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

[Pop23]

I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.

Correct, just as your opinion doesn't make the bans valid.

However the bans are valid- unless and until a court is convinced that they are not.

Correct, but the precedence is established. If banning the individual from a right, they must show it is not arbitrary and that there is a compelling State interest in that denial.

The precedent was established by Loving v. Virginia.

When Virginia could not come up with a compelling reason why the State had an interest in banning mixed race marriages- or to use your terms- because the Court found that Virginia's reason was 'arbitrary'

The precedent is that the Supreme Court can overturn unconstitutional marriage laws. And that Americans have a right to legal marriage- and for the state to deny that right the state must have a compelling reason- which for:

• Mixed race marriages
• Marriages where child support is owed
• Marriage of an imprisoned person
• Same gender marriages

The state was not able to do. If you don't think that the state has any compelling reason to prevent incestuous marriage, then you would of course applaud the repeal of such a ban- unless you are for government having arbitrary bans in place.

Oberfell took it a step further, making excluding just about any couple or group eligible because denial is on arbitrary basis.

The laws stated only one man to one woman. They qualified it with “not closely related”..

Obergefell took it a step further- just like Loving did- and the other two cases did.
Loving said that states couldn't exclude a couple from marriage because the couple were of two different races.
Obergefell said that states couldn't exclude a couple from marriage because the couple were of the same gender.

Each case took marriage law a step further.

Mostly agree. What obergfell did was took any inference to sexual relations in a marriage out. Since there is no reference to it in current laws, marraige is simply a contractual arrangement that can be for any legal purpose the participants wish it to be. No matter the number of, or family relationship. As long as it is for legal purpose, the State should have no right to deny.

 

[Silhouette]

Then why did Obergefell use the words "same-sex intimacy" & "same-sex" & "homosexuals" & "gays & lesbians" interchangeably throughout the entire Opinion?

They even went into quite a bit of discussion about how their intimacy was part of the justification for being granted the right to marry. So their intimate relationships could have the same dignity as normal marriage.

Which is the reason I posted this thread as a logic problem. If same-sex intimacy kink has the right to marry despite majority opinion otherwise in the various states, why don't other intimate kinks? Doesn't that violate the spirit & intent of the 14th Amendment's equal rights?

 

[Skylar]

Then why did Obergefell use the words "same-sex intimacy" & "same-sex" & "homosexuals" & "gays & lesbians" interchangeably throughout the entire Opinion?

They didn't. You bizarrely equate 'same sex intimacy' with 'same sex couples'. And then even more bizarrely imagine that the Supreme Court must as well.

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

And your confusion isn't a legal standard.

 

[Skylar]

I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.

If children are implicitly involved with contracts the Infancy Doctrine still applies. They need not sign. The adults involved are bound by the rules of the Infancy Doctrine.

You still don't have the slightly clue what the Infancy Doctrine is. Its employment contract law for child actors. It has nothing to do with marriage.....as children aren't married to their parents.

Your pseudo-legal ramblings about 'implicit involvement' isn't a legal standard. Its just you making shit up. And your imagination isn't a legal standard either.

You're stuck, Sil. As you're not making a legal argument. You're merely insisting we ignore the Supreme Court and enforce your imagination instead.

 

[Syriusly]

However the bans are valid- unless and until a court is convinced that they are not.

Correct, but the precedence is established. If banning the individual from a right, they must show it is not arbitrary and that there is a compelling State interest in that denial.

The precedent was established by Loving v. Virginia.

When Virginia could not come up with a compelling reason why the State had an interest in banning mixed race marriages- or to use your terms- because the Court found that Virginia's reason was 'arbitrary'

The precedent is that the Supreme Court can overturn unconstitutional marriage laws. And that Americans have a right to legal marriage- and for the state to deny that right the state must have a compelling reason- which for:

• Mixed race marriages
• Marriages where child support is owed
• Marriage of an imprisoned person
• Same gender marriages

The state was not able to do. If you don't think that the state has any compelling reason to prevent incestuous marriage, then you would of course applaud the repeal of such a ban- unless you are for government having arbitrary bans in place.

