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

[BuckToothMoron]

So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism). With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism. It was defined as a union between a man and a woman. It made no distinction of sexual orientation, because to do so would have been discriminatory. A man can marry a woman regardless of eithers sexual orientation. So now a man can marry a man, or a woman a woman regardless of sexual orientation. They just changed the definition of marriage.

They did more than that. Obergefell made it illegal to deny parties a marriage license based on sexual orientation. Polyamory is a sexual orientation.

Says you, citing your imagination. And your imagination isn't a legal argument.

Do you ever get tired of just making shit up?

I guess that is the end of the legal argument.

 

[Skylar]

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 point is to make up a sexual orientation and reimagine the Obergefell ruling for the 2nd time in two weeks.

Arguing, absurdly, that since the Obergefell ruling includes the words 'sexual orientation' that the basis of the ruling must be sexual orientation.

Um, no Silly.

With you just last week arguing that the basis of the Obergefell ruling was equating sex with sexual orientation.

Um, no Silly.

The basis of the Obergefell ruling is the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment. As the Obergefell ruling makes laughably clear:

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.

So why would the Supreme Court ignore itself and instead believe you?

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.

Says the gal who has never once accurately predicted the outcome of any case. Every time you've offered us an argument that the judge of a case 'has to follow'.....you've fallen flat on your face.

Ever. Single. Time.

But this time its different, huh?

 

[Skylar]

So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism). With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism. It was defined as a union between a man and a woman. It made no distinction of sexual orientation, because to do so would have been discriminatory. A man can marry a woman regardless of eithers sexual orientation. So now a man can marry a man, or a woman a woman regardless of sexual orientation. They just changed the definition of marriage.

They did more than that. Obergefell made it illegal to deny parties a marriage license based on sexual orientation. Polyamory is a sexual orientation.

Says you, citing your imagination. And your imagination isn't a legal argument.

Do you ever get tired of just making shit up?

I guess that is the end of the legal argument.

As no court has ever recognized 'polygamy' as a sexual orientation, there is no legal argument.

A legal argument is based in actual caselaw. Not whatever hapless nonsense one cares to make up. Sil equates her imagination with caselaw.

And the courts have yet to accept her imagination in any context.

 

[Skylar]

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.

How? All the same laws still apply. Marriage works perfectly well for same sex or oppose sex couples.

You just don't like gay people. Which has jack shit to do with the validity of their marriages.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

There is no ‘hypocrisy,’ you’re comparing two dissimilar issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

Equality is realized when all citizens are able to benefit from state laws they’re eligible to participate in, equality is denied when the state seeks to deny citizens access to state laws for reasons devoid of a rational basis, with no documented facts in support, motivated solely to disadvantage a class of persons for no other reason than who they are – such as being gay.

Three or more persons are not allowed to ‘marry’ for reasons having nothing to do with who they are – they can’t ‘marry’ because they’re not eligible, unlike same-sex couples.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And apparently the late great Anthony Scalia who also stated abortion was a state issue. We are so blessed to have such a brilliant legal mind like yours here to correct all the failings of Justice Scalia.

Leave abortion to states; Court should get out of this area
There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation, and of our Court. Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.Source: 1992 SCOTUS dissent in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY , Jun 29, 1992

Antonin Scalia on Abortion

And Scalia was wrong, overruled by the Supreme Court. Rights aren't open to a vote.

And you never did answer my question: what defines a 'constitutional right' in your estimation?

So in your brilliant legal analysis, if the USSC rules 5-4, 5 justices are right and 4 are wrong? I guess the term judicial activism doesn't exist in your cozy little world. Did you find it interesting when Roberts decide Obama Care was constitutional because he deemed it a tax, even though the authors of that mess insisted it wasn't a tax? Curious- who are you voting for?

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.

Your personal legal interpretations are based on no legal authority. Mine, on the constitutionally delegated judicial power of the federal judiciary.

A judiciary that has repeatedly reocgnized the right to marriage.

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Says who? Not the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th amendment and then tell us why you're so laughably wrong.

Or I can just tell you. Which ever you'd prefer.

So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism).

With 'judicial activism' being any case you disagree with. Watch, I'll demonstrate how even you don't buy your incoherent horseshit:

Was Heller v. DC 'judcial activism'? It was a 5 to 4 ruling. There was definitely dissenting opinions. And there's no mention anywhere in the constitution of 'the right to self defense with a fire arm'.

It meets ever criteria of your working definition of 'judicial activism'.

So......start wiping your ass with your own standards. And demonstrate even you don't believe you.

