Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[martybegan]

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

I don't have to quote, I don't have to cite, I don't really even have to explain to you. You can accept or reject my positions, but you cannot think that you will not be called out on yours.

deal with it.

Then why pretend to debate?

Why not make drive-by statements of opinion and leave it at that?

You silly fool! This is not about your rights or the constitution. It's about agreed to rules on argument and debate

What rules?

 

[Silhouette]

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?

 

[Skylar]

We haven't had incest marriage or polygamy. Making your 'implications' merely baseless opinion signifying nothing.

And contradicted perfectly by history.

And (cuz you're a nazi), 20 years ago there was no same sex marriage.

Nor was there an Ipod Nano 20 years ago. But your assumption was that same sex marriage legalizes incest marriage and polygamy.

Neither of which is actually true. Nor has history backed, with nothing you've insisted must happen....ever actually happening.

And its this profound difference between what you assume and what reality actually indicates where your argument collapse into sad little pieces. As it demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Never is a long time dummy.

From then, when same sex marriage was first legalized to now...its never happened. Nothing you've insisted must happen....has.

Your record of failure is perfect. Clearly there's something you missed.

And saying something will not happen is a simpletons argument unless you answer this:

What is the Compelling State Interest in denying an individual the right to marry whomever he/she chooses.

If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

As was interracial intercourse during the era of Interracial marriage bans. Virginia stormed Mildred and Richard's home in the middle of the night because they were hoping to catch them having sex. Which was a felony. They had to settle for charging them with interracial marriage as their marriage certificate was up on the wall.

Yet the Supreme Court still overturned those interracial marriage bans. Clearly, you're missing something. As *nothing* you've claimed must happen...

....ever has.

How do you explain your perfect record of predictive failure? Why every 'implication' you insist the rulings demonstrate has never been recognized by any court? Why neither incest marriage nor polygamy has been legalized in any State?

I have an elegant explanation: You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

 

[Skylar]

What relevance do their 'feelings' have to do with the law? Is the law based on their 'feelings'?

Nope. Your 'legal standard' isn't. You're offering us what you think the case was SUPPOSED to be based on rather than what it actually was.

Sigh....citing yourself. Do you have any argument that isn't you citing you? Because your source is clearly inadequate to carry your argument.

What right does government have in deciding how a person exercises their religion, unless such exercise causes actual harm?

Causes harm....according to who? Again, Marty......you keep backing on subjective, Marty-defined piece of pseudo-legal gibberish ANOTHER piece of Marty-defined pseudo-legal gibberish.

Where YOU define what harm is, where YOU define what infringement is, where YOU define what constitutional rights are, YOU define what the law allows, make up whatever standard YOU wish (laughing....your predictably abandoned 'feelings' standard, for example), where YOU decide which supreme court rulings are valid or invalid.

And you don't do any of that. Your argument requires that you do all of that.

I ask again, do you have any argument that isn't you citing yourself?

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

Yup. And they have no legal relevance. You have a right to believe whatever you want.

What you don't have a 'right' to for our laws to be based on whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you invent. And that's where your argument fails: as neither our laws nor their validity are based on your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is all you have. You aren't nearly enough to carry your argument. As I don't accept any of your pseudo-legal nonsense as having any legal validity. None of your made up definitions, none of your made up standards, none of your dismissal of any case that is inconvenient to you.

And without that acceptance...you've got nothing.

I got you to waste 3 minutes on this post, crying about how mean I am to not change my mind due to your "compelling" arguments.

But you have yet to make an argument based on the law. Merely your personal opinion....where your argument can only work if YOU define all legal terms, YOU set all legal standards, and YOU are the sole arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to me.

You're none of these things. Which is why your argument is so gloriously irrelevant to any law or legal outcome.

 

[Skylar]

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Its a demonstration of similarly unconstitutional restrictions to private behavior. See both Windsor v. US and Obergefell v. Hodges for citation of Loving v. Virginia.

You say the case is irrelevant. The Supreme Court cited it twice. On issues of legal relevance the Supreme Court is authoritative. And you're still nobody.

 

[martybegan]

What right does government have in deciding how a person exercises their religion, unless such exercise causes actual harm?

Causes harm....according to who? Again, Marty......you keep backing on subjective, Marty-defined piece of pseudo-legal gibberish ANOTHER piece of Marty-defined pseudo-legal gibberish.

Where YOU define what harm is, where YOU define what infringement is, where YOU define what constitutional rights are, YOU define what the law allows, make up whatever standard YOU wish (laughing....your predictably abandoned 'feelings' standard, for example), where YOU decide which supreme court rulings are valid or invalid.

And you don't do any of that. Your argument requires that you do all of that.