Oberfell took it a step further, making excluding just about any couple or group eligible because denial is on arbitrary basis.

The laws stated only one man to one woman. They qualified it with “not closely related”..

Obergefell took it a step further- just like Loving did- and the other two cases did.
Loving said that states couldn't exclude a couple from marriage because the couple were of two different races.
Obergefell said that states couldn't exclude a couple from marriage because the couple were of the same gender.

Each case took marriage law a step further.

Mostly agree. What obergfell did was took any inference to sexual relations in a marriage out. What obergfell did was took any inference to sexual relations in a marriage out.. No matter the number of, or family relationship. As long as it is for legal purpose, the State should have no right to deny.

• What obergfell did was took any inference to sexual relations in a marriage out.

Where did Obergefell do that? How is that different than what Loving did? Remember just like homosexuality- miscegnation was at one time illegal also in Virginia.

• What obergfell did was took any inference to sexual relations in a marriage out.

No- Obergefell merely stated that state laws that prevent same gender couples from marrying are unconstitutional. Nothing else. Every state law remains on the books but the ones forbidding same gender marriage are now void. Laws against incestuous marriage, polygamy and under age marriage are still in effect.

• As long as it is for legal purpose, the State should have no right to deny

Well I think we agree that if the State cannot explain what express societal purpose is accomplished by forbidding incestuous marriage- then the States shouldn't be able to deny them their marriage rights. Personally I think that the states will be able to successfully defend such laws.

 

[Syriusly]

If same-sex intimacy kink has the right to marry d\

No 'kink' has a right to marry- Americans do.

Americans of the same or different race.
Americans of the same or different gender.
Americans regardless of their sexual orientation.

Marriage doesn't care about your kinks.

 

[Syriusly]

Just like gay marriage..which is a contract implicitly involving anticipated children that banishes them from either a vital father or vital mother for life.
.

So Silhouette says that the marriage contract 'implicitly' involves imaginary future children.

IF those imaginary future children really are part of the marriage contract- shouldn't they be able to enforce that contract to require the married couple to have those 'anticipated children'?

Matter of fact- if 'anticipated' future imaginary children were part of the marriage contract- that would actually be a justification for denying birth control to married couples.

But instead- the Supreme Court said that married couples have the absolute right to privacy when it comes to decisions regarding whether or whether not to have children.

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

But of course according to the twisted machinations of Silhouette- the "Infancy Doctrine" and her 'implied contract' would compel couples to have those 'anticipated children'

 

[Silhouette]

If same-sex intimacy kink has the right to marry d\

No 'kink' has a right to marry- Americans do....Americans of the same or different race....Americans of the same or different gender.
Americans regardless of their sexual orientation....Marriage doesn't care about your kinks.

So you and I both agree, polygamist-Americans also have the right to marry because their sexual orientation simply is to more than one consenting adult. Yes? Your objections to that deduction?

 

[KissMy]

the fed govt shouldnt be in marriage, period. It isnt their place.

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

Why are single women with children getting more support than married?

 

[radical right]

So you and I both agree, polygamist-Americans also have the right to marry because their sexual orientation simply is to more than one consenting adult. Yes? Your objections to that deduction?

Polygamy isn't legal because it would violate thousands of years of common law. The point of marriage is to set up a legal framework under which they can determine how property passes to the children.

 

[Skylar]

If same-sex intimacy kink has the right to marry d\

No 'kink' has a right to marry- Americans do....Americans of the same or different race....Americans of the same or different gender.
Americans regardless of their sexual orientation....Marriage doesn't care about your kinks.

So you and I both agree, polygamist-Americans also have the right to marry because their sexual orientation simply is to more than one consenting adult. Yes? Your objections to that deduction?

If you believe that polygamy should be legal, make your argument.

