Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Pop23]

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

Love your assumption.

So to test your assumption, what other reason would meet the compelling state interest test?

 

[Syriusly]

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

I found this while researching the question. Appears this attorney(?) actually thinks that the lifting of same sex marriage law actually has made sibling marriage legal in 5 states.

Here's the link

Full Marriage Equality From a Lawyer

Yeah- that lawyer filed that brief with the 9th Circuit of Appeals- which ignored it.

Apparently the 9th Circuit of Appeals was not impressed by his legal acumen- why should I be?

Are you a member of the bar?

I drink at a bar- does that count?

 

[Syriusly]

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

Love your assumption.

So to test your assumption, what other reason would meet the compelling state interest test?

I do have an answer to that- since I have actually read some of the legal cases- but I will ask once again-

Can you not think of any compelling state interest other than procreation- to keep siblings from marrying?

Let me try another- can you not think of any compelling state interest- other than procreation- to keep a father from marrying his daughter?

 

[Pop23]

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

Now, INCLUSSION of same sex makes the requirement unworkable. Same sex cousins would have fewer restrictions than straight, so you now have the conflict with equal protection, next step, same sex sibling

No- again- you keep saying that but it doesn't make it so.

Same sex cousins and opposite sex cousins - the same law applies.

Massachusetts courts ruled that same gender couples could get married 11 years ago- still no sibling marriages- because your argument has no legs.

Please tell me why a same sex couple would be compelled to prove sterility?

Tell you why a same sex couple would have to follow the law?

What part about the law can't you understand?

You do understand that the State can't compell their citizens to prove what's not possible, right? Undue burdens and all that.

How'd that work with poll taxes

 

[Pop23]

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

Love your assumption.

So to test your assumption, what other reason would meet the compelling state interest test?

I do have an answer to that- since I have actually read some of the legal cases- but I will ask once again-

Can you not think of any compelling state interest other than procreation- to keep siblings from marrying?

Let me try another- can you not think of any compelling state interest- other than procreation- to keep a father from marrying his daughter?

it is the compelling state interest.

 

[Pop23]

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

I found this while researching the question. Appears this attorney(?) actually thinks that the lifting of same sex marriage law actually has made sibling marriage legal in 5 states.

Here's the link

Full Marriage Equality From a Lawyer

Yeah- that lawyer filed that brief with the 9th Circuit of Appeals- which ignored it.

Apparently the 9th Circuit of Appeals was not impressed by his legal acumen- why should I be?

Are you a member of the bar?

I drink at a bar- does that count?

Ok, are you an attorney? You asked about the acumen of one, would be fair to ask if you have actual knowledge or simply an Internet badass wanna be.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

Love your assumption.

So to test your assumption, what other reason would meet the compelling state interest test?

I do have an answer to that- since I have actually read some of the legal cases- but I will ask once again-

Can you not think of any compelling state interest other than procreation- to keep siblings from marrying?

Let me try another- can you not think of any compelling state interest- other than procreation- to keep a father from marrying his daughter?

it is the compelling state interest.

From the decision overturning Wisconsin's same gender marriage ban

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


This is the opinion of a judge- not just a lawyer- a just whose decision was upheld by the Appeals Court

 

[Syriusly]

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

I found this while researching the question. Appears this attorney(?) actually thinks that the lifting of same sex marriage law actually has made sibling marriage legal in 5 states.

Here's the link

Full Marriage Equality From a Lawyer

Yeah- that lawyer filed that brief with the 9th Circuit of Appeals- which ignored it.

Apparently the 9th Circuit of Appeals was not impressed by his legal acumen- why should I be?

Are you a member of the bar?

I drink at a bar- does that count?

Ok, are you an attorney? You asked about the acumen of one, would be fair to ask if you have actual knowledge or simply an Internet badass wanna be.

What I said- and will say again:

Apparently the 9th Circuit of Appeals was not impressed by his legal acumen- why should I be?

When I can read the opinion of Judge Crabb.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

 

[Pop23]

i have no knowledge as to why Wisconsin allowed cousin, but not sibling except they might have had a compelling state interest in it. I simply do not know.

And the compelling State interest in that case would not be procreation then.

IF the compelling argument to deny marriage to siblings was only procreation- then Wisconsin would have allowed siblings to marry- IF they were sterile just as First Cousins can marry.

Therefore- while procreation is one of the compelling arguments- it is not the only compelling arguments.

Love your assumption.

So to test your assumption, what other reason would meet the compelling state interest test?

I do have an answer to that- since I have actually read some of the legal cases- but I will ask once again-

Can you not think of any compelling state interest other than procreation- to keep siblings from marrying?

Let me try another- can you not think of any compelling state interest- other than procreation- to keep a father from marrying his daughter?

it is the compelling state interest.

From the decision overturning Wisconsin's same gender marriage ban

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


This is the opinion of a judge- not just a lawyer- a just whose decision was upheld by the Appeals Court

They rely on tradional plural marriage as well as traditional incestuous relations.

I've never argued that father/daughter, mother / son relations could become legal.

Provide a link about abusive brother/brother, sister/sister sexual incest that is abusive. Public safety concerns revolve around strait sibling only.

Would be helpful if those links include straight and gay same sex couples.

Provide a link proving the same about same sex plural marriage.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Pop23]

God you are loony, eliminating procreation from those who could not marry does nothing. Now, how do you stop them from marrying now?

Before you could ban them, now you can't.

And, how many times have I posted that the cousins had to be sterile? Dozens of time maybe?

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

All states recognized the cousin marriage issued in Wisconsin and ALL COUSINS THAT MARRIED WERE UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

No- not all states do. Strike 2
Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

3 states do not recognize first cousin marriage no matter where they were married.