I ask again, do you have any argument that isn't you citing yourself?

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

Yup. And they have no legal relevance. You have a right to believe whatever you want.

What you don't have a 'right' to for our laws to be based on whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you invent. And that's where your argument fails: as neither our laws nor their validity are based on your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is all you have. You aren't nearly enough to carry your argument. As I don't accept any of your pseudo-legal nonsense as having any legal validity. None of your made up definitions, none of your made up standards, none of your dismissal of any case that is inconvenient to you.

And without that acceptance...you've got nothing.

I got you to waste 3 minutes on this post, crying about how mean I am to not change my mind due to your "compelling" arguments.

But you have yet to make an argument based on the law. Merely your personal opinion....where your argument can only work if YOU define all legal terms, YOU set all legal standards, and YOU are the sole arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to me.

You're none of these things. Which is why your argument is so gloriously irrelevant to any law or legal outcome.

The argument is based on my understanding of the law, once all the crap that has been piled onto it the past 50 years has been removed.

Simplification, not extrapolation that results in "rights" made out of thin air.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If two consenting adults want to marry, so what? I think the incest thing comes from fear of deformed kids . Not even sure if that's scientifically accurate .

The incest thing stems from the overwhelming interest the state has on public health. If there were no health argument, the state could not interfere with marriages between incestuous relatives. Incest is NOT illegal based on moral arguments

 

[NYcarbineer]

I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.

Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.

Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.

And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.

Your record of failure is perfect.

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

We had opposite sex marriage only for centuries.

Your argument is shown even more without merit.

We've had de facto same sex marriage for centuries too. By that I mean same sex couples entering into relationships that were for all practical measures 'marriages'

just not with any 'papers'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Causes harm....according to who? Again, Marty......you keep backing on subjective, Marty-defined piece of pseudo-legal gibberish ANOTHER piece of Marty-defined pseudo-legal gibberish.

Where YOU define what harm is, where YOU define what infringement is, where YOU define what constitutional rights are, YOU define what the law allows, make up whatever standard YOU wish (laughing....your predictably abandoned 'feelings' standard, for example), where YOU decide which supreme court rulings are valid or invalid.

And you don't do any of that. Your argument requires that you do all of that.

I ask again, do you have any argument that isn't you citing yourself?

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

Yup. And they have no legal relevance. You have a right to believe whatever you want.

What you don't have a 'right' to for our laws to be based on whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you invent. And that's where your argument fails: as neither our laws nor their validity are based on your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is all you have. You aren't nearly enough to carry your argument. As I don't accept any of your pseudo-legal nonsense as having any legal validity. None of your made up definitions, none of your made up standards, none of your dismissal of any case that is inconvenient to you.

And without that acceptance...you've got nothing.

I got you to waste 3 minutes on this post, crying about how mean I am to not change my mind due to your "compelling" arguments.

But you have yet to make an argument based on the law. Merely your personal opinion....where your argument can only work if YOU define all legal terms, YOU set all legal standards, and YOU are the sole arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to me.

You're none of these things. Which is why your argument is so gloriously irrelevant to any law or legal outcome.

The argument is based on my understanding of the law, once all the crap that has been piled onto it the past 50 years has been removed.

Simplification, not extrapolation that results in "rights" made out of thin air.

lol, I thought rights came from the Creator and were unalienable.

 

[Skylar]

Causes harm....according to who? Again, Marty......you keep backing on subjective, Marty-defined piece of pseudo-legal gibberish ANOTHER piece of Marty-defined pseudo-legal gibberish.

Where YOU define what harm is, where YOU define what infringement is, where YOU define what constitutional rights are, YOU define what the law allows, make up whatever standard YOU wish (laughing....your predictably abandoned 'feelings' standard, for example), where YOU decide which supreme court rulings are valid or invalid.

And you don't do any of that. Your argument requires that you do all of that.

I ask again, do you have any argument that isn't you citing yourself?

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

Yup. And they have no legal relevance. You have a right to believe whatever you want.

What you don't have a 'right' to for our laws to be based on whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you invent. And that's where your argument fails: as neither our laws nor their validity are based on your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is all you have. You aren't nearly enough to carry your argument. As I don't accept any of your pseudo-legal nonsense as having any legal validity. None of your made up definitions, none of your made up standards, none of your dismissal of any case that is inconvenient to you.

And without that acceptance...you've got nothing.

I got you to waste 3 minutes on this post, crying about how mean I am to not change my mind due to your "compelling" arguments.

But you have yet to make an argument based on the law. Merely your personal opinion....where your argument can only work if YOU define all legal terms, YOU set all legal standards, and YOU are the sole arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to me.