The courts have recognized same sex marriage as legal. And I can show you the legal basis.

 

[Syriusly]

If same-sex intimacy kink has the right to marry d\

No 'kink' has a right to marry- Americans do....Americans of the same or different race....Americans of the same or different gender.
Americans regardless of their sexual orientation....Marriage doesn't care about your kinks.

So you and I both agree, polygamist-Americans also have the right to marry because their sexual orientation simply is to more than one consenting adult. Yes? Your objections to that deduction?

So you are saying that you like to kick puppies. Yes?

No- I do not agree with your lies.

Marriage is not about kinks.

Same gender marriage is now legal in all 50 states.
Polygamous marriage is still illegal in all 50 states.

If you- or anyone else- believes that your constitutional rights are being violated by the laws against polygamous marriage- then you have the right to go to court to fight for your 'right' to marry your sister wives.

 

[Silhouette]

If you- or anyone else- believes that your constitutional rights are being violated by the laws against polygamous marriage- then you have the right to go to court to fight for your 'right' to marry your sister wives.

Why exactly did you put the words "right" in quotations with respect to polyamory-Americans marrying. Is their sexual orientation "icky" to you?

 

[Syriusly]

If you- or anyone else- believes that your constitutional rights are being violated by the laws against polygamous marriage- then you have the right to go to court to fight for your 'right' to marry your sister wives.

Why exactly did you put the words "right" in quotations with respect to polyamory-Americans marrying. Is their sexual orientation "icky" to you?

I put 'right' in quotations because there is no established 'right' to marry your sister wives- but you do have the right(no question marks because it is an established right) to go to court for what you believe are your rights.

What is stopping you?

 

[Silhouette]

If you are oriented sexually to two or more people then all three or more of you can already marry according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

If you are oriented sexually to two or more people then all three or more of you can already marry according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment.

LOL

Please provide that quote from Mr. Obergefell saying that.

LOL

 

[Silhouette]

If you are oriented sexually to two or more people then all three or more of you can already marry according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment.

LOL

Please provide that quote from Mr. Obergefell saying that.

LOL

The quote from Obergefell was provided multiple times where "same sex intimacy" was interwoven with "same sex couples", "homosexuals" and "gays and lesbians". So sexual orientation was what Obergefell was about. Unless you're claiming "homosexuals" and "same sex intimacy" and "gays and lesbians" aren't indicative of sexual orientation?

So sexual orientation got the right to marry. Why would any sexual orientation find exclusion from those same rights and privileges under the 14th?

 

[Skylar]

If you are oriented sexually to two or more people then all three or more of you can already marry according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment.

LOL

Please provide that quote from Mr. Obergefell saying that.

LOL

The quote from Obergefell was provided multiple times where "same sex intimacy" was interwoven with "same sex couples", "homosexuals" and "gays and lesbians". So sexual orientation was what Obergefell was about. Unless you're claiming "homosexuals" and "same sex intimacy" and "gays and lesbians" aren't indicative of sexual orientation?

So sexual orientation got the right to marry. Why would any sexual orientation find exclusion from those same rights and privileges under the 14th?

Yeah, that’s not a quote of the Obergefell ruling saying “If you are oriented sexually to two or more people then all three or more of you can already marry according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment.”

Try again, this time quoting the Obergefell ruling. And not your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll do one better, I'll link the entire opinion and let readers see how many paragraphs the Court intertwined the words "same sex intimacy" "homosexuals" "same sex" and "gays and lesbians" as one legal entity. Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

 

[Skylar]

I'll do one better, I'll link the entire opinion and let readers see how many paragraphs the Court intertwined the words "same sex intimacy" "homosexuals" "same sex" and "gays and lesbians" as one legal entity. Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Laughing....and nowhere in that entire ruling does the Court equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples. The court isn't confused, Sil.

Just you are.

There's a reason your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure: you're not making legal arguments. You're offering us your imagination.

And 3 years in....you're imagination still isn't a legal standard.