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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Well that's false, Same-Sex Civil Marriage existed in this country in some States through legislative action and passing on a ballot vote prior to the Obergefel SCOTUS decision making is national in all jurisdictions.



>>>>

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Well that's false, Same-Sex Civil Marriage existed in this country in some States through legislative action and passing on a ballot vote prior to the Obergefel SCOTUS decision making is national in all jurisdictions.



>>>>

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

Correct. Apparently states can still discriminate against Polyamorist-Americans and their sexual orientation/lifestyle, but another sexual orientation they can't. Don't worry, the Brown case weighed against Obegefell will clear all that muddy legal status up one way or the other.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Do you want to start a thread about religious freedoms as they apply to sexual orientations? Or do you want to admit right now that not all polyamorist-Americans are Mormon or Muslims?

 

[mdk]

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?

Do you want to start a thread about religious freedoms as they apply to sexual orientations? Or do you want to admit right now that not all polyamorist-Americans are Mormon or Muslims?

I never said all polyamorist are Mormon or Muslim. The Brown family, the topic of your thread, is using the right to privacy and religious freedoms to make their case. I know that doesn't jibe with you anti-gay narrative, but it still change reality. Do you support their religious freedoms or not? You avoid that question like it has Zika. I think we both know why.

 

[Silhouette]

I never said all polyamorist are Mormon or Muslim. The Brown family, the topic of your thread, is using the right to privacy and religious freedoms to make their case...

Well they'll be glad they can add their polyamorist-orientation to the list of freedoms they're applying for rights to. All those arguments are legitimate to make after Obergefell.

 

[mdk]

I never said all polyamorist are Mormon or Muslim. The Brown family, the topic of your thread, is using the right to privacy and religious freedoms to make their case...

Well they'll be glad they can add their polyamorist-orientation to the list of freedoms they're applying for rights to. All those arguments are legitimate to make after Obergefell.

Again, don't be shocked when their attorney doesn't employ your legal ramblings before the courts.

Still avoding answering the question I see. You support the religious freedoms of Kim Davis/The Kleins, but not the Brown family. You whine and whine about if you support gay marriage you have to support polygamous marriage or suffer being a flaming hypocrite. Funny how that standard doesn't apply to you and religious freedoms, though. I am hardly surprised. You being a monstrous hypocrite is your modus operandi.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, don't be shocked when their attorney doesn't employ your legal ramblings before the courts.

Actually I will be shocked if he doesn't. Many commentators here and elsewhere, legal scholars included have said that since states can no longer discriminate against sexual orientation when it comes to marriage licenses, polyamorists are next on the cue. In fact they aren't "next", they are currently legally able to be married. They don't have to prove anything but being a sexual orientation and they're in.

If an attorney fails to employ a slam-dunk legal strategy, then that attorney is either 1. Grossly inept or 2. Pitching for the other team. I'd hate to think Turley was either...

 

[mdk]

Again, don't be shocked when their attorney doesn't employ your legal ramblings before the courts.

Actually I will be shocked if he doesn't. Many commentators here and elsewhere, legal scholars included have said that since states can no longer discriminate against sexual orientation when it comes to marriage licenses, polyamorists are next on the cue. In fact they aren't "next", they are currently legally able to be married. They don't have to prove anything but being a sexual orientation and they're in.

If an attorney fails to employ a slam-dunk legal strategy, then that attorney is either 1. Grossly inept or 2. Pitching for the other team. I'd hate to think Turley was either...

If history is any judge your legal prediction of a 'slam dunk' will be laughably wrong. When it is you'll just find another nugget of bullshit to huddle around to end gay marriage.

Why do you support Kim Davis' claims of religious freedoms, but not the Brown's claim? Every time I ask you flee in the opposite direction. Either you support religious freedom or you don't. After all, that is your standard when it comes to gay marriage and polygamy. If you support one, you have to support the other. Like all your standards it must not apply to you.

By the way, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and polygamous marriage is still illegal in every state despite your claims otherwise.

 

[Silhouette]

By the way, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and polygamous marriage is still illegal in every state despite your claims otherwise.

Polyamorists say differently. And if we are to accept that a man "is a woman trapped in a man's body" from their self-diagnosis, your cult really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on WHILE IT TRIES TO DENY ANOTHER ORIENTATION "CIVIL RIGHTS". There, I thought if I all-capped the evident hypocrisy, it might stand out more.. lol..

