Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are a boring waste of time. If you want to know, then find the transcript and briefs of the trial.

Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.

Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .

Here's the 10th circuit follow up.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.

My point is simple: that Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans.

Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.

But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.

Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.

Laughing.....and the court didn't agree with any of his reasoning, never once citing Obergefell in any of their rulings.

Exactly as I said. And the ban on bigamy stood.

Try to move the goal posts all you like. My point remains gloriously and pristinely unchallenged: That no court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law.

And we both know I'm right.

And no court ever will, the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

Obergefell is the progeny of long-standing 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation, and denying citizens their right to due process and equal protection of the law for no other reason than who they are, in this case being gay.

The case law guiding the Obergefell Court has nothing whatsoever to do with laws prohibiting bigamy, which are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, as the state’s desire to prevent fraud with regard to marriage contracts is rational and justified.

Last, prior to Obergefell, the courts already invalidated the Nation’s only law prohibiting polygamy in Utah; citizens in all 50 states are at liberty to live in a polygamous relationship if they so desire.

 

[Skylar]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.

Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.

Ok, I have done the research-

In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.

Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?

If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.

 

[Skylar]

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Good advise. I can see why no one would want to engage this character: no education in the law, no education in history or how history works, and no clue what context means. A couple of Google searches, a few out of context quotes that support his worldview, and nothing else matters.

Wait a second, is Skylar a dude? I assumed she was a woman based on her debate style. Maybe she is a dude who identifies as a woman when she post, not that there is anything wrong with that.

My debate style being to be....factual? And demand the same from those I talk with?

I use evidence. And I research my claims *before* I make them. Which is what separates me from you. Me from Tenny.

You know you better keep a hanky with you at all times, because with your nose so high in the air a runny nostril can be real embarrassing.

I'll stick with the facts, thank you. You can enjoy that hanky.

 

[Tennyson]

Laughing......and once again, you expect us to take your word for it.

Here's the initial Brown v. Buhman decision

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans. .

Here's the 10th circuit follow up.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-4117.pdf

Show us the Obergefell ruling being used to justify overturning bigamy bans.

Laughing.....I won't hold my breath.

Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.

My point is simple: that Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans.

Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.

But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.

Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.

Laughing.....and the court didn't agree with any of his reasoning, never once citing Obergefell in any of their rulings.

Exactly as I said. And the ban on bigamy stood.

Try to move the goal posts all you like. My point remains gloriously and pristinely unchallenged: That no court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law.

And we both know I'm right.

And no court ever will, the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

Obergefell is the progeny of long-standing 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation, and denying citizens their right to due process and equal protection of the law for no other reason than who they are, in this case being gay.

The case law guiding the Obergefell Court has nothing whatsoever to do with laws prohibiting bigamy, which are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, as the state’s desire to prevent fraud with regard to marriage contracts is rational and justified.

Last, prior to Obergefell, the courts already invalidated the Nation’s only law prohibiting polygamy in Utah; citizens in all 50 states are at liberty to live in a polygamous relationship if they so desire.

There was nothing in the Obergefell ruling that was based on long-standing Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Kennedy had to re-defined what a fundemental right was and re-wright history regarding substantive due process. What was the reason for the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments?

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Let me show you how evidence works. You've claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I disagreed. And offered this quote from Senator Jacob Howard of the 39th Congress introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate explicitly contradicting you:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate



Now you try. Quote the Congressional Record backing your claims. As your paraphrases are evidence. They're an excuse for evidence.

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.

Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.

Ok, I have done the research-

In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.

Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?

If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.

Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Do you have a point? Why don't you post up the briefs filed by Turley.

My point is simple: that Obergfell hasn't been used by any court to overturn any polygamy bans.

Which I just demonstrated....twice. As Obergefell isn't even mentioned in either ruling. Let alone cited to overturn bigamy laws.

But don't let the evidence get in the way of a good rant. You never have before.

Obergfell was used by Turley regardless of what you can find on Google or you inadequacy and lack of resources to be able to find the briefs.

Laughing.....and the court didn't agree with any of his reasoning, never once citing Obergefell in any of their rulings.

Exactly as I said. And the ban on bigamy stood.

Try to move the goal posts all you like. My point remains gloriously and pristinely unchallenged: That no court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law.

And we both know I'm right.

And no court ever will, the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

Obergefell is the progeny of long-standing 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation, and denying citizens their right to due process and equal protection of the law for no other reason than who they are, in this case being gay.

The case law guiding the Obergefell Court has nothing whatsoever to do with laws prohibiting bigamy, which are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, as the state’s desire to prevent fraud with regard to marriage contracts is rational and justified.

Last, prior to Obergefell, the courts already invalidated the Nation’s only law prohibiting polygamy in Utah; citizens in all 50 states are at liberty to live in a polygamous relationship if they so desire.

There was nothing in the Obergefell ruling that was based on long-standing Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Kennedy had to re-defined what a fundemental right was and re-wright history regarding substantive due process. What was the reason for the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments?

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.

I'll bet skylar insults you in her response to your post, she can't help it.

 

[Skylar]

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.

Obergefell has never once been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.

And we both know it. I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.

Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

I have already addressed that. You are becoming more boring by the minute.

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.

Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.

Ok, I have done the research-

In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.

Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?

If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.

Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?

So by 'research', you mean you just making shit up?

 

[Tennyson]

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.

Obergefell has never once been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.

And we both know it. I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.

Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.

Get used to the idea.

It was used my Turley.

 

[Skylar]

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.

Obergefell has never once been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.

And we both know it. I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.

Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.

Get used to the idea.

It was used my Turley.

And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.

You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.

Or the law. Or any court.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Hey Tennyson- I had the same reaction. It's best to just keep asking questions and then let her type a 4 paragraph response. It's like throwing a ball for a dog, pretty easy to do, and mildly entertaining.

Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.

Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.

Ok, I have done the research-

In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.

Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?

If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.

Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?

So by 'research', you mean you just making shit up?

Yep, and then you chase it like a dog chasing a ball. It's fun!

 

[Skylar]

Don't get butt hurt just because I've done the research you've never bothered to do on the topic.

Or because I have the evidence to back up my arguments.

Ok, I have done the research-

In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.

Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?

If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.

Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?

So by 'research', you mean you just making shit up?

Yep, and then you chase it like a dog chasing a ball. It's fun!

Well, if you ever manage more than 'just making shit up', give me a hollar. I'm always open to actual evidence.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Ok, I have done the research-

In Hughes V Criswell it was decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but the court stipulated in Zimmerman V Horshell that if either a man or a woman decides to have a sex change while married, they must continue to identify as their original sex when married. In other words, if a married woman changes her sex to become a man, she is still responsible for cooking and cleaning.

Hughes v. Criswell.....from the Arkansas State Court of Appeals?

If so, I don't mean to burst your bubble.....but the federal judiciary would overrule them as it pertains to the 14th amendment's due process clause and equal protection clause and the right to marry.

Wow, it worked. I picked 2 names randomly and you went and researched it like a dog chasing a ball. How about Mcgriff V Swink?

So by 'research', you mean you just making shit up?

Yep, and then you chase it like a dog chasing a ball. It's fun!

Well, if you ever manage more than 'just making shit up', give me a hollar. I'm always open to actual evidence.

how about Curry v Smith?

 

[Tennyson]

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.

Obergefell has never once been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.

And we both know it. I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.

Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.

Get used to the idea.

It was used my Turley.

And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.

You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.

Or the law. Or any court.

It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.

 

[Skylar]

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.

Obergefell has never once been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.

And we both know it. I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.

Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.

Get used to the idea.

It was used my Turley.

And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.

You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.

Or the law. Or any court.

It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.

And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.

As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.

Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.

Oh, and Brown isn't appealing his case to the USSC because he won. But because bigamy laws remained pristinely untouched with polygamy still illegal.

 

[Tennyson]

The Oberhefell ruling and principle was used in a polygamy case and will be used again.

Obergefell has never once been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.

And we both know it. I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.

Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.

Get used to the idea.

It was used my Turley.

And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.

You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.

Or the law. Or any court.

It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.

Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.

As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.

Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.

Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell has never once been used or accepted as justification by any court for the overturning of any polygamy law.

And we both know it. I've shown you both of the Brown rulings. Neither even mentions Obergefell. Let alone uses it to justify the overturn of any polygamy law. But keep polishing that rhetorical turd if you'd like.

Its still gloriously irrelevant to any court decision.

Get used to the idea.

It was used my Turley.

And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.

You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.

Or the law. Or any court.

It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.

Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.

As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.

Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.

Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.

Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.

Exactly as I told you. Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

 

[Tennyson]

It was used my Turley.

And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.

You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.

Or the law. Or any court.

It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.

Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.

As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.

Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.

Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.

Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.

Exactly as I told you. Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

 

[Skylar]

And rejected by the court, which never so much as mentions Obergefell in any ruling. With every bigamy law surviving judicial review untouched.

You're stuck in your little feedback loop, ignoring the very cases you're referring to. You fail, because you can't make us ignore them.

Or the law. Or any court.

It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.

Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.

As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.

Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.

Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.

Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.

Exactly as I told you. Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.

And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.

 

[Tennyson]

It was used by Turley. Turley won. The court did not reject it.

Bigamy laws remain untouched, with polygamy still illegal. And the court rejected every argument Turley made regarding Obergefell, not so much as mentioning the case in any of their rulings.

As we both know, not one court has ever used Obergefell to overturn any polygamy law. You can't get around that.

Like your babble about the 14th, it really doesn't matter what you ignore. What is, is.

Turley won. The court did not reject his arguments. The law was overturned using Obergefell. That was one of Turley's arguments.

Nope. Bigamy laws were unambiguously upheld, maintaining polygamy's criminal status. And every argument regarding Obergefell was rejected by every court.

Exactly as I told you. Ignore as you will. It won't matter.

Turley won. His argument was not rejected by the court. Utah will not prosecute polygamy.

Brown sought to have bigamy laws overturned. He failed. He's appealing to the USSC as we speak on the exact same case.

And as we both know, all arguments regarding Obergefell were rejected by the court. As Obergefell was never mentioned in either ruling.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time: the courts.

Turley used Obergefell. Turley won. Utah will not prosecute polygamy laws. The appeal to the Supreme Court is not the exact same case that Turley won. Turley won on the merits using Obergefell; the appeal is regarding standing and the state of Utah not prosecuting polygamy.