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

[Silhouette]

The Browns' are not citing polygamy as a sexual orientation, but they are citing privacy and religious freedom to make their case.

It's easy to add stuff to your pleadings. And so they shall if they want to win...Great thing for them, sexual orientation was directly referenced in Obergefell.

 

[mdk]

According to Sil: "Obergefell was hinged on the Court interpreting the 14th Amendment as extending to sexual orientation under the word "sex" in the wording of its body."

Who cares that the word sex never once appears in the 14th Amendment?! All that matters is that Sil believes it is there.

I KNOW the words "sexual orientation" appear in Obergefell pages 7-8. And so do you.

So what? It still make your legal fiction any more true.

 

[Skylar]

According to Sil: "Obergefell was hinged on the Court interpreting the 14th Amendment as extending to sexual orientation under the word "sex" in the wording of its body."

Who cares that the word sex never once appears in the 14th Amendment?! All that matters is that Sil believes it is there.

I KNOW the words "sexual orientation" appear in Obergefell pages 7-8. And so do you.

So what? It still make your legal fiction any more true.

Seriously. She's arguing that the ruling is *based* on sexual orientation because it merely contains the word sexual orientation.

That's incoherent jibberish. The basis of the Obegefell ruling was the 14th amendments Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Says who? Says the Obergefell ruling.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

Yet, in defiance of reason and evidence, Sil straight up ignores the Obergefell ruling and makes up her own version of it.

 

[Silhouette]

What isn't fiction is "sexual orientation" mentioned in Obergefell. Also not fiction 85% of poll respondents identify this "marriage equality" movement from various orientations as directly connected at the hip to the democrat party.

 

[Skylar]

What isn't fiction is "sexual orientation" mentioned in Obergefell. Also not fiction 85% of poll respondents identify this "marriage equality" movement from various orientations as directly connected at the hip to the democrat party.

You're claiming that the Obergefell ruling is *based* on sexual orientation....simply because the word 'sexual orientation' appears somewhere in the ruling.

That's just silly. The basis of the Obergefell ruling was the Due Process and Equal Protection.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

And yet you inexplicably ignore the Obergefell ruling, make up a sexual orientation, and start snorting your lastest pseudo-legal pipe dream that the Browns are going to abandon their own legal arguments and adopt whatever nonsensical gibberish you made up.

Um, no Sil. They're not.

 

[mdk]

What isn't fiction is "sexual orientation" mentioned in Obergefell. Also not fiction 85% of poll respondents identify this "marriage equality" movement from various orientations as directly connected at the hip to the democrat party.

And? It still doesn't make your finding figment a fact.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What happened to letting people live their own life and keeping government out of personal choices? If this guy wants 4 women and they want him = freedom.

 

[Silhouette]

What happened to letting people live their own life and keeping government out of personal choices? If this guy wants 4 women and they want him = freedom.

I don't know? You tell me? Why is polyamory-orientation denied marriage in the 50 states while it's illegal for those states to deny another orientation? It violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment and the findings in Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

What happened to letting people live their own life and keeping government out of personal choices? If this guy wants 4 women and they want him = freedom.

I don't know? You tell me? Why is polyamory-orientation denied marriage in the 50 states while it's illegal for those states to deny another orientation? It violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment and the findings in Obergefell.

What 'polyamory orientation'?

Remember....you just made that shit up. Which may be the answer to your own question why the USSC has never recognized it.

 

[mdk]

Also not fiction 85% of poll respondents identify this "marriage equality" movement from various orientations as directly connected at the hip to the democrat party.

Do you need one or two hands to count the respondents of your poll? lol

 

[Silhouette]

Also not fiction 85% of poll respondents identify this "marriage equality" movement from various orientations as directly connected at the hip to the democrat party.

Do you need one or two hands to count the respondents of your poll? lol

I'll just count the views then.

 

[mdk]

Also not fiction 85% of poll respondents identify this "marriage equality" movement from various orientations as directly connected at the hip to the democrat party.

Do you need one or two hands to count the respondents of your poll? lol

I'll just count the views then.

Couldn't manage to get more than ten respondents so you'll just pretend every view is a vote instead. Classic!

 

[Steven_R]

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

There are too many problems with it the way the laws are written now. Got more than one spouse? How do we decide which one gets to make end of life decisions? Suppose one wife wants to pull the plug and another doesn't? Get a divorce? How do we split up property? Child support? Determine liability in suits? Alimony? Palimony?