You're none of these things. Which is why your argument is so gloriously irrelevant to any law or legal outcome.

The argument is based on my understanding of the law, once all the crap that has been piled onto it the past 50 years has been removed.

Simplification, not extrapolation that results in "rights" made out of thin air.

Your argument is based on your personal opinion. Not your understanding. As you ignore any ruling you disagree with. Ignoring the law isn't 'understanding' the law. Its merely a useless exercise in confirmation bias. Where 'validity' of a ruling is based on its compatibility with you already believe.

Back in reality, your willful ignorance isn't a legal standard. Its an excuse for one.Which is why your entire argument is wondrously irrelevant.

Its just you citing you. And you're nobody.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If two consenting adults want to marry, children have an interest in who they are. .

What?

 

[paddymurphy]

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?

"Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now." Actually, it is. You are the perfect example of when stupid people only read headlines. The Federal Judge struck that portion of the bigamy law that made it illegal to cohabit with more than one person of the opposite sex. The decision had nothing to do with the laws that still make it illegal to be actually married to more than one person. Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune

 

[Skylar]

It is my right as a citizen of a free country to do so. My opinions are my own, and they are true to the original intent of the constitution, and the concept of strict constructional federalism (with a libertarian bent).

Yup. And they have no legal relevance. You have a right to believe whatever you want.

What you don't have a 'right' to for our laws to be based on whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you invent. And that's where your argument fails: as neither our laws nor their validity are based on your personal opinion.

And your personal opinion is all you have. You aren't nearly enough to carry your argument. As I don't accept any of your pseudo-legal nonsense as having any legal validity. None of your made up definitions, none of your made up standards, none of your dismissal of any case that is inconvenient to you.

And without that acceptance...you've got nothing.

I got you to waste 3 minutes on this post, crying about how mean I am to not change my mind due to your "compelling" arguments.

But you have yet to make an argument based on the law. Merely your personal opinion....where your argument can only work if YOU define all legal terms, YOU set all legal standards, and YOU are the sole arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to me.

You're none of these things. Which is why your argument is so gloriously irrelevant to any law or legal outcome.

The argument is based on my understanding of the law, once all the crap that has been piled onto it the past 50 years has been removed.

Simplification, not extrapolation that results in "rights" made out of thin air.

lol, I thought rights came from the Creator and were unalienable.

We may be underestimating how broadly Marty believes his personal opinion defines objective reality.

 

[Silhouette]

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?

"Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now." Actually, it is. You are the perfect example of when stupid people only read headlines. The Federal Judge struck that portion of the bigamy law that made it illegal to cohabit with more than one person of the opposite sex. The decision had nothing to do with the laws that still make it illegal to be actually married to more than one person. Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune

First Lawrence v Texas, then homosexuals petition for "civil rights to marry". C'mon, you know how this dance goes. Don't act dumb because it is politically expedient for your dishonest agenda..

 

[Skylar]

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?

"Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now." Actually, it is. You are the perfect example of when stupid people only read headlines. The Federal Judge struck that portion of the bigamy law that made it illegal to cohabit with more than one person of the opposite sex. The decision had nothing to do with the laws that still make it illegal to be actually married to more than one person. Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune

You weren't actually expecting accuracy from Sil were you?

Even after having been corrected, with evidence....she'll make the same claim later when she hopes she's preaching to an uninformed audience.

Her argument relies upon the ignorance of her audience. Which is why she doesn't do well here.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

Are you saying siblings or close cousins wanting to receive marriage benefits from the state would promise NOT to have children? If so why would they be getting married? For what reasons?

 

[Skylar]

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?

"Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now." Actually, it is. You are the perfect example of when stupid people only read headlines. The Federal Judge struck that portion of the bigamy law that made it illegal to cohabit with more than one person of the opposite sex. The decision had nothing to do with the laws that still make it illegal to be actually married to more than one person. Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune

First Lawrence v Texas, then homosexuals petition for "civil rights to marry". C'mon, you know how this dance goes. Don't act dumb because it is politically expedient for your dishonest agenda..

Save of course that Lawerence v. Texas struck down the statutes criminalizing 'sodomy'. While laws prohibiting polygamy are still on the books.

Remember.....you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Pop23]

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?

What are the requirements of marriage. You're even now assuming that if you marry more than one, they must have children? How bizarre since marriage does not require sex!

So, what is the overriding concern? There are hundreds of thousands of like partnerships that don't include a single child.

 

[Skylar]

Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.

I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.

Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?

What are the requirements of marriage. You're even now assuming that if you marry more than one, they must have children? How bizarre since marriage does not require sex!

So, what is the overriding concern? There are hundreds of thousands of like partnerships that don't include a single child.

Laughing.....look. The Trolls are now eating each other!