Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[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.

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.

It is pointless.

But it can be understood when one considers the fact that most conservatives are fearful reactionaries, frightened of change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty, perceived to be some sort of a 'threat.'

Among the many unwarranted fears of conservatives is the notion that 'traditional institutions' are being 'attacked,' and once 'lost' America will be 'lost' – or some such rot.

For many on the right – the social right in particular – their incorrect perception of marriage contract law being solely between a man and a woman was an example of a 'traditional institution' subject to 'attack.'

Consequently, for most conservatives, in order to 'save' America, it was vital that so much effort be invested in opposing same-sex couples accessing marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

How very 'Christian' of you.

The bible is a collection of myths and fables written by men, devoid of proof, merit, or secular authority – your post demonstrates that.

It also illustrates why the bible and religion in general are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and thankfully so.

 

[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?

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?

And the Loving ruling never mentioned same sex.

Get it?

Your side claims if it happens it is that ruling that opened the door, how's that work then?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

And the Loving ruling never mentioned same sex.

Get it?

Your side claims if it happens it is that ruling that opened the door, how's that work then?

The point of citing Loving is that it, like a number of other cases having to do with marriage, established that states do not have the absolute right and authority to define and regulate marriage. That authority must be exercised in the context of the constitutional principles of due process and equal protection under the law. Get it?

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

How very 'Christian' of you.

The bible is a collection of myths and fables written by men, devoid of proof, merit, or secular authority – your post demonstrates that.

It also illustrates why the bible and religion in general are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and thankfully so.

You're a traitor. BTW-

In God We Trust
One Nation Under God
God Bless America
So help me God

-Geaux

 

[Pop23]

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?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

What's this we shit bitch? Why are you devoting a huge amount of your attention to this subject?

 

[Skylar]

And the Loving ruling never mentioned same sex.

Get it?

Yet the Obergefell and Windsor ruling do mention Loving. Now, your turn: show us any mention of Obergefell, Windsor or Loving in the USSC's ruling on poly marriage or the marriage of same sex siblings.

Surely you've got that ruling right in front of you, right?

Your side claims if it happens it is that ruling that opened the door, how's that work then?

Wait, now its 'if' that ruling opens that door? That's not what you were saying before. You just switched from the present tense to conditional.

Which is exactly my point. You're literally offering us your imagination as evidence, lamenting about rulings that don't exist. Back in reality, same sex marriage has been legal in this country somewhere for the last 10 years. And yet nothing you've predicted has happened.

How do you account for this stark disconnect between what you insist must happen....and the fact that nothing you've predicted ever has?

And if you're just going to ignore your essentially perfect record of predictive failure, surely you can understand if we ignore your predictions.

 

[Skylar]

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

You realize that you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about and are offering us your imagination as evidence, right?

That nothing you've predicted has ever happened, despite the legality of same sex marriage for up to last 10 years. There's a word to describe your record of failure in predicting legal outcomes:

Perfect.

But this time its different, huh? What, are you imagining extra hard now?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

Oh Christ! This is really stupid. If this were to happen the state would simply say "no" State law (still) prohibits siblings -same or opposite sex - from marrying. The siblings could then brink it to court the same way that gay couples did. The state would than have to present-at minimum- a rational basis for maintaining that law, and they probably could ( Unlike with gay marriage) Got it?

 

[Pop23]

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

You realize that you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about and are offering us your imagination as evidence, right?

That nothing you've predicted has ever happened, despite the legality of same sex marriage for up to last 10 years. There's a word to describe your record of failure in predicting legal outcomes:

Perfect.

But this time its different, huh? What, are you imagining extra hard now?

Yeah, you might be right, it could never happen that a post or news article could send a State Government into a tizzy trying to figure out a problem with there current laws.......,,.

Opps, appears it has:
Teen dad s marriage plan spurs N.J. incest ban effort

 

[Pop23]

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?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

Oh Christ! This is really stupid. If this were to happen the state would simply say "no" State law (still) prohibits siblings -same or opposite sex - from marrying. The siblings could then brink it to court the same way that gay couples did. The state would than have to present-at minimum- a rational basis for maintaining that law, and they probably could ( Unlike with gay marriage) Got it?

