Just 5 days later: Man Applies for Marriage License to Have Two Wives

[Pop23]

Arbitrary is key to this. To deny same sex siblings, without procreation used in denial of hetro siblings would be just that now. Prior it had merit, now none.

Same sex gay couples do not have the ability to procreate, so what legal reasoning is there to deny a license.

Same sex heterosexual couples , the same.

How then do you not extend the same "dignity" to any and all combinations without discrimination?

A legal paradox.

I refer you to post #296, and also the states can still put limitations on marriage certificates. They just cannot discriminate between same sex and opposite sex. I hope you are beginning to finally understand how wrong you are.

Yes, your point? All now is needed is one successfull suit.

You can't use the 14th amendment in one case and turn from it in the next.

Lawsuits will be filed, one is in works as we speak where the claim will be.

1 loves 2

2 loves 3

3 loves 1

All individuals loving other individuals, what reasonable legal reason do you have to deny 3 to enter a contract when there are no other contracts that limit the participants to 2.

What you do not understand is, that you, nor the state have a compelling state interest in denying this right to happiness or dignity.

Creating arbitrary rules will not stand unless you find that state interest.

States tried, didn't work.

It's a very weak argument.

It's not a weak argument at all. We can still oppose close family member marriages. There is no reason why we cannot, especially since such relationships are usually the result of child abuse.

Then argue that, you're not.

Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits.

Heterosexual couples marry for money all the time. Hello? Anyone home in there?

Not siblings. Hello, anyone home in there?

 

[ChrisL]

I refer you to post #296, and also the states can still put limitations on marriage certificates. They just cannot discriminate between same sex and opposite sex. I hope you are beginning to finally understand how wrong you are.

Yes, your point? All now is needed is one successfull suit.

You can't use the 14th amendment in one case and turn from it in the next.

Lawsuits will be filed, one is in works as we speak where the claim will be.

1 loves 2

2 loves 3

3 loves 1

All individuals loving other individuals, what reasonable legal reason do you have to deny 3 to enter a contract when there are no other contracts that limit the participants to 2.

What you do not understand is, that you, nor the state have a compelling state interest in denying this right to happiness or dignity.

Creating arbitrary rules will not stand unless you find that state interest.

States tried, didn't work.

It's a very weak argument.

It's not a weak argument at all. We can still oppose close family member marriages. There is no reason why we cannot, especially since such relationships are usually the result of child abuse.

Then argue that, you're not.

Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits.

Heterosexual couples marry for money all the time. Hello? Anyone home in there?

Not siblings. Hello, anyone home in there?

You didn't say that You said two heterosexual males. Here is your quote.


"Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits."

 

[Pop23]

"Accepting same sex marriage does not entail accepting every form of marriage anymore than accepting different sex marriage requires accepting every form of marriage. It is possible to stop the slippery slope in a principled way. To use an analogy, just because women got the vote in 1920 (in the US) it does not follow that the right to vote must then be extended to babies, goats, or squirrels.

How does that make any sense? That's the worse argument I've seen on the matter. If two men can marry why can't three men? Can you answer that simple question? Tradition? I don't get it.

So, for example, we can forbid incestuous marriage by accepting the principle that closely related people should not marry. This would apply to same and different sex couples, so would seem to be a consistent application.

Forbidding incest for consenting adults can only be moral or biological reasons. There is no biological reason to forbid two brothers from having sex. Or brother and sister than have been fixed.

However, people can propose expansions to marriage and each would need to be argued on its own merit.

Also, arguments in favor of a type of marriage can be applied to expanding it in other ways. For example, if someone argues for same-sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could be used to justify incestuous marriage. But, of course, if someone argues for different sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could also be used to justify incestuous marriage. If someone argues that marriage is between a male and a female, then that could be used to argue for child marriages, compelled marriages, and also incestuous marriages-all it would require is that the people involved are a male and a female."

That was a muddied mess. The fact he is oblivious to is that marriage has been in existence since recorded history. So for 7 thousand years, at least, men have only been marrying women and sometimes more than one. That transcended all cultures, religious or not.

Contrary to the post modern activists' beliefs, there was a reason for it. It was not a accident that somehow repeated itself. That reason is outside the grasp of many today, or simply ignored, lied about or minimized. Like the birds and bees and deer and buffalo, forming male/female unions is how mammals exist. Marriage has been the time honored acknowledgment to honor that special relationship.

Saying it's no difference if a man is with a man, or woman with a woman because the unusual heterosexual couple didn't manage to procreate is the argument without merit. an infertile couple doesn't change the dynamics of the male/female union. Homosexuality is a bastardization of a relationship. A cheap imitation. If we are going to participate in the LIE that gender makes no difference then we by God have NO right to deny anybody a marriage, period, or we are hypocrites.

