Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional
An opinion piece from Breitbart, youve got to be kidding.
The ignorance and hate exhibited by you and others on the partisan right is truly remarkable, as the polygamy ruling has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex couples right to access marriage law, where raising the issue of polygamy in the context of marriage is ignorant demagoguery.
Moreover, marriage and polygamy are two completely unrelated issues, as marriage law does not recognize polygamy. Unlike same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, three or more persons seeking marriage may not marry, as marriage contract law does not accommodate such a configuration.
Last, in his ruling the judge left intact Utahs prohibition of bigamy, which does address the issue of marriage law, allowing only two equal partners to enter into a marriage contract same- or opposite-sex.
The polygamy ruling, become familiar with the facts for a change:
https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78
It has everything to do with it, are you a complete moron? Read the words:
JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It has everything to do with it, are you a complete moron? Read the words:
JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Oh? What case was cited? You do realize Lawrence v Texas isn't about gay marriage, right?
As is generally the case SeaHAg , you are wrong again [And again and again and again ...]
In Lawrence vs. Texas the Court ruled against the Texas sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal.
. Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing" and that homosexuals "may seek autonomy for these purposes."
Lawrence v. Texas - 539 U.S. 558 (2003) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Get a clue ! actually ...no wait a sec .... don't get a clue , you're very entertaining just the way you are.
Oh? What case was cited? You do realize Lawrence v Texas isn't about gay marriage, right?
As is generally the case SeaHAg , you are wrong again [And again and again and again ...]
In Lawrence vs. Texas the Court ruled against the Texas sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal.
. Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing" and that homosexuals "may seek autonomy for these purposes."
Lawrence v. Texas - 539 U.S. 558 (2003) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Get a clue ! actually ...no wait a sec .... don't get a clue , you're very entertaining just the way you are.
You’re another ignorant rightist who failed to read the cited ruling, and you sound ridiculous accordingly.
Again, Lawrence has nothing to do with polygamy; that the 14th Amendment prohibits Utah from disallowing three or more persons to live together does not mean the state must also accommodate three or more persons in its marriage law.
The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all persons access to state law, provided the law is applicable to those persons, and those persons are eligible to participate in those laws, such as marriage with regard to same-sex couples.
You and other conservatives need to read the actual rulings and case law, not a subjective and incorrect blog post from a rightwing partisan hack on a rightist site such a Breitbart.
SeaWytch : "You do realize Lawrence v Texas isn't about gay marriage, right?"
GreenBean: " In Lawrence vs. Texas the Court ruled against the Texas sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal. "
Human biology, used that way, tells us that sex isn't about producing children, the best sex is often not the old In-Out, In-Out, and that Marriage, if you mean a man and a woman staying faithful to each other for life, doesn't actually exist. I wouldn't go there if I were you.I am done with this topic. If your mind is made up one way or the other, fine. I don't care but I do know what I believe and what human biology should tell all of us.
It has everything to do with it, are you a complete moron? Read the words:
JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Oh? What case was cited? You do realize Lawrence v Texas isn't about gay marriage, right?
As is generally the case SeaHAg , you are wrong again [And again and again and again ...]
In Lawrence vs. Texas the Court ruled against the Texas sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal.
. Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing" and that homosexuals "may seek autonomy for these purposes."
Lawrence v. Texas - 539 U.S. 558 (2003) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Get a clue ! actually ...no wait a sec .... don't get a clue , you're very entertaining just the way you are.
The idea that two men living together or two women living together is anything close to the same as a man living with a women is nonsense. The dynamic of the relationships are as different as night and day. To say they must be treated the same simply because they both have two individuals is silly.
Oh? What case was cited? You do realize Lawrence v Texas isn't about gay marriage, right?
As is generally the case SeaHAg , you are wrong again [And again and again and again ...]
In Lawrence vs. Texas the Court ruled against the Texas sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal.
. Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing" and that homosexuals "may seek autonomy for these purposes."
Lawrence v. Texas - 539 U.S. 558 (2003) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Get a clue ! actually ...no wait a sec .... don't get a clue , you're very entertaining just the way you are.
I do believe Clayton explained this to you already. Brietbart's spin does not the truth make. L v T was about consenting sexual intimacy within the privacy of one's own home. It meant we could fuck, not legally marry, darlin'.
"Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing" and that homosexuals "may seek autonomy for these purposes."
Two Women do not Equal a Father.
peace....
As is generally the case SeaHAg , you are wrong again [And again and again and again ...]
In Lawrence vs. Texas the Court ruled against the Texas sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal.
. Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing" and that homosexuals "may seek autonomy for these purposes."
Lawrence v. Texas - 539 U.S. 558 (2003) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Get a clue ! actually ...no wait a sec .... don't get a clue , you're very entertaining just the way you are.
I do believe Clayton explained this to you already. Brietbart's spin does not the truth make. L v T was about consenting sexual intimacy within the privacy of one's own home. It meant we could fuck, not legally marry, darlin'.
Ahhh the idiocy never ceases , yes you "fuck"and FUCK YOU can - but you're still deflective and quoting out of context
"Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, [and] child rearing" and that homosexuals "may seek autonomy for these purposes."
Geez , do I have to draw a picture for you "fuckers" .
PS OT: How does a dyke do the above mentioned act without the proper equipment, is it a fake phallic [Dildo] - store bought plastic ? If so, then it would be fake fucking just like your fake marriages - correct ?
Kennedy said that the Constitution protects "personal decisions relating to marriage
Ideally a man in the house is a good thing and a great influence for boys.
But not all families be they straight or gay have that.
So mal's solution is to punish all gay folks.
And let us not forget...There are families with present fathers that are horrendous failures too...for varieties of reasons....many we've already discussed.Ideally a man in the house is a good thing and a great influence for boys.
But not all families be they straight or gay have that.
So mal's solution is to punish all gay folks.
True.
And ideally is often not possible.
There are single fathers who raise their children successfully, there are single mothers who raise their children successfully, and there are same-sex couples who raise their children successfully.
What common to all of the above is the love and attention one gives to his children, and with such love and attention children will grow to be successful, happy adults, regardless the number or gender of their parents.
That the OP and those of his ilk seek to compel the ideal is typical of the arrogant, authoritarian social right, where their primary focus is advancing their reactionary, conservative agenda at the expense of citizens civil liberties.
And let us not forget...There are families with present fathers that are horrendous failures too...for varieties of reasons....many we've already discussed.Ideally a man in the house is a good thing and a great influence for boys.
But not all families be they straight or gay have that.
So mal's solution is to punish all gay folks.
True.
And ideally is often not possible.
There are single fathers who raise their children successfully, there are single mothers who raise their children successfully, and there are same-sex couples who raise their children successfully.
What common to all of the above is the love and attention one gives to his children, and with such love and attention children will grow to be successful, happy adults, regardless the number or gender of their parents.
That the OP and those of his ilk seek to compel the ideal is typical of the arrogant, authoritarian social right, where their primary focus is advancing their reactionary, conservative agenda at the expense of citizens civil liberties.
The idea that two men living together or two women living together is anything close to the same as a man living with a women is nonsense. The dynamic of the relationships are as different as night and day. To say they must be treated the same simply because they both have two individuals is silly.
No they aren't. Gay couples have all the same "dynamics" that heterosexual couples have. Seriously, where do you get this shit? Have you ever spent any time around a gay couple?
