deny a marriage license based on applicants' sexual orientation. I didn't write Obergefell. The USSC did.

 

[mdk]

Nope, just friendly advice. In fact, I urged them to discuss it with their lawyer to be sure. But nice try.

I am sure their lawyer will give your 'friendly advice' the same amount of attention the Justices dedicated to The Prince's Trust you sent them. lol

 

[Skylar]

Don't be shocked when they don't make the claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation.

Besides, children don't need a mother or a father according to you. All they need is hope.

I've already taken steps to get a hold of them personally to discuss this. It's not that I don't trust their attorney Jonathan Turley. He seems pretty ethical to me. But I've seen attorneys take money from the opposition to frame a losing case more often than I care to to talk about. It appears that one of those might have been the guy "defending" DOMA. Remember him arguing FOR the opposition at one point? Jesus Christ.

Um....Sil? One major problem: your obsessive pseudo-legal nonsense has no relevance to their case. No court recognizes polygamy as a sexual orientation, just as no court recognizes children being 'married to their parents'.

Remember, just because you're hysterically obsessed with gay people doesn't translate into any understanding of the law or how it works. You're a horsebreeder, hon. You know jack shit about the law.

And it shows.

 

[Syriusly]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

August 9, 2016
Polygamist Kody Brown of "Sister Wives" fame have been granted more time to pursue an appeal in their case against Utah, FOX13 reports...U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the family until Sept. 10 to file a petition of certiorari to have the nation's top court review their case....'Sister Wives' to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage | Fox News

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah. We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote..: "..The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court. This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse. The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

So are you in favor of polygamous marriage Silhouette?

 

[mdk]

It's not my reasoning that matters

I've been telling you that for the last several years. I am glad you've made this major breakthrough.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yeah, like Muslims. At least you're not lying saying "there's no legal slippery slope". So kudos for that.

I think a very large part of the country gives a shit. But we'll see.

How other people choose to live is none of your business

You're remotely aware I assume that in marriage, children are almost always involved? Care at all about 1. Gay marriage, where kids are legally divorced from either a mother or father for life?...

No one is 'remotely aware' of your bizarre claims Silhouette.

Some married couples have children- some do not.
Some couples have children- and do not get married.

We get that you want to deny children of gay parent, married parents.

But why do you want to harm those children?

 

[Skylar]

This thread has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with sexual orientation. Polyamory. Might want to check the title again.

Not only do you not read the cases you speak about, you don't even read the articles from your own OP:

The reality star and his wives sued Utah in 2012 over its historic ban on plural marriage. The Browns were under investigation for bigamy after their TLC reality show aired. They claim the ban on plural marriage infringes on their religious freedom and right to privacy.​

>>>>

You're citing the legal reasoning of the actual case. Sil is quoting the case she made up. The difference being that the actual case is static. Her imaginary case changes with virtually ever recitation.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. Sorry. Either you support religious freedom or you don't. The law doesn't apply to them if it violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Nope, sorry. Obergefell was about sexual orientation,

Nope, sorry, Obergefell was about the marriage rights of Americans- not sexual orientation.

 

[Silhouette]

But why do you want to harm those children?

You should change your name to "the strawman-inserter"

Little late this morning Syriusly? Did you spill your latte' on your flannel shirt again?

Here's the topic:

Unless we apply Silogic. In which case she supports religious freedoms as long as those religious freedoms hurt gay people. And doesn't support religious freedoms if those religious freedoms don't hurt gay people.

There's always one common denominator in all of Sil's reasoning.

It's not my reasoning that matters, it's the reasoning of Obergefell which says no state may deny a marriage license based on applicants' sexual orientation. I didn't write Obergefell. The USSC did.

Ah, finally on topic..

Nope, sorry, Obergefell was about the marriage rights of Americans- not sexual orientation.

Nope, sorry. Consult pages 7-8 of the Opinion on Obergefell: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf Note the use of the words "sexual orientation" woven in interchangeably with "same-sex" and "gays and lesbians".

 

[Skylar]

They claim the ban on plural marriage infringes on their religious freedom and right to privacy.​

>>>>

Yes, all that and that polyamory is as legitimately able to marry as homosexuality. All of it.

My religion dictates that I can marry all the females in the US and Europe, so.....

No, not automatically-legally it doesn't. But your polyamorous sexual-orientation already has a foundation for you to do that built into recent existing case law: Obergefell (2015). I get what you're saying though. The Muslims will consider the US a new Mecca when polyamorists have the same recognition as other sexual orientations in marriage.

You've never read the actual Obergefell ruling. You've only read the imaginary version you made up, the one that only you can see, the one that changes to match whatever argument you're making today.

But the court can only see the *actual* Obergefell ruling. Not the imaginary version in your head.

Can you see why this might be a problem for your 'legal reasoning'?

 

[Syriusly]

Unless we apply Silogic. In which case she supports religious freedoms as long as those religious freedoms hurt gay people. And doesn't support religious freedoms if those religious freedoms don't hurt gay people.

There's always one common denominator in all of Sil's reasoning.

It's not my reasoning that matters, it's the reasoning of Obergefell which says no state may deny a marriage license based on applicants' sexual orientation. I didn't write Obergefell. The USSC did.

You clearly haven't even actually read Obergefell. Since that is not what Obergefell says.

But the Supreme Court has read Obergefell.

So Silhouette- are you in favor of polygamous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

But why do you want to harm those children?

You should change your name to "the strawman-inserter"
.

Why do you want to harm the children of gay parents Silhouette?

 

[Skylar]

But why do you want to harm those children?

You should change your name to "the strawman-inserter"

Little late this morning Syriusly. Did you spill your latte on your flannel shirt again?

Here's the topic:

Unless we apply Silogic. In which case she supports religious freedoms as long as those religious freedoms hurt gay people. And doesn't support religious freedoms if those religious freedoms don't hurt gay people.

There's always one common denominator in all of Sil's reasoning.

It's not my reasoning that matters, it's the reasoning of Obergefell which says no state may deny a marriage license based on applicants' sexual orientation. I didn't write Obergefell. The USSC did.

The imaginary version of Obergefell you are basing your argument on is nothing but your reasoning. As it exists no where outside your head. And your imaginary version of the ruling changes almost every time you 'cite' it.

The courts use the *actual* Obergefell ruling. And it doesn't say what you do.

Are you starting to see why your record of making legal predictions is one of perfect and unbroken failure? Why you've literally never been right?

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

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

August 9, 2016
Polygamist Kody Brown of "Sister Wives" fame have been granted more time to pursue an appeal in their case against Utah, FOX13 reports...U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the family until Sept. 10 to file a petition of certiorari to have the nation's top court review their case....'Sister Wives' to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage | Fox News

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah. We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote..: "..The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court. This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse. The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

Where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to rule on this issue? All powers not defined by the constitution belong to the states. The Supreme Court should refuse the case, just as they should've refused cases regarding abortion or same sex marriage, those are state issues.