Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[ChrisL]

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.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

 

[Syriusly]

Pop continues to dance with his straw man.

Pop is still upset that a gay couple can now legally marry- so he proclaims that means that now mothers can marry their sons and John can marry Joan and Jean.

And he wants us to prove him wrong.

The fact is that incestuous marriage is still illegal- and has stayed illegal- even after mixed race marriage bans were overturned and even after same gender marriage bans were overturned.

The fact is that Pop has not been able to articulate a consistent argument WHY he thinks that incestuous marriage should be illegal. Not the legal argument- he has not been able to explain why he is actually opposed to incestuous marriage once you take the chance of having children out of the equation. He seems to oppose marriage between a father and his daughter- even if the daughter is sterile- but can't seem to explain why.

But its not because Pop doesn't know the answer.

It is because the answer burns up Pop's straw men.

Yes there will be lawsuits trying to legalize incestuous marriage- and lawsuits trying to legalize polygamous marriage- they are inevitable because people have the right to go to court.

But the lawsuits will go nowhere. Just as they have not gone anywhere in Massachusetts for the last 11 years.

Just Pop dragging out his straw men and waving them around and hoping to scare off the crows.

 

[ChrisL]

Even if such unions were legalized, I imagine that people are not going to be flocking to get married to their siblings, or to be in polygamous relationships. Those who do want such relationships are probably already doing so. No, I highly doubt the government will ever recognize incestuous relationships. Polygamous ones, perhaps. I do not feel any "fear" about such unions becoming recognized though. Disgust? Maybe. Fear? No. I'm not that worried about the sky falling because gay people are now allowed to have their unions recognized by the government as a legitimate marriage. It has no effect at all on my relationships or my life. I am the one who puts the "value" on my relationships, not the government or anyone else.

 

[ChrisL]

Pop continues to dance with his straw man.

Pop is still upset that a gay couple can now legally marry- so he proclaims that means that now mothers can marry their sons and John can marry Joan and Jean.

And he wants us to prove him wrong.

The fact is that incestuous marriage is still illegal- and has stayed illegal- even after mixed race marriage bans were overturned and even after same gender marriage bans were overturned.

The fact is that Pop has not been able to articulate a consistent argument WHY he thinks that incestuous marriage should be illegal. Not the legal argument- he has not been able to explain why he is actually opposed to incestuous marriage once you take the chance of having children out of the equation. He seems to oppose marriage between a father and his daughter- even if the daughter is sterile- but can't seem to explain why.

But its not because Pop doesn't know the answer.

It is because the answer burns up Pop's straw men.

Yes there will be lawsuits trying to legalize incestuous marriage- and lawsuits trying to legalize polygamous marriage- they are inevitable because people have the right to go to court.

But the lawsuits will go nowhere. Just as they have not gone anywhere in Massachusetts for the last 11 years.

Just Pop dragging out his straw men and waving them around and hoping to scare off the crows.

Anyone who is so insecure that he feels that other people's marriages and relationships define HIS, has his own problems and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Mary- you were the one who has lied before by saying homosexuals have always had the same rights.

Gay couples who wanted to get married paid lawyers to demand equal rights- you don't like that tough.

Homosexuals did not have equal marriage rights and now they do.

If you don't want to devote so much time on the issue- then don't. No one is forcing you to get involved in anyway.

 

[Lilah]

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.

I don't understand your statement, but if you think a pervert who raped little girls (sometimes in front of their mothers) is a nice guy, you're a sicko.

 

[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?

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

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

What part about the law can't you understand?

Apparently all of it.

You just pull the law out of your posterior.

 

[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.

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.

Judge Crabb covered it all- and she is an actual job- not some lawyer filing a losing argument with the Appellate Court

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.

You wanted a reason- there it is.

 

[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?

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 3 states do not recognize first cousin marriage right?

You do realize that one of the questions that the Supreme Court was dealing with was whether states had any obligation under the 14th Amendment to recognize same gender marriages performed in other states even if they remained illegal in their own state?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

I have wondered why some are so against it too. Im as far right as you can get politically speaking, but I dont think gays getting married is going to cause me any hardship, I dont see where it is going to cost more in insurance, or tax revenue so I dont understand the subsidizing them argument. I just dont get it. And, those that are gay that I do know, are not bad people, so if getting married makes them happy, Im happy for them.
Lets see if I can put some peoples fears to rest. I voted yes for gay marriage when it came up in Maryland a few years back. So far that vote has not forced me to blow some dude, or have my one way street violated, I have not woke up next to a naked guy and to date have not been forced to share the shower with one.
Its ok if they marry, you only have to become gay if you want to.

that being said, I still dont think marriage is a right, and I do think that people have a right to not take part in gay marriage if it is honestly against their religious or moral belief, just like I would support a gay judge that would only issue a license to gay couples.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Please forward how, the example I posted would fit into the studies that are available.

Are you saying that this single mother and her sister are any less deserving of due process than a couple of lesbian women?

