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

[Silhouette]

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

Obergefell...the "right" in total from which the quote on same-sex intimacy used intertwined with same-sex, homosexual & gays & lesbians was taken. Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Page 7 of Obergefell Opinion:

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 how is another kink-intimacy between consenting adults illegal? Why, exactly?

 

[Silhouette]

Answer: it can't be according to the intent of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

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

Obergefell...the "right" in total from which the quote on same-sex intimacy used intertwined with same-sex, homosexual & gays & lesbians was taken. Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Page 7 of Obergefell Opinion:

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 how is another kink-intimacy between consenting adults illegal? Why, exactly?

Nope. The court never equates same sex couples with same sex intimacy. You do. And then bizarrely project your laughable confusion onto the courts.

Nor does the court ever say that the right to marry is based on same sex intimacy.

Its not the Supreme Court that's confused, Sil. Its just you.

 

[Skylar]

Answer: it can't be according to the intent of the 14th Amendment.

Says you, citing your imagination. I just checked the Obergefell ruling. They never once cite your imagination on the 14th Amendment as the basis of.....anything.

Sorry Sil. But pretend as hard as you want, but your imagination doesn't overrule the SCOTUS.

What else have you got?

 

[Syriusly]

Answer: it can't be according to the intent of the 14th Amendment.

Why are you talking to yourself again? Now you want to talk to yourself about the 'intent' of the 14th Amendment?

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Answer: it can't be according to the intent of the 14th Amendment.

Says you, citing your imagination. I just checked the Obergefell ruling. They never once cite your imagination on the 14th Amendment as the basis of.....anything.

Sorry Sil. But pretend as hard as you want, but your imagination doesn't overrule the SCOTUS.

What else have you got?

Remember of course- her version of the 14th Amendment mentions race and religion- but not sexual orientation!

Lol

 

[Silhouette]

Remember of course- her version of the 14th Amendment mentions race and religion- but not sexual orientation!

Lol

And your version does? Link please?

 

[Skylar]

Remember of course- her version of the 14th Amendment mentions race and religion- but not sexual orientation!

Lol

And your version does? Link please?

Where does the 14th pontificate about race or religion?

 

[Silhouette]

It doesn't pontificate. It makes direct reference. Where in the 14th does it even insinuate "some deviant sex kinks that are to be determined at the whim of the Judicial Branch"?

 

[Pop23]

Back to the OP

The same sex marriage rulings were clear. You can't prohibit a legal marriage license based on arbitrary legal reasons.

No marriage law exists that provides that sexual intimacy is a duty for the parties involved within the license. In fact, the laws imply that there are little to no duties. The rulings are clear, the license is simply a way to share financial benefits along with the way that the parties can allow the other(s) speak on the others behalf when incapacitated.

The number of people allowed in one of these licenses is then arbitrary. There is no reason that groups can't form to create these relationships as they actually already exist in corporate law. The only argument I've heard is that allowing more than two people to join in one of these licenses is it bucks tradition. The rulings on same sex marriage addressed this as well, saying that tradition is also arbitrary.

The fact is that, denying anyone, with the possible exception of children not legally old enough to enter into a contract, is, in fact arbitrary.

In fact, not allowing multiple licences is also arbitrary unless we also limit membership in multiple corporations.

And, what is the non arbitrary reason we don't family members to enjoy the financial benefits granted not related individuals? When you consider that physical incest would still be illegal, and the duty of sexual intimacy is NOT A DUTY OF MARRIAGE, all reasons for this prohibition ARE ARBITRARY, except for traditional reasons.

In today's world, it would appear that a Mother who has a pension that has spousal benefits, who's husband has died, would be a fool not to get a $50.00 license that makes one or more of her children eligible to receive those benefits. What is the compelling State Interest for denial?

Marriage has simply become a catch all license and there is no sound legal argument in denial of issuance to anyone over a certain age.

 

[Silhouette]

With or without intimacy being a factor you can't pick & choose which deviant lifestyles can marry once you've cited the 14th.

 

[Skylar]

It doesn't pontificate. It makes direct reference. Where in the 14th does it even insinuate "some deviant sex kinks that are to be determined at the whim of the Judicial Branch"?

Then quote the 14th making direct reference to race and religion.

 

[Skylar]

With or without intimacy being a factor you can't pick & choose which deviant lifestyles can marry once you've cited the 14th.

Again Sil.....just because you bizarrely equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples doesn't mean that the courts are bound to your awkward confusion.

Or that we are. A rational person can tell the difference. You can't.

 

[Silhouette]

With or without intimacy being a factor you can't pick & choose which deviant lifestyles can marry once you've cited the 14th.

Again Sil.....just because you bizarrely equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples doesn't mean that the courts are bound to your awkward confusion.

Or that we are. A rational person can tell the difference. You can't.

It's not my equation. It's the Court's own preference. Choose nearly any paragraph from Obergefell and it uses the words "same-sex INTIMACY" "homosexual" "same-sex" and "gays & lesbians" interchangeably numerous times within the paragraph. And the Court did so on purpose. That is evident.

Ergo other kink-intimacy cannot be barred from marriage from the very 14th Amendment the Court cited to justify Obergefell.

 

[Skylar]

With or without intimacy being a factor you can't pick & choose which deviant lifestyles can marry once you've cited the 14th.

Again Sil.....just because you bizarrely equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples doesn't mean that the courts are bound to your awkward confusion.

Or that we are. A rational person can tell the difference. You can't.

It's not my equation. It's the Court's own preference.

The only one equating same sex intimacy with same sex couples....is you, citing you. The court never does. No rational person ever has.

Its not the courts that are confused. Its just you.

 

[Silhouette]

The only one equating same sex intimacy with same sex couples....is you, citing you. The court never does. No rational person ever has.

Its not the courts that are confused. Its just you.

Which as you know is a bald-faced lie. Here is just one of dozens of paragraphs similar where the words are used interchangeably.
Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution Page 7

This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. 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. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as
Amicus Curiae
5–28

 

[Pop23]

With or without intimacy being a factor you can't pick & choose which deviant lifestyles can marry once you've cited the 14th.

Again Sil.....just because you bizarrely equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples doesn't mean that the courts are bound to your awkward confusion.

Or that we are. A rational person can tell the difference. You can't.

It's not my equation. It's the Court's own preference.

The only one equating same sex intimacy with same sex couples....is you, citing you. The court never does. No rational person ever has.

Its not the courts that are confused. Its just you.

Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals. Heterosexual same sex can now marry. No reason they can’t.

I believe someone posted earlier about a relative who wanted to marry a same sex friend for better and cheaper health insurance. I think both were heterosexual.

 

[Skylar]

The only one equating same sex intimacy with same sex couples....is you, citing you. The court never does. No rational person ever has.

Its not the courts that are confused. Its just you.

Which as you know is a bald-faced lie. Here is just one of dozens of paragraphs similar where the words are used interchangeably.
Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution Page 7

This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. 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. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as
Amicus Curiae
5–28

And no where in that passage do they equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples.

Only you do. No rational person ever would. And the court never did.

And your confusion isn't a legal standard.

 

[Silhouette]

Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.

Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?

 

[Skylar]

Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.

Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?

And no where in the quote does the Obergefell court equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples.

Just you do. And your obvious confusion isn't a legal standard.

Do you have anything else, Sil? Because this is getting embarrassing to watch.