Is Gay Marriage Already Void? &/Or Is Polygamy Already Legal?

[Skylar]

Wanna see google destroy your argument again, Sil?

"Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

So denying same sex marriage harms children. Thus, by your own logic, bans on same sex marriage should be eliminated.

There's a reason you quote your imagination and I quote the law, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Just one of many many paragraphs in Obergefell where the words "same-sex" and "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians" are interchangeable.
Opinion Page 7 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.

So we are talking about sexual activity and "intimacy" among homosexuals (kinks) as the basis for the findings of Obergefell. So again, how is it that the dignity of the polyamorus kink is allowed to be demeaned and denied marriage? Pray tell....because of the children they anticipate to arrive?

 

[Pop23]

Have you ^^ read the Infancy Doctrine?

If you find a quote me saying that the denial of the right to marry can be conditioned on procreation, I'll be around.

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

What if it's conditioned upon not having a contract that banishes children implicitly involved from either a mother or father for life? Will you laugh then too?

He could actually give a shit.

 

[Skylar]

Just one of many many paragraphs in Obergefell where the words "same-sex" and "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians" are interchangeable.
Opinion Page 7 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.

So we are talking about sexual activity and "intimacy" among homosexuals (kinks) as the basis for the findings of Obergefell. So again, how is it that the dignity of the polyamorus kink is allowed to be demeaned and denied marriage? Pray tell....because of the children they anticipate to arrive?

Show us where the court finds that the right to marry for same sex couples is based in....kink?

Again, your obsession with gay and lesbian sex has no legal relevance here.

 

[TheDude]

Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.

Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?

Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?

BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.

Wow- you really danced away from that didn't? Rather even attempting to come up with an argument- you just say 'because'. LOL

'meet the intent of marriage'. What is the intent of marriage? Is it procreation? Well that father and daughter can procreate just fine- so being able to procreate isn't it.

What is the intent of marriage- exactly? In your mind. That mixed race couples meet- but not gay couples or close relative couples?

No dummy.........You proved how someone can make the same argument to support any combination of marriage. Somehow that flew right over your head. At the end of the day, interracial marriage is not the same as gay marriage, or marriage between close relatives.

I don't want to have to explain intent to you. But if it helps, men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.

 

[Blackrook]

I think Sil is jealous that a gay man can find a husband and she can't.

You're such a bitch.

 

[Silhouette]

I think Sil is jealous that a gay man can find a husband and she can't.

You're such a bitch.

More like he is showing signs of loose footing in this debate.

 

[Silhouette]

No dummy.........You proved how someone can make the same argument to support any combination of marriage. Somehow that flew right over your head.
.

When the courts used "same sex" and "same-sex intimacy" and "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians" interchangeably in the same paragraph, what they were trying to do is create a false class based on "not behaviors really because we can default and say same-sex when we want to skirt around that".

But what they did, tying behaviors to a static thing was to say that anyone who calls themselves a static thing as a shroud to hide a behavioral core, now also has the same rights. Enter polyamorists (polygamists). Instead of saying "same-sex" one just inserts "multi-sex" couples. Bingo. Polygamy is legal marriage according to the strictest interpretation of the 14th Amendment. BTW, follow the Obergefell link here and read up on the SLOP they print to rope in the 14th Amendment which says NOTHING about states "required" to ratify same-sex intimacy in marriage. Right in the syllabus the lies begin to snowball. Those unelected lawyers should be disbarred. Whoopies!
Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.(a)

They use that, where states legitimately ratify "gay marriage" (illegally because that brand new contract banishes children involved for life from either a mother or father: a psychological necessity for girls and boys), to mean "since one state allows gay marriage, no other state may refuse those priveleges". Well guess what? Not all states allow 1st cousins to marry, but some do. So do all states have to allow 1st-cousin marriage?

As to the number of people, the Fourteenth Amendment either insinuates or requires NO SUCH THING WHATSOEVER. Nowhere does it mention "two people". Nor does it mention deviant sex behaviors (just some but not others). This is the judicial-legislation I've been talking about. It would be equally applicable for the Court to have said "polygamy is legal because....

"
Section 1.
......No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Why is the polygamy kink ostracized from the VERY BROAD umbrella of LGBTQ. I mean, isn't polygamy considered "queer" or odd in the mainstream? Why were they left out? Why indeed.

 

[Silhouette]

Show us where the court finds that the right to marry for same sex couples is based in....kink?