I'm all for the government not recognizing any marriages at all. No bennies, no nothing. You make whatever contract you want with whoever or how many you want, it's shouldn't be the government's business. And maybe never should have been.

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

I'm not religious at all so it would be hard to use that as a reason. I'm talking about adult siblings, same or opposite sex. Why deny them? I detailed above what my reasons were, how did that escape your attention?

Because they are related and because, like I've told you and given you links to about 10 times now, incestuous relationships are most often built on a basis of grooming and child abuse.

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

 

[ChrisL]

"Accepting same sex marriage does not entail accepting every form of marriage anymore than accepting different sex marriage requires accepting every form of marriage. It is possible to stop the slippery slope in a principled way. To use an analogy, just because women got the vote in 1920 (in the US) it does not follow that the right to vote must then be extended to babies, goats, or squirrels.

How does that make any sense? That's the worse argument I've seen on the matter. If two men can marry why can't three men? Can you answer that simple question? Tradition? I don't get it.

So, for example, we can forbid incestuous marriage by accepting the principle that closely related people should not marry. This would apply to same and different sex couples, so would seem to be a consistent application.

Forbidding incest for consenting adults can only be moral or biological reasons. There is no biological reason to forbid two brothers from having sex. Or brother and sister than have been fixed.

However, people can propose expansions to marriage and each would need to be argued on its own merit.

Also, arguments in favor of a type of marriage can be applied to expanding it in other ways. For example, if someone argues for same-sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could be used to justify incestuous marriage. But, of course, if someone argues for different sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could also be used to justify incestuous marriage. If someone argues that marriage is between a male and a female, then that could be used to argue for child marriages, compelled marriages, and also incestuous marriages-all it would require is that the people involved are a male and a female."

That was a muddied mess. The fact he is oblivious to is that marriage has been in existence since recorded history. So for 7 thousand years, at least, men have only been marrying women and sometimes more than one. That transcended all cultures, religious or not.

Contrary to the post modern activists' beliefs, there was a reason for it. It was not a accident that somehow repeated itself. That reason is outside the grasp of many today, or simply ignored, lied about or minimized. Like the birds and bees and deer and buffalo, forming male/female unions is how mammals exist. Marriage has been the time honored acknowledgment to honor that special relationship.

Saying it's no difference if a man is with a man, or woman with a woman because the unusual heterosexual couple didn't manage to procreate is the argument without merit. an infertile couple doesn't change the dynamics of the male/female union. Homosexuality is a bastardization of a relationship. A cheap imitation. If we are going to participate in the LIE that gender makes no difference then we by God have NO right to deny anybody a marriage, period, or we are hypocrites.

I'm all for the government not recognizing any marriages at all. No bennies, no nothing. You make whatever contract you want with whoever or how many you want, it's shouldn't be the government's business. And maybe never should have been.

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

I'm not religious at all so it would be hard to use that as a reason. I'm talking about adult siblings, same or opposite sex. Why deny them? I detailed above what my reasons were, how did that escape your attention?

Because they are related and because, like I've told you and given you links to about 10 times now, incestuous relationships are most often built on a basis of grooming and child abuse.

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

Child molestation happens amongst siblings. Didn't you know that?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, your point? All now is needed is one successfull suit.

You can't use the 14th amendment in one case and turn from it in the next.

Lawsuits will be filed, one is in works as we speak where the claim will be.

1 loves 2

2 loves 3

3 loves 1

All individuals loving other individuals, what reasonable legal reason do you have to deny 3 to enter a contract when there are no other contracts that limit the participants to 2.

What you do not understand is, that you, nor the state have a compelling state interest in denying this right to happiness or dignity.

Creating arbitrary rules will not stand unless you find that state interest.

States tried, didn't work.

It's a very weak argument.

It's not a weak argument at all. We can still oppose close family member marriages. There is no reason why we cannot, especially since such relationships are usually the result of child abuse.

Then argue that, you're not.

Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits.

Heterosexual couples marry for money all the time. Hello? Anyone home in there?

Not siblings. Hello, anyone home in there?

You didn't say that You said two heterosexual males. Here is your quote.


"Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits."

You knew better, but stipulated that I did not include siblings?

So what is the States Complelling Interest in denying same sex straight siblings the right to the financial benefits of marriage?

 

[ChrisL]

"Accepting same sex marriage does not entail accepting every form of marriage anymore than accepting different sex marriage requires accepting every form of marriage. It is possible to stop the slippery slope in a principled way. To use an analogy, just because women got the vote in 1920 (in the US) it does not follow that the right to vote must then be extended to babies, goats, or squirrels.

How does that make any sense? That's the worse argument I've seen on the matter. If two men can marry why can't three men? Can you answer that simple question? Tradition? I don't get it.

So, for example, we can forbid incestuous marriage by accepting the principle that closely related people should not marry. This would apply to same and different sex couples, so would seem to be a consistent application.