I am actually shocked that you would deny the child the dignity that is afforded the children of gay same sex parents.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Judge Crabb covered it all- and she is an actual job- not some lawyer filing a losing argument with the Appellate Court

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.

You wanted a reason- there it is.

Using the example I posted earlier of the single mom wishing to marry her sister, explain how it fits into ANY of the judges conclusions on incestuous marriage?

What is the possible harm caused?

Or is it simply icky that they won't be having lesbian sex?

 

[Pop23]

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

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

What part about the law can't you understand?

Apparently all of it.

You just pull the law out of your posterior.

You do realize slavery once was illegal, right?

You do realize same sex marriage was illegal once also, right?

What makes you think that the path to the couple I posted about wouldn't be much easier since their arguments would have to carry equal weight in the courts?

That is what due process and equal protection is all about.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Judge Crabb covered it all- and she is an actual job- not some lawyer filing a losing argument with the Appellate Court

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.

You wanted a reason- there it is.

Using the example I posted earlier of the single mom wishing to marry her sister, explain how it fits into ANY of the judges conclusions on incestuous marriage?

What is the possible harm caused?

Or is it simply icky that they won't be having lesbian sex?

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.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

You realize that Males are polygamous by nature. Marriage was a way to bring order into a chaotic situation. It worked. A wealthy male could not dominate the female population and the poor and less fortunate had an equal opportunity at mates.

That's not good

However, in the case of plural gay mating, I'm not seeing that same issue? Do you have any studies that would indicate the same problems?

Incest creates corrupt bloodlines. It may not effect me personally, but it sure could effect my children's children when they marry someone with a corrupt bloodline, however, using my example of a single mother seeking to create a stabile home for her child by marrying her sister, can you find a single problem? I can't.

And why would they be denied due process when there could be no compelling state reason to deny her this constitutionally protected right

Actually, with hundreds of millions of single heterosexuals, I can see this being a great financial boon for them, far greater than the few gay couples in comparison.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Please forward how, the example I posted would fit into the studies that are available.

Are you saying that this single mother and her sister are any less deserving of due process than a couple of lesbian women?

I am actually shocked that you would deny the child the dignity that is afforded the children of gay same sex parents.

You are deliberately going out of your way to be a pain in the ass and derail this thread. NOBODY is arguing for or against ANYTHING else other than the right of same sex unrelated couples to get married under the same conditions that heterosexuals can. I'm not getting bogged down in this stupid horseshit.

 

[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?

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

The JUDGE IS WRONG in regards to the couple I posted about. Unless you post ANY studies that provide the judges concern are valid in my example, he was simply either naive or covering his ass.

Go ahead, post the studies.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Please forward how, the example I posted would fit into the studies that are available.

Are you saying that this single mother and her sister are any less deserving of due process than a couple of lesbian women?

I am actually shocked that you would deny the child the dignity that is afforded the children of gay same sex parents.

You are deliberately going out of your way to be a pain in the ass and derail this thread. NOBODY is arguing for or against ANYTHING else other than the right of same sex unrelated couples to get married under the same conditions that heterosexuals can. I'm not getting bogged down in this stupid horseshit.

Lol, you can't find an argument that works, so bail!

Yep, looks as though the attorneys opinion that I linked too earlier was correct.

But we knew that from the start, didn't we

 

[Pop23]

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.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Please forward how, the example I posted would fit into the studies that are available.

Are you saying that this single mother and her sister are any less deserving of due process than a couple of lesbian women?

I am actually shocked that you would deny the child the dignity that is afforded the children of gay same sex parents.

You are deliberately going out of your way to be a pain in the ass and derail this thread. NOBODY is arguing for or against ANYTHING else other than the right of same sex unrelated couples to get married under the same conditions that heterosexuals can. I'm not getting bogged down in this stupid horseshit.

Lol, you can't find an argument that works, so bail!

Yep, looks as though the attorneys opinion that I linked too earlier was correct.

But we knew that from the start, didn't we

Oh, I'm only answering when asked, but thanks for the concern.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Please forward how, the example I posted would fit into the studies that are available.

Are you saying that this single mother and her sister are any less deserving of due process than a couple of lesbian women?

I am actually shocked that you would deny the child the dignity that is afforded the children of gay same sex parents.

You are deliberately going out of your way to be a pain in the ass and derail this thread. NOBODY is arguing for or against ANYTHING else other than the right of same sex unrelated couples to get married under the same conditions that heterosexuals can. I'm not getting bogged down in this stupid horseshit.

Lol, you can't find an argument that works, so bail!

Yep, looks as though the attorneys opinion that I linked too earlier was correct.

But we knew that from the start, didn't we

This thread is about same sex marriage and religious objections to it. Take a hike and start your own thread about polygamy and incest if you think that it is so important. My guess is that you do not, and you won't. You're just using it as a red herring because you have no argument against same sex marriage that is viable.