You mean, show you AGAIN? OK, AGAIN.... (note the bold print and how the terms are used interchangeably. Of particular note: "Same-sex intimacy"...what...foot rubs? Long hugs?... )

Opinion Page 7 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.

 

[rightwinger]

Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.

Well put....describes the historical plight homosexuals have endured

 

[Silhouette]

Show us where the court finds that the right to marry for same sex couples is based in....kink?

You mean, show you AGAIN? OK, AGAIN.... (note the bold print and how the terms are used interchangeably. Of particular note: "Same-sex intimacy"...what...foot rubs? Long hugs?... )

Opinion Page 7 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.

Skylar? Remember how you were saying that "kinks" weren't given special protections under the US Constitution? What do you suppose the USSC was talking about when they declared "same sex intimacy", "Homosexuals", "gays and lesbians" and "same-sex couples" as interchangeable terms?

It's a rhetorical question since you, familiar with law, know that they were weaving a static class into what is actually a set of behaviors...sexual kinks. So why was polyamory left out? Your logic?

And you can send in as many of the fold as you like attempting to insert non sequiturs but I'll await your answer on these key points.

 

[Silhouette]

Skyyyyyylaaaarrrrr....Where are you? (mdk? Syriusly? Joe? any of the LGBTers want to weigh in ^^ ??)

 

[jillian]

Inspired here: Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

Even if that was true, the state has to get a benefit from the loss they extend to the marriage contract. With the new contract saying "no mother or father for life, banishment, for any child involved" the state no longer gets its traditional share of that contract. That traditional share they paid for with benefits was to insure children had a stable home with a mother and father for best statistical future-citizen production. Now they get nothing. They actually get worse than nothing in that at least single parents promise to deliver at some point in the future. "Gay marriage" is de facto anti-marriage as far as any state was concerned fiscally. It insures an inferior product for the money when before man/woman marriage insured a quality product for the money.

It was an illegal contract revision, Obergefell. It screwed the major beneficiaries of the old contract (the state and the children anticipated to arrive in marriage) and gave devil-may-care license to the subservient beneficiaries (those receiving benefits under state-controlled parameters). It would be like removing any stays on welfare distribution in the states, allowing the recipients to set terms on owning a mansion, six cars and a casino and still "be eligible" to receive state welfare benefits.

Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities. Gay marriage contracts BANISHES children involved from either a father or mother, for life. That is an illegal contract upon its face. The ID says that any contract that contains terms like that involving children isn't merely challengable, it is void before the ink is dry. Ergo, gay marriage is void. The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

no you OCD loon... it is not void. there are no children's rights issues and marriage equality is a right.

now please go off somewhere and seek help

 

[Skylar]

Show us where the court finds that the right to marry for same sex couples is based in....kink?

You mean, show you AGAIN? OK, AGAIN.... (note the bold print and how the terms are used interchangeably. Of particular note: "Same-sex intimacy"...what...foot rubs? Long hugs?... )

Opinion Page 7 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.

Laughing.....And where is the right to marry based in same sex intimacy?

Again, the only one who is confused here is you.

Skylar? Remember how you were saying that "kinks" weren't given special protections under the US Constitution? What do you suppose the USSC was talking about when they declared "same sex intimacy", "Homosexuals", "gays and lesbians" and "same-sex couples" as interchangeable terms?

Um, no, Sil. The Supreme Court is not using 'same sex couples' and 'same sex intimacy' interchangeably. You're simply horribly confused.

Sigh.....again. And your confusion isn't a legal standard either.

 

[Skylar]

Inspired here: Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake

Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?

The reason that a couple would wed was because of an obvious historically valid reason. But now, that standard is simply absurd. And since state licence laws make sexual interaction not a requirement, nor love, nor anything that we had historically thought as of reasons to marry, there is only an arbitrary reason to deny members of the same family to marry.

Recent USSC ruling are pretty clear, marriage is simply a financial tool, not much different then forming an S-Corp or LLC.

Even if that was true, the state has to get a benefit from the loss they extend to the marriage contract. With the new contract saying "no mother or father for life, banishment, for any child involved" the state no longer gets its traditional share of that contract. That traditional share they paid for with benefits was to insure children had a stable home with a mother and father for best statistical future-citizen production. Now they get nothing. They actually get worse than nothing in that at least single parents promise to deliver at some point in the future. "Gay marriage" is de facto anti-marriage as far as any state was concerned fiscally. It insures an inferior product for the money when before man/woman marriage insured a quality product for the money.