Forbidding incest for consenting adults can only be moral or biological reasons. There is no biological reason to forbid two brothers from having sex. Or brother and sister than have been fixed.

However, people can propose expansions to marriage and each would need to be argued on its own merit.

Also, arguments in favor of a type of marriage can be applied to expanding it in other ways. For example, if someone argues for same-sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could be used to justify incestuous marriage. But, of course, if someone argues for different sex marriage by arguing that an adult has the right to marry any other consenting adult, then that could also be used to justify incestuous marriage. If someone argues that marriage is between a male and a female, then that could be used to argue for child marriages, compelled marriages, and also incestuous marriages-all it would require is that the people involved are a male and a female."

That was a muddied mess. The fact he is oblivious to is that marriage has been in existence since recorded history. So for 7 thousand years, at least, men have only been marrying women and sometimes more than one. That transcended all cultures, religious or not.

Contrary to the post modern activists' beliefs, there was a reason for it. It was not a accident that somehow repeated itself. That reason is outside the grasp of many today, or simply ignored, lied about or minimized. Like the birds and bees and deer and buffalo, forming male/female unions is how mammals exist. Marriage has been the time honored acknowledgment to honor that special relationship.

Saying it's no difference if a man is with a man, or woman with a woman because the unusual heterosexual couple didn't manage to procreate is the argument without merit. an infertile couple doesn't change the dynamics of the male/female union. Homosexuality is a bastardization of a relationship. A cheap imitation. If we are going to participate in the LIE that gender makes no difference then we by God have NO right to deny anybody a marriage, period, or we are hypocrites.

I'm all for the government not recognizing any marriages at all. No bennies, no nothing. You make whatever contract you want with whoever or how many you want, it's shouldn't be the government's business. And maybe never should have been.

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

I'm not religious at all so it would be hard to use that as a reason. I'm talking about adult siblings, same or opposite sex. Why deny them? I detailed above what my reasons were, how did that escape your attention?

Because they are related and because, like I've told you and given you links to about 10 times now, incestuous relationships are most often built on a basis of grooming and child abuse.

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

Did you know that back in the old days, brothers and sisters could and did marry, especially royalty.

Now, this exact same argument could be made with heterosexual marriage. Why is it not okay for a brother and sister to marry if one is sterile?

 

[Pop23]

How does that make any sense? That's the worse argument I've seen on the matter. If two men can marry why can't three men? Can you answer that simple question? Tradition? I don't get it.

Forbidding incest for consenting adults can only be moral or biological reasons. There is no biological reason to forbid two brothers from having sex. Or brother and sister than have been fixed.
That was a muddied mess. The fact he is oblivious to is that marriage has been in existence since recorded history. So for 7 thousand years, at least, men have only been marrying women and sometimes more than one. That transcended all cultures, religious or not.

Contrary to the post modern activists' beliefs, there was a reason for it. It was not a accident that somehow repeated itself. That reason is outside the grasp of many today, or simply ignored, lied about or minimized. Like the birds and bees and deer and buffalo, forming male/female unions is how mammals exist. Marriage has been the time honored acknowledgment to honor that special relationship.

Saying it's no difference if a man is with a man, or woman with a woman because the unusual heterosexual couple didn't manage to procreate is the argument without merit. an infertile couple doesn't change the dynamics of the male/female union. Homosexuality is a bastardization of a relationship. A cheap imitation. If we are going to participate in the LIE that gender makes no difference then we by God have NO right to deny anybody a marriage, period, or we are hypocrites.

I'm all for the government not recognizing any marriages at all. No bennies, no nothing. You make whatever contract you want with whoever or how many you want, it's shouldn't be the government's business. And maybe never should have been.

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

I'm not religious at all so it would be hard to use that as a reason. I'm talking about adult siblings, same or opposite sex. Why deny them? I detailed above what my reasons were, how did that escape your attention?

Because they are related and because, like I've told you and given you links to about 10 times now, incestuous relationships are most often built on a basis of grooming and child abuse.

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

Child molestation happens amongst siblings. Didn't you know that?

It happens between gays also, do we deny them the right to marry because of that?

You realize child molestation is illegal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, Right?

 

[ChrisL]

It's not a weak argument at all. We can still oppose close family member marriages. There is no reason why we cannot, especially since such relationships are usually the result of child abuse.

Then argue that, you're not.

Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits.

Heterosexual couples marry for money all the time. Hello? Anyone home in there?

Not siblings. Hello, anyone home in there?

You didn't say that You said two heterosexual males. Here is your quote.


"Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits."

You knew better, but stipulated that I did not include siblings?

So what is the States Complelling Interest in denying same sex straight siblings the right to the financial benefits of marriage?

What is their compelling interest now, say if it is a brother and sister and one is sterile?

