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

[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?

"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.

AND, since Skylar can see into the future, he will demonstrate his uncanny abilities by providing us the next winning powerball numbers!

 

[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.

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

^^^^ demonstrating mutually exclussive thought process

 

[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.

AND, since Skylar can see into the future, he will demonstrate his uncanny abilities by providing us the next winning powerball numbers!

Is that how you're explaining your perfect record of failure? How *none* of your assumed 'implications' regarding same sex marriage have occurred, nor ever been recognized by the courts?

If incest marriage and polygamy are the inevitable outcomes of same sex marriage......why weren't they?

Its been 10 full years of utter failure for you. How do you explain the incompatibility between your assumptions....and actual history?

 

[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!

^^^^ demonstrating mutually exclussive thought process

Demonstrating one troll attacking another. And all I have to do is sit back, get comfy....and laugh.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Why would they promise anything?

In the United States of America (come visit it sometimes). The State has the burdon of proof, not the individual.

It is no more likely that two siblings would break the law within a marriage, then in an LLC. You assume otherwise? That's your problem, not theirs.

 

[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.

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

^^^^ demonstrating mutually exclussive thought process

Demonstrating one troll attacking another. And all I have to do is sit back, get comfy....and laugh.

....... Cuz that's what Nazi trolls do.

Finish your own sentence next time simpleton.

 

[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?

"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.

AND, since Skylar can see into the future, he will demonstrate his uncanny abilities by providing us the next winning powerball numbers!

Is that how you're explaining your perfect record of failure? How *none* of your assumed 'implications' regarding same sex marriage have occurred, nor ever been recognized by the courts?

If incest marriage and polygamy are the inevitable outcomes of same sex marriage......why weren't they?

Its been 10 full years of utter failure for you. How do you explain the incompatibility between your assumptions....and actual history?

And now those lottery numbers!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

You must agree argument and debate presume a set of rules, or else like Dante has asked you before, why bother pretending to debate? Why not just post drive-by style and leave your opinions unchallenged?

 

[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.

AND, since Skylar can see into the future, he will demonstrate his uncanny abilities by providing us the next winning powerball numbers!

Is that how you're explaining your perfect record of failure? How *none* of your assumed 'implications' regarding same sex marriage have occurred, nor ever been recognized by the courts?

If incest marriage and polygamy are the inevitable outcomes of same sex marriage......why weren't they?

Its been 10 full years of utter failure for you. How do you explain the incompatibility between your assumptions....and actual history?

And now those lottery numbers!

"Lottery numbers" are why nothing you insisted must happen regarding same sex marriage....ever has?

Laughing....I have a much simpler explanation: you don't know what you're talking about. It simple, plausible, and accounts for your perfect, decade long record of failure.

But you keep hoping for those 'lottery numbers' while I keep laughing. Deal?

 

[mdk]

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..

You complaining about a 'dishonest agenda' may very well be the soul of irony. lol.

 

[Skylar]

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..

You complaining about a 'dishonest agenda' may very well be the soul of irony. lol.

I always thought Sil and her cult like behavior when talking about the imaginary 'LGBT cult' was the height. Apparently its an entire range of irony.....with more peaks than the Rockies.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now.

Utah state attorneys defending the state's anti-polygamy law argue it should stay on the books because it protects women and children from abuse.

Utah defends anti-polygamy law, saying it prevents abuse
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST The Associated Press
First Published Jun 02 2015 01:27PM • Last Updated Jun 02 2015 08:33 pm

 

[Pop23]

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.

AND, since Skylar can see into the future, he will demonstrate his uncanny abilities by providing us the next winning powerball numbers!

Is that how you're explaining your perfect record of failure? How *none* of your assumed 'implications' regarding same sex marriage have occurred, nor ever been recognized by the courts?

If incest marriage and polygamy are the inevitable outcomes of same sex marriage......why weren't they?

Its been 10 full years of utter failure for you. How do you explain the incompatibility between your assumptions....and actual history?

And now those lottery numbers!

"Lottery numbers" are why nothing you insisted must happen regarding same sex marriage....ever has?

Laughing....I have a much simpler explanation: you don't know what you're talking about. It simple, plausible, and accounts for your perfect, decade long record of failure.

But you keep hoping for those 'lottery numbers' while I keep laughing. Deal?

Without them dimwit, you're opinion of what will happen in the future is no more valid than anyone else's.

I gave you a way to prove the validity of yours several times. First by supplying the States compelling interest, and next by asking you to supply the lottery numbers.

You failed both. Proving you're a simpleton.

 

[mdk]

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..

You complaining about a 'dishonest agenda' may very well be the soul of irony. lol.

I always thought Sil and her cult like behavior when talking about the imaginary 'LGBT cult' was the height. Apparently its an entire range of irony.....with more peaks than the Rockies.

The funny thing is that gays petitioned to marry 32 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided.

 

[hazlnut]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

They had their chance in conference to convince the other justices, but they failed.

Their arguments failed. The case for restrictions on Gays at the state level was a FAILURE.

That's how our country works. If you don't like it, get the fuck out.

Their writing multiple dissenting opinions was improper and showed their own prejudices.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(1)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.

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

(1) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. you appear to be saying the law is what you THINK it is and not what the courts and society says it is

(2) The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Pop23]

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..

You complaining about a 'dishonest agenda' may very well be the soul of irony. lol.

I always thought Sil and her cult like behavior when talking about the imaginary 'LGBT cult' was the height. Apparently its an entire range of irony.....with more peaks than the Rockies.

The funny thing is that gays petitioned to marry 32 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided.

32 years aye?

Good god dude, show some pride.

 

[Skylar]

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.

AND, since Skylar can see into the future, he will demonstrate his uncanny abilities by providing us the next winning powerball numbers!

Is that how you're explaining your perfect record of failure? How *none* of your assumed 'implications' regarding same sex marriage have occurred, nor ever been recognized by the courts?

If incest marriage and polygamy are the inevitable outcomes of same sex marriage......why weren't they?

Its been 10 full years of utter failure for you. How do you explain the incompatibility between your assumptions....and actual history?

And now those lottery numbers!

"Lottery numbers" are why nothing you insisted must happen regarding same sex marriage....ever has?

Laughing....I have a much simpler explanation: you don't know what you're talking about. It simple, plausible, and accounts for your perfect, decade long record of failure.

But you keep hoping for those 'lottery numbers' while I keep laughing. Deal?

Without them dimwit, you're opinion of what will happen in the future is no more valid than anyone else's.

You're the one telling us what the 'inevitable implications' are. Yet nothing you've assumed the rulings implied have ever happened. Nor have ever been recognized by any court.

How do you explain 10 full years of failure? How nothing you've predicted has ever....you know....actually happened? Whenever I ask you this question you start babbling about 'lottery numbers'.

 

[mdk]

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..

You complaining about a 'dishonest agenda' may very well be the soul of irony. lol.

I always thought Sil and her cult like behavior when talking about the imaginary 'LGBT cult' was the height. Apparently its an entire range of irony.....with more peaks than the Rockies.

The funny thing is that gays petitioned to marry 32 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided.

32 years aye?

Good god dude, show some pride.

See Baker v. Nelson. Good god dude, show some knowledge of the topic.

Edit: My bad, it was 33 years. lol

 

[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?

Why would they promise anything?

In the United States of America (come visit it sometimes). The State has the burdon of proof, not the individual.

It is no more likely that two siblings would break the law within a marriage, then in an LLC. You assume otherwise? That's your problem, not theirs.

You're totally ignoring the state's interest in outlawing polygamy. You can do that, but ignoring it is not an argument