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

 

[ChrisL]

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?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

For one thing, they would have to have support. A lot of people actually DO support SSM, a lot of straight people too, like myself and others who are posting here. This same level of support doesn't exist for polygamous and incestuous relationships.

Why don't you just admit that you have created this strawman to be opposed to SSM without admitting that you don't like the gays?

 

[Skylar]

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

You realize that you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about and are offering us your imagination as evidence, right?

That nothing you've predicted has ever happened, despite the legality of same sex marriage for up to last 10 years. There's a word to describe your record of failure in predicting legal outcomes:

Perfect.

But this time its different, huh? What, are you imagining extra hard now?

Yeah, you might be right, it could never happen that a post or news article could send a State Government into a tizzy trying to figure out a problem with there current laws.......,,.

So much of a tizzy that no one has heard of this article. And even fewer care. With a whopping 33 tweets in the last 6 months. Why that's a whole 5 tweets a month!

Sounds like a 'tizzy' to me.

So with same sex marriage having been legal in this country for up to the last 10 years, where are the sibling same sex marriages and poly marriages?

And please, just give us a summary. Given the sheer volume, I wouldn't expect you post them all.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Why indeed are we spending all of this time and money.? Because in the United States of Americia, minorities, no matter how small have rights and matter. And, because the right wing nuts won't back off and let it happen. And, it will continue as long as they persist with these horseshit new Jim Crow laws and efforts to block marriage equality even in the face of a lawful order of the court

And your right, gays do indeed have all of the same rights as everyone one else-at least as far as marriage goes-since June 26. Other area still need work like employment and housing. Anymore questions?

 

[Pop23]

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?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

For one thing, they would have to have support. A lot of people actually DO support SSM, a lot of straight people too, like myself and others who are posting here. This same level of support doesn't exist for polygamous and incestuous relationships.

Why don't you just admit that you have created this strawman to be opposed to SSM without admitting that you don't like the gays?

Rights do not rely on a supportive public. They simply either exist, or the state must have a compelling interest in denial of the right?

I wonder if a religious organization might be interested in supporting such a couple if they are continually attacked?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

Oh Christ! This is really stupid. If this were to happen the state would simply say "no" State law (still) prohibits siblings -same or opposite sex - from marrying. The siblings could then brink it to court the same way that gay couples did. The state would than have to present-at minimum- a rational basis for maintaining that law, and they probably could ( Unlike with gay marriage) Got it?

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

 

[Pop23]

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.

Why indeed are we spending all of this time and money.? Because in the United States of Americia, minorities, no matter how small have rights and matter. And, because the right wing nuts won't back off and let it happen. And, it will continue as long as they persist with these horseshit new Jim Crow laws and efforts to block marriage equality even in the face of a lawful order of the court

And your right, gays do indeed have all of the same rights as everyone one else-at least as far as marriage goes-since June 26. Other area still need work like employment and housing. Anymore questions?

The couple I described are indeed a minority. You blow their claim off without reasonable objection. Interesting.

 

[Pop23]

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?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

Oh Christ! This is really stupid. If this were to happen the state would simply say "no" State law (still) prohibits siblings -same or opposite sex - from marrying. The siblings could then brink it to court the same way that gay couples did. The state would than have to present-at minimum- a rational basis for maintaining that law, and they probably could ( Unlike with gay marriage) Got it?

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

For one thing, they would have to have support. A lot of people actually DO support SSM, a lot of straight people too, like myself and others who are posting here. This same level of support doesn't exist for polygamous and incestuous relationships.

Why don't you just admit that you have created this strawman to be opposed to SSM without admitting that you don't like the gays?

Rights do not rely on a supportive public. They simply either exist, or the state must have a compelling interest in denial of the right?

I wonder if a religious organization might be interested in supporting such a couple if they are continually attacked?

Obviously, you can't even be honest with your own self, never mind anyone else! The point being, most people don't see the fear and angst you feel about two gay people being married, and at least others that do have a problem with it can admit that instead of being intellectually dishonest and building strawmen.