It was an illegal contract revision, Obergefell. It screwed the major beneficiaries of the old contract (the state and the children anticipated to arrive in marriage) and gave devil-may-care license to the subservient beneficiaries (those receiving benefits under state-controlled parameters). It would be like removing any stays on welfare distribution in the states, allowing the recipients to set terms on owning a mansion, six cars and a casino and still "be eligible" to receive state welfare benefits.

Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities. Gay marriage contracts BANISHES children involved from either a father or mother, for life. That is an illegal contract upon its face. The ID says that any contract that contains terms like that involving children isn't merely challengable, it is void before the ink is dry. Ergo, gay marriage is void. The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

no you OCD loon... it is not void. there are no children's rights issues and marriage equality is a right.

now please go off somewhere and seek help

She's stuck in the exact same place she's always been stuck:

1) The Supreme Court finds that banning same sex marriage harms children.

She ignores this. Just pretends it never happened.

2) The Supreme Court found that procreation cannot be a condition of the right to marry.

She insists that procreation MUST be a condition of the right to marry.

3) The Supreme Court has never found that children are married to their parents.

She's argued that children are married to their parents.

 

[Skylar]

No dummy.........You proved how someone can make the same argument to support any combination of marriage. Somehow that flew right over your head.
.

When the courts used "same sex" and "same-sex intimacy" and "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians" interchangeably in the same paragraph, what they were trying to do is create a false class based on "not behaviors really because we can default and say same-sex when we want to skirt around that".

Nope. You're simply confused. You merely assume that same sex couples and same sex intimacy are the same thing. They aren't. You can't tell the difference. A rational person could.

And your confusion is not a legal standard.

 

[Syriusly]

The words in Obergefell kept oscillating around same sex & gay (homosexual). So a person could cite Obergefell saying it is about sexual kinks. Read it.

No rational person who could read English could cite Obergefell and say it is about sexual kinks.

I know because unlike you- I have read it.

 

[Syriusly]

I doubt if most Americans care one way or the other about polygamy

Only religious zealots get worked up about it

So polygamy..another sexual kink is already legal. Got ya.

Polygamy is not a sexual kink but polygamous marriage is still illegal.

You just are lying.

Which since I am replying to one of your posts- is redundent.

 

[Syriusly]

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives.

Please tell us what arguments against gay marriage can be applied to close relatives?

Matter of fact- let me know which arguments for mixed race marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives?

BINGO.............................Which puts the race business into perspective. People are people, doesn't matter the color. If they're heterosexuals they meet the intent of marriage. Gay marriage does not. It's a contradiction and absurd idea. Course I don't approve of marriage between close relatives either, but there is a history. That doesn't meet the intent of marriage either, though don't tell our ancestors.

Wow- you really danced away from that didn't? Rather even attempting to come up with an argument- you just say 'because'. LOL

'meet the intent of marriage'. What is the intent of marriage? Is it procreation? Well that father and daughter can procreate just fine- so being able to procreate isn't it.

What is the intent of marriage- exactly? In your mind. That mixed race couples meet- but not gay couples or close relative couples?

I don't want to have to explain intent to you. But if it helps, men were intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.

Men were 'intended to marry, have kids, and use the women's bathroom'?

And that is your definition of 'meet the intent of marriage'? LOL

Not sure what restrooms have to do with marriage at all- let alone the 'intent of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Show us where the court finds that the right to marry for same sex couples is based in....kink?

You mean, show you AGAIN? OK, AGAIN.... (note the bold print and how the terms are used interchangeably. Of particular note: "Same-sex intimacy"...what...foot rubs? Long hugs?... )

Opinion Page 7 Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.

Skylar? Remember how you were saying that "kinks" weren't given special protections under the US Constitution? What do you suppose the USSC was talking about when they declared "same sex intimacy", "Homosexuals", "gays and lesbians" and "same-sex couples" as interchangeable terms?

It's a rhetorical question since you, familiar with law, know that they were weaving a static class into what is actually a set of behaviors...sexual kinks. So why was polyamory left out? Your logic?

And you can send in as many of the fold as you like attempting to insert non sequiturs but I'll await your answer on these key points.

Except of course- the Supreme Court never uses them as interchangeable terms.

You are just delusional.