You realize the 14th amendment ruling applies equally to all Marriage Licenses, Right?

 

[MaryL]

2% of Americans are homosexual. We devote a huge amount of attention to this subject, Gays devote a huge amount money ( Lawyers aren't cheap, bring up laws suits aren't free, buying promotional outfits cost big $), given homosexuals have all the same rights as anyone else, and a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of actual presence in American culture, WHY are we wasting our time on this? It isn't a lie, homosexuals already had the same rights as anyone, period. They just couldn't marry a horse and two couches, their sister or someone of the same sex, no matter how much they "Loved" it or them. Same rights. No law against love.

 

[Pop23]

Just a start. Polygamy case thrown out

Sister Wives case Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

 

[danielpalos]

Polygamy can solve the problem of there not being enough nice guys to go around, for women.

Do you find Warren Jeff's to be a nice guy?

Only when all of the best ones are married.

 

[ninja007]

The judge doesn't seem to know much about the Supremacy Clause.

This whole phony christian crap is such a slimy, weasel excuse for being against the Constitution and against the teachings of the bible. Jesus is rolling over in his grave at his sleazy and hypocritical followers.

I suspect a lot of true Americans are getting ordained, right and left. Its not like its hard.

Jesus isn;t rolling over in a grave you fucking retard. He is alive and well seated in Heaven at the right hand of the Father waiting for His word to rapture true Believers and at least 7 years later the tribulation starts; 7 years of utter wrath from God Himself on His enemies, the enemies of Israel and unbelievers. Try reading the Bible.

 

[Skylar]

Simple question:
Sibling marriage of sterile siblings- you either:
a) Think there is no reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry or
b) Think there is a reason to prevent sterile siblings to marry

A or B?

B.

I'll wait for your stupid response before my explanation.

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Lol, idiot.

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good

Says you. Yet same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country for the last 10 years. Yet sibling marriage still isn't.

How do you explain this stark disconnect between what you insist must happen.....and the complete and utter lack of anything you predicted actually happening?

 

[Skylar]

I am all out of stupid responses- I look forward to your explanation.

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good
!

So that is the reason why you oppose sibling marriage?

No wonder you are convinced that sibling marriage is inevitable- when your only argument is that sibling marriage is 'Not good'.

Yeah that won't work for the states.

There is no such thing as "Sibling Marriage" as Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. Two beings that join into ONE BEING. Siblings are the consequence of ONE BEING... thus they represent that singular being.

Marriage includes one man and one man or one woman and one woman. In every state in the US. Including yours, Keyes.

See how that works?

 

[NoNukes]

My husband informs me that laws vary from state to state but a judge is not required by law to marry anyone. A state authorizes who can perform weddings but does not require anyone to do it. He said this judge should opt out of all weddings until the Ohio Courts determine proper procedure

That would be reasonable.

My husband informs me that laws vary from state to state but a judge is not required by law to marry anyone. A state authorizes who can perform weddings but does not require anyone to do it. He said this judge should opt out of all weddings until the Ohio Courts determine proper procedure

That would be reasonable.

Yeah, my hubby gets one right every once in a while

So you are quoting a man who is usually wrong?

 

[Skylar]

2% of Americans are homosexual. We devote a huge amount of attention to this subject, Gays devote a huge amount money ( Lawyers aren't cheap, bring up laws suits aren't free, buying promotional outfits cost big $), given homosexuals have all the same rights as anyone else, and a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of actual presence in American culture, WHY are we wasting our time on this? It isn't a lie, homosexuals already had the same rights as anyone, period. They just couldn't marry a horse and two couches, their sister or someone of the same sex, no matter how much they "Loved" it or them. Same rights. No law against love.

I've often asked myself why conservatives have invested so much effort in opposing same sex marriage. As it generally doesn't effect them and involves so few people. Why would they give a shit?

I can understand why gays would care: its their rights. But why would conservatives be emotionally invested in blocking those rights? It seems so....pointless.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

2% of Americans are homosexual. We devote a huge amount of attention to this subject, Gays devote a huge amount money ( Lawyers aren't cheap, bring up laws suits aren't free, buying promotional outfits cost big $), given homosexuals have all the same rights as anyone else, and a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of actual presence in American culture, WHY are we wasting our time on this? It isn't a lie, homosexuals already had the same rights as anyone, period. They just couldn't marry a horse and two couches, their sister or someone of the same sex, no matter how much they "Loved" it or them. Same rights. No law against love.

100 percent of Americans are entitled to their comprehensive civil rights.

When Americans are denied their rights, that's an important issue, and appropriately so, because that concerns the rights of all Americans.

The recognition of gay Americans' right to due process and equal protection of the law was a victory for all Americans, it reaffirmed the protected liberties of the people, and placed vital restrictions on government and its authority to limit the rights of the people.

 

[Skylar]

As you have said- your opposition to sibling marriage is for procreation.

Except you are also opposed to sibling marriage if they cannot procreate.

Meaning you must have some other reason to be against sibling marriage other than procreation.

Dood, wrap this around your head, if one is legalized, you can't prohibit the other. Fertility does not matter

I need zero other reason.

Sure can- first cousins can marry in Wisconsin- as long as they can't procreate.

And they prohibit first cousins who are not able to procreate from marrying.

The same could apply to siblings- but States- all States prohibit all Siblings from marrying- fertile or not?

Why?

All states recognized the cousin marriage issued in Wisconsin and ALL COUSINS THAT MARRIED WERE UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

No- not all states do. Strike 2
Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

3 states do not recognize first cousin marriage no matter where they were married.

You realize the 14th amendment ruling applies equally to all Marriage Licenses, Right?

You realize that the '14th amendment ruling' never so much as mentions incest or polygamy. Let alone indicated that the ruling applied to either.

Right?