With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism.

If Marriage is a right....why wouldn't it be a right for same sex couples? They're protected under the constitution too. They have the right to equal protection in the law and Due process under the 14th amendment as well. As the Supreme Court held repeatedly.

And are you making some distinction between 'rights' and 'constitutional rights'? If so, what is it? As I define a constitutional right as any right protected by the constitution.

You...you read the 9th amendment, didn't you? Did you learn the difference between rights and powers? Did you figure out that the Constitution is NOT an exhaustive list of rights?

If no, I'll be happy to walk you through it again.

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

 

[Syriusly]

Finally found Sil's website. She removed it from her sig so it took a minute to track it down.

Enjoy your trip down the rabbit hole

HOME

Yep scary stuff.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Horse breeding? Sounds like some sort of sexual orientation. I know this because I just made it the fuck up.

 

[Syriusly]

And Scalia was wrong, overruled by the Supreme Court. Rights aren't open to a vote.

And you never did answer my question: what defines a 'constitutional right' in your estimation?

So in your brilliant legal analysis, if the USSC rules 5-4, 5 justices are right and 4 are wrong? I guess the term judicial activism doesn't exist in your cozy little world. Did you find it interesting when Roberts decide Obama Care was constitutional because he deemed it a tax, even though the authors of that mess insisted it wasn't a tax? Curious- who are you voting for?

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.

Your personal legal interpretations are based on no legal authority. Mine, on the constitutionally delegated judicial power of the federal judiciary.

A judiciary that has repeatedly reocgnized the right to marriage.

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Says who? Not the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th amendment and then tell us why you're so laughably wrong.

Or I can just tell you. Which ever you'd prefer.

So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism).

With 'judicial activism' being any case you disagree with. Watch, I'll demonstrate how even you don't buy your incoherent horseshit:

Was Heller v. DC 'judcial activism'? It was a 5 to 4 ruling. There was definitely dissenting opinions. And there's no mention anywhere in the constitution of 'the right to self defense with a fire arm'.

It meets ever criteria of your working definition of 'judicial activism'.

So......start wiping your ass with your own standards. And demonstrate even you don't believe you.

With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism.

If Marriage is a right....why wouldn't it be a right for same sex couples? They're protected under the constitution too. They have the right to equal protection in the law and Due process under the 14th amendment as well. As the Supreme Court held repeatedly.

And are you making some distinction between 'rights' and 'constitutional rights'? If so, what is it? As I define a constitutional right as any right protected by the constitution.

You...you read the 9th amendment, didn't you? Did you learn the difference between rights and powers? Did you figure out that the Constitution is NOT an exhaustive list of rights?

If no, I'll be happy to walk you through it again.

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

Marriage actually has been defined many, many ways throughout history- and frankly since Silhouette is pushing her polygamy straw man it is worth noting that marriage is still defined in many parts of the world- and has been virtually throughout history as between a man- and one or more women.

You are in essence arguing for polygamy.

Meanwhile marriage laws in the United States have been changed by the courts- and by the voters.

 

[mdk]

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.

The sweet irony of it all considering you have all sorts of convenient exemptions when people can't provide a father or a mother to their children. Your standards only apply to gay people. They don't apply to your "family." I use " " b/c you can't provide a husband. lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong again.

Marriage has always been a union of two consenting adults not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state.

Had the states simply acknowledged the fact that same-sex couples met the requirements to enter into a marriage contract, there’d be no need for the courts to get involved.

But many of the states refused to do so.

Many sought instead to enact measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, and by doing so violated the 14th Amendment by engaging in class legislation intended solely to render gay Americans different from everyone else, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and without a proper legislative intent.

Consequently, marriage law was not ‘changed,’ and in no way ‘redefined.’

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So you are in favor of polygamous marriage Silhouette?

 

[mdk]

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.

You can't support Kim Davis' religious freedoms without supporting the Brown's religious freedoms. After all, if you support one religious freedom you have to support them all, right?

 

[Syriusly]

man/woman NOT man/man....etc. You destroyed the original marriage terms..

What 'original marriage terms'?

 

[ScienceRocks]

man/woman NOT man/man....etc. You destroyed the original marriage terms..

What 'original marriage terms'?

Marriage is based on what the people want it to be.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And Scalia was wrong, overruled by the Supreme Court. Rights aren't open to a vote.

And you never did answer my question: what defines a 'constitutional right' in your estimation?