 

[mdk]

By the way, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and polygamous marriage is still illegal in every state despite your claims otherwise.

Polyamorists say differently. And if we are to accept that a man "is a woman trapped in a man's body" from their self-diagnosis, your cult really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on WHILE IT TRIES TO DENY ANOTHER ORIENTATION "CIVIL RIGHTS". There, I thought if I all-capped the evident hypocrisy, it might stand out more.. lol..

No, you are claiming they say differently based purely on your own imagination. Why are you trying to deny the civil rights and religious freedoms of the Brown family? You are all for religious freedoms if you can find a way to harm gay people, but the instant it doesn't fit that mold you ignore them entirely. I don't have to put anything in all caps to reveal your evident hypocrisy. It drips off your every post.

Care to answer the question now or will you run like the wind from it? My guess is the latter. lol

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No- the laws of the United States say no such thing.

But you know that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

I agree, there is much more of a historical argument for polygamy going back before biblical times extending to today where it is still practiced by many cultures and religions around the world now.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

It gets tiresome refutting Silhouette's batshit craziness over and over

To recap:

• She has been wrong on every prediction she has made
• This is just another anti-gay thread
• She has no clue what Obergefell actually says but is pissed off that gay couples are not being treated equally in marriage law
• She is delusional.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The 'definition' according to who? We invented marriage. It is what we say it is. And its meaning has adapted to service us.

Marriage used to mean a subordinate relationship where a woman served a man. We changed that, making it a relationship of equals.

Marriage used to be only a white man with a white woman, or a black man with a black woman. We changed that, eliminating any racial boundaries.

And marriage used to be only a man and a woman. We changed that, so it can be a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

The definition of marriage is what we say it is, as marriage is a social and legal construct that we invented, maintain and enforce. For a previous incarnation to maintain exclusivity, there has to be a valid reason.

And there is none in excluding same sex couples.

 

[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.

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?

You kinda forgot the old 'Does it let me hurt gay people? Yes/No' bubble in the flow chart of Sil's thought processes.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Well that's false, Same-Sex Civil Marriage existed in this country in some States through legislative action and passing on a ballot vote prior to the Obergefel SCOTUS decision making is national in all jurisdictions.



>>>>

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

It is a state issue- unless the state law violate the Constitution.

Which is why the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and ending with Obergefell.

And that is what the Supreme Court does- it overturns unconstitutional state laws- whether they are gun laws or marriage laws or any other law.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Not it hasn't. In many cultures its many women and a man. In some cultures there are racial restrictions. In other, parents decide on who will be married regardless of the consent of those being married. In some cultures, children are married.

Your eternal, singular definition is just revisionist nonsense. And your imagination has no legal application.

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.

Obviously false. Men and women get married all the time. The idea that Obergefell affected heterosexual marriage in any way is blithering nonsense.

All Obergefell did was extend recognition to same sex unions as well. If you want to get married to a man, Jen.....you're more than welcome to it. As Obergefell doesn't interfere with your legal ability to do so in any way.

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.

Nope. Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Nor is it recognized as such by any court, caselaw or supreme court ruling.

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

 

[Skylar]

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

Correct. Apparently states can still discriminate against Polyamorist-Americans and their sexual orientation/lifestyle, but another sexual orientation they can't. Don't worry, the Brown case weighed against Obegefell will clear all that muddy legal status up one way or the other.

Its a State issue.......subject to constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision outlines. When a state law violates constitutional guaratees, the courts have the duty to place the constitution above the piece of legislation.

Which is exactly what Obergefell did.

The legal status of Obergefell is clear as the spring water. Its your understanding of the case is as clouded as mud silt. As you still refuse to read it.

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

 

[Skylar]

By the way, polygamy isn't a sexual orientation and polygamous marriage is still illegal in every state despite your claims otherwise.

Polyamorists say differently.

Says you, pretending you speak for 'polyamorists'. Again, you're not citing them, you're citing your imagination.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

The reason you have *always* been wrong in predicting the outcome of any case is that you keep mistaking your imagination for legal evidence.

Sorry Jen.....it isn't. No court, no caselaw, no Supreme Court ruling recognizes polyamory as a sexual orientation. You made that up.