Letting two dudes or two dykes get hitched was a no brainer, but the high court striking down polygamy will open all kinds of new headaches for the courts and legislatures.

 

[Silhouette]

There are too many problems with it the way the laws are written now. Got more than one spouse? How do we decide which one gets to make end of life decisions? Suppose one wife wants to pull the plug and another doesn't? Get a divorce? How do we split up property? Child support? Determine liability in suits? Alimony? Palimony?...Letting two dudes or two dykes get hitched was a no brainer, but the high court striking down polygamy will open all kinds of new headaches for the courts and legislatures.

Sorry. Divorces, medical visits, child custody are already very complex. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, stepparents etc. all vie for these rights in court as it is. It actually would be better to have a model for comprehensive multi-adult rights in these situations in polyamory-marriage. Besides, since when does "complexity" dictate who does and doesn't get civil rights? It was complex to integrate blacks into white society. We are still struggling with that today. But that didn't stop the US from granting blacks and all other minority races civil rights. Not that race = behaviors. But you see the example of how complexity can't dictate civil rights.

 

[Skylar]

There are too many problems with it the way the laws are written now. Got more than one spouse? How do we decide which one gets to make end of life decisions? Suppose one wife wants to pull the plug and another doesn't? Get a divorce? How do we split up property? Child support? Determine liability in suits? Alimony? Palimony?...Letting two dudes or two dykes get hitched was a no brainer, but the high court striking down polygamy will open all kinds of new headaches for the courts and legislatures.

Sorry. Divorces, medical visits, child custody are already very complex. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, stepparents etc. all vie for these rights in court as it is.

And we have laws for all of it. We have absolutely none for many issues in a polygamist marriage.

For example, lets say that three people get married. One wants out. Does that mean that the other two are still married or does it dissolve the marriage for all three?

We have absolutely no case law for any of this.

Lets say that a woman who is already married wants to join into a polygamous marriage with another couple. Does that mean she's still married to her original husband? Is the husband now part of the marriage of the new couple? Does he get any say in the matter?

We have absolutely no legal precedent to answer any of these questions.

It actually would be better to have a model for comprehensive multi-adult rights in these situations in polyamory-marriage. Besides, since when does "complexity" dictate who does and doesn't get civil rights? It was complex to integrate blacks into white society. We are still struggling with that today. But that didn't stop the US from granting blacks and all other minority races civil rights. Not that race = behaviors. But you see the example of how complexity can't dictate civil rights.

We'll put you down as 'pro-polygamy' then.

And there is no right to bigamy. None recognized by any court, any case, or any Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Silhouette]

And we have laws for all of it. We have absolutely none for many issues in a polygamist marriage.

Likewise, what laws protect a child's access to its mother with two gay men as his "married parents"?

 

[Skylar]

And we have laws for all of it. We have absolutely none for many issues in a polygamist marriage.

Likewise, what laws protect a child's access to its mother with two gay men as his "married parents"?

The same laws that protect any kid who was adopted.

Next.

 

[Silhouette]

Well my point is that equal access to marriage trumps all...as far as a logical argument goes using "equality"... You bought it hook line and sinker, right Skylar? Dummy. You would create "complexity" to deny polyamorist-Americans; yet when complex situations exist with gay marriage, you give it a brush; like it's nothing.

You think your hypocrisy isn't showing. But you would never convince a judge or jury of anything being that blatantly duplicitous on such a consistent basis as you are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Unlike three or more persons wishing to ‘marry,’ same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as that contract law is currently written: a union of two consenting adults not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Two, not three or more.

The Obergefell Court invalidated state measures which sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than the couples being gay, violating same-sex couples’ right to due process and equal protection of the law.

That’s not the case with regard to three or more persons seeking to ‘marry,’ as no marriage contract law exists that is written to accommodate three or more persons, consequently there are no 14th Amendment violations.

Indeed, a state cannot ‘violate’ the due process and equal protection rights of citizens by ‘denying’ them access to a law that doesn’t exist.

The OP’s failed premise is predicated on the ignorant, wrongheaded notion that Obergefell ‘changed’ marriage and marriage contract law, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

If three or more person wish to ‘marry’ they’re at liberty to petition their state government to amend marriage contract law to accommodate three or more persons; this is an issue whose resolution can be found solely through the political process, not the legal.

 

[Silhouette]

man/woman NOT man/man....etc. You destroyed the original marriage terms. All orientations may now apply and be granted a license. Two is not any more or less sacred than man/woman.

Note: the most vehement objectors to polyamory-marriage are the gays here at USMB and their legal/blogger army. Ironic.