So in your brilliant legal analysis, if the USSC rules 5-4, 5 justices are right and 4 are wrong? I guess the term judicial activism doesn't exist in your cozy little world. Did you find it interesting when Roberts decide Obama Care was constitutional because he deemed it a tax, even though the authors of that mess insisted it wasn't a tax? Curious- who are you voting for?

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.

Your personal legal interpretations are based on no legal authority. Mine, on the constitutionally delegated judicial power of the federal judiciary.

A judiciary that has repeatedly reocgnized the right to marriage.

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Says who? Not the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th amendment and then tell us why you're so laughably wrong.

Or I can just tell you. Which ever you'd prefer.

So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism).

With 'judicial activism' being any case you disagree with. Watch, I'll demonstrate how even you don't buy your incoherent horseshit:

Was Heller v. DC 'judcial activism'? It was a 5 to 4 ruling. There was definitely dissenting opinions. And there's no mention anywhere in the constitution of 'the right to self defense with a fire arm'.

It meets ever criteria of your working definition of 'judicial activism'.

So......start wiping your ass with your own standards. And demonstrate even you don't believe you.

With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism.

If Marriage is a right....why wouldn't it be a right for same sex couples? They're protected under the constitution too. They have the right to equal protection in the law and Due process under the 14th amendment as well. As the Supreme Court held repeatedly.

And are you making some distinction between 'rights' and 'constitutional rights'? If so, what is it? As I define a constitutional right as any right protected by the constitution.

You...you read the 9th amendment, didn't you? Did you learn the difference between rights and powers? Did you figure out that the Constitution is NOT an exhaustive list of rights?

If no, I'll be happy to walk you through it again.

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

Wrong.

And yet again: Marriage has always been a union of two consenting adults not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state.

There was no ‘judicial activism’ on the part of the Obergefell Court.

Indeed, the ruling was conservative and consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence dating back more than 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (see Civil Rights Cases (1883)); from Hernandez v. Texas to Loving v. Virginia to Romer v. Evans to Lawrence v. Texas, the Court has consistently held that American citizens who reside in the states cannot be denied their rights and protected liberties by their state of residence solely because of their ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or personal, private decisions as to whom to love or marry in accordance with state marriage law.

Obergefell is the progeny of that settled, accepted jurisprudence, where the definition of marriage was in no way ‘changed,’ having nothing to do with a ‘political agenda’ or ‘judicial activism.’

What’s clear is the ignorance of the law common to most conservatives.

 

[Moonglow]

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!!!!!!

Polygamy is okayed by the Bible, along with bigamy, what's the hubbub, Bud?

 

[Silhouette]

You are in essence arguing for polygamy.

Meanwhile marriage laws in the United States have been changed by the courts- and by the voters.

No, the Browns are arguing for polygamy. And yes, the laws in the United States as of last Summer say that none of the 50 states may deny people a marriage license based on their sexual orientation, including polyamory.

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong again.

Marriage has always been a union of two consenting adults not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state.
’

Nice try. Marriage has always been a union of A CONSENTING MAN AND A CONSENTING WOMAN. Man/woman was the bedrock of the marriage definition for millenia. In every ceremony: "Do you...take this MAN"..."Do you....take this WOMAN"...etc. Obergefell gutted that last Summer as forced upon the 50 states, that the vast majority of did not want.

Once man/woman isn't sacred, the number doesn't matter. And this is true particularly when you find that Obergefell said it's against the law to discriminate against sexual orientation for marriage. Polyamory is a sexual orientation. Equality demands they are also covered under Obergefell.

Here's the LGBT cult on polygamist-Americans marrying "OH God!! No!! That would be WEIRD!! and such a break with the traditional understanding of marriage!!"

 

[mdk]

Wrong again.

Marriage has always been a union of two consenting adults not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state.
’

Nice try. Marriage has always been a union of A CONSENTING MAN AND A CONSENTING WOMAN. Man/woman was the bedrock of the marriage definition for millenia. In every ceremony: "Do you...take this MAN"..."Do you....take this WOMAN"...etc. Obergefell gutted that last Summer as forced upon the 50 states, that the vast majority of did not want.

Once man/woman isn't sacred, the number doesn't matter. And this is true particularly when you find that Obergefell said it's against the law to discriminate against sexual orientation for marriage. Polyamory is a sexual orientation. Equality demands they are also covered under Obergefell.

Here's the LGBT cult on polygamist-Americans marrying "OH God!! No!! That would be WEIRD!! and such a break with the traditional understanding of marriage!!"

I see your understating of the history of marriage is much like your understanding of the law. Bless your tiny black heart. lol