Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[thereisnospoon]

Interesting. So now they are after judges also?

CALLS TO IMPEACH OHIO JUDGE WHO DECLINED TO MARRY SAME SEX COUPLE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.

“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”

Calls to Impeach Ohio Judge Who Declined to Marry Same Sex Couple On Religious Grounds - Breitbart

Calls.....Who cares. BTW, this is a member of a PC protected class( the Judge is black) going against another PC protected class.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You seem confused. Its not a judge that has to do anything. Its you that has to prove your case.

Make your case for why you want polygamy. And provide evidence.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Each and every one of Pop's argument have been recycled from the civil rights era. They were all used to condemn black and white people marrying. He's stuck in time.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

 

[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?

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.

You seem confused. Its not a judge that has to do anything. Its you that has to prove your case.

Make your case for why you want polygamy. And provide evidence.

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.

If anyone is confused it is you. Which is odd since that is the same argument used to gain same sex marriage rights.

Odd, you don't understand that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Each and every one of Pop's argument have been recycled from the civil rights era. They were all used to condemn black and white people marrying. He's stuck in time.

While at the same time they decry racism, because it's harder to get away with that now, and they have gays to pick on. Haters have got to hate.

 

[Pop23]

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.

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You seem confused. Its not a judge that has to do anything. Its you that has to prove your case.

Make your case for why you want polygamy. And provide evidence.

No, it is the Governments task to show a compelling states interest in the denial of a RIGHT to an individual.

Make your case that polygamy is a right then. As so far you're just begging the question.

 

[Ravi]

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.

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

there are none that justify taking away their right to marry. None. Zip. Zero. Null.

 

[Skylar]

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.

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

We can never know all the ramifications of anything that happens. You're literally citing impossibility as your standard.

Um, no thank you. You're being unreasonable.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Each and every one of Pop's argument have been recycled from the civil rights era. They were all used to condemn black and white people marrying. He's stuck in time.

It is a bit weird actually, my argument includes even more into the institution, yet you say I'm trying to restrict rights?

How's that work?

I am firmly against incestuous sibling marriage as well as plural marriage, but can't find anyone who can come up with a COMPELLING argument to deny access. And that's key. If you can't, then you must.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

What have the ramifications been in Mass. over the last ten years? How do we find out what the long term ramifications are unless we do it? We do know what the ramifications of discrimination are, now don't we?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

They would be absolutely deserving of 'due process'- they can go to court to argue that their rights are violated.

The courts would likely reject their argument as the State will be able to provide a compelling state interest in preventing incestuous marriages.

 

[Pop23]

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.

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

We can never know all the ramifications of anything that happens. You're literally citing impossibility as your standard.

Um, no thank you. You're being unreasonable.

But I gave you an example of something that could happen hundreds of times a day, you argue against them but can't come up with a single reason to deny the access?

 

[Skylar]

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.

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

We can never know all the ramifications of anything that happens. You're literally citing impossibility as your standard.

Um, no thank you. You're being unreasonable.

But I gave you an example of something that could happen hundreds of times a day, you argue against them but can't come up with a single reason to deny the access?

Yet nothing you've ever predicted has happened once. There's no sibling same sex marriage. There's no polgamy as a consequence of same sex marriage. Despite same sex marriage having been legal in this country for up to 10 years.

How do you reconcile your impossible standard of 'knowing all ramifications' with your perfect record of predictive failure?

 

[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.

They would be absolutely deserving of 'due process'- they can go to court to argue that their rights are violated.

The courts would likely reject their argument as the State will be able to provide a compelling state interest in preventing incestuous marriages.

Under traditional views of incest, which are based on marriage laws being of one man to one women.

That went out the window, remember?

Due process is an individual's right.

The argument remains. Can you deny the right to a group that can't procreate because another group can?

You do know how that argument ended up last time it went to court, Right?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Each and every one of Pop's argument have been recycled from the civil rights era. They were all used to condemn black and white people marrying. He's stuck in time.

It is a bit weird actually, my argument includes even more into the institution, yet you say I'm trying to restrict rights?

How's that work?

I am firmly against incestuous sibling marriage as well as plural marriage, but can't find anyone who can come up with a COMPELLING argument to deny access. And that's key. If you can't, then you must.

Basically, Pop, no one cares. If 44,000,000,000 people decide they want to marry their sibling it has NOTHING THE FUCK whatsoever to do with no longer outlawing SSM.

You totally fucked up a half way decent thread.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Explain how they aren't.

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

These are the States concerns about the law that protects all incestuous marriages.

Just as it doesn't matter that a particular felon may not pose a risk- the law preventing felon's from owning gun still applies because the law applies to all ex-felons.

 

[Pop23]

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.

there really is no argument against same sex marriage except that one might find it disgusting.
I find fish to be a disgusting choice for a meal, however I am not going to try and make it illegal.

Correct, but we might want to know all the ramifications.

We can never know all the ramifications of anything that happens. You're literally citing impossibility as your standard.

Um, no thank you. You're being unreasonable.

But I gave you an example of something that could happen hundreds of times a day, you argue against them but can't come up with a single reason to deny the access?

Yet nothing you've ever predicted has happened once. There's no sibling same sex marriage. There's no polgamy as a consequence of same sex marriage. Despite same sex marriage having been legal in this country for up to 10 years.

How do you reconcile your impossible standard of 'knowing all ramifications' with your perfect record of predictive failure?

.......and twenty years ago the same argument was made about gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

They would be absolutely deserving of 'due process'- they can go to court to argue that their rights are violated.

The courts would likely reject their argument as the State will be able to provide a compelling state interest in preventing incestuous marriages.

Under traditional views of incest, which are based on marriage laws being of one man to one women.

That went out the window, remember?

That is what you keep saying- despite the absolute dearth of anything to support that claim.