 

[ChrisL]

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

I'm not religious at all so it would be hard to use that as a reason. I'm talking about adult siblings, same or opposite sex. Why deny them? I detailed above what my reasons were, how did that escape your attention?

Because they are related and because, like I've told you and given you links to about 10 times now, incestuous relationships are most often built on a basis of grooming and child abuse.

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

Child molestation happens amongst siblings. Didn't you know that?

It happens between gays also, do we deny them the right to marry because of that?

You realize child molestation is illegal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, Right?

Right, and that is why we look down upon sibling marriage. Most often it is the result of one sibling sexually abusing the other from a young age and they are really messed up.

 

[Pop23]

How does that make any sense? That's the worse argument I've seen on the matter. If two men can marry why can't three men? Can you answer that simple question? Tradition? I don't get it.

Forbidding incest for consenting adults can only be moral or biological reasons. There is no biological reason to forbid two brothers from having sex. Or brother and sister than have been fixed.
That was a muddied mess. The fact he is oblivious to is that marriage has been in existence since recorded history. So for 7 thousand years, at least, men have only been marrying women and sometimes more than one. That transcended all cultures, religious or not.

Contrary to the post modern activists' beliefs, there was a reason for it. It was not a accident that somehow repeated itself. That reason is outside the grasp of many today, or simply ignored, lied about or minimized. Like the birds and bees and deer and buffalo, forming male/female unions is how mammals exist. Marriage has been the time honored acknowledgment to honor that special relationship.

Saying it's no difference if a man is with a man, or woman with a woman because the unusual heterosexual couple didn't manage to procreate is the argument without merit. an infertile couple doesn't change the dynamics of the male/female union. Homosexuality is a bastardization of a relationship. A cheap imitation. If we are going to participate in the LIE that gender makes no difference then we by God have NO right to deny anybody a marriage, period, or we are hypocrites.

I'm all for the government not recognizing any marriages at all. No bennies, no nothing. You make whatever contract you want with whoever or how many you want, it's shouldn't be the government's business. And maybe never should have been.

No, it is the same as if someone were to say that "different sex" marriage could include incest between brother and sister. Why don't you admit that your objection is based on your own personal religious beliefs?

I'm not religious at all so it would be hard to use that as a reason. I'm talking about adult siblings, same or opposite sex. Why deny them? I detailed above what my reasons were, how did that escape your attention?

Because they are related and because, like I've told you and given you links to about 10 times now, incestuous relationships are most often built on a basis of grooming and child abuse.

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

Did you know that back in the old days, brothers and sisters could and did marry, especially royalty.

Now, this exact same argument could be made with heterosexual marriage. Why is it not okay for a brother and sister to marry if one is sterile?

In the old days? I'll research that, but we are discussing today. And where can a brother and sister marry in the United states?

 

[Pop23]

I'm not religious at all so it would be hard to use that as a reason. I'm talking about adult siblings, same or opposite sex. Why deny them? I detailed above what my reasons were, how did that escape your attention?

Because they are related and because, like I've told you and given you links to about 10 times now, incestuous relationships are most often built on a basis of grooming and child abuse.

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

Child molestation happens amongst siblings. Didn't you know that?

It happens between gays also, do we deny them the right to marry because of that?

You realize child molestation is illegal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, Right?

Right, and that is why we look down upon sibling marriage. Most often it is the result of one sibling sexually abusing the other from a young age and they are really messed up.

Yet you deny only one group, and that's because a few times molestation happens?

Seems an odd argument when you think about it? Especially when it was a gay sex act when we speak of same sex siblings.

 

[Pop23]

Then argue that, you're not.

Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits.

Heterosexual couples marry for money all the time. Hello? Anyone home in there?

Not siblings. Hello, anyone home in there?

You didn't say that You said two heterosexual males. Here is your quote.


"Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits."

You knew better, but stipulated that I did not include siblings?

So what is the States Complelling Interest in denying same sex straight siblings the right to the financial benefits of marriage?

What is their compelling interest now, say if it is a brother and sister and one is sterile?

The compelling interest WAS that marriage WAS between a man and woman not too closely related.

That no longer exists.

This was explained many times before. Remember bloodlines?

 

[ChrisL]

Because they are related and because, like I've told you and given you links to about 10 times now, incestuous relationships are most often built on a basis of grooming and child abuse.

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

Child molestation happens amongst siblings. Didn't you know that?

It happens between gays also, do we deny them the right to marry because of that?

You realize child molestation is illegal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, Right?

Right, and that is why we look down upon sibling marriage. Most often it is the result of one sibling sexually abusing the other from a young age and they are really messed up.

Yet you deny only one group, and that's because a few times molestation happens?

Seems an odd argument when you think about it? Especially when it was a gay sex act when we speak of same sex siblings.

Look, you keep insisting that if I accept and tolerate two gay people being married, then I must accept incest. That is just not the case.

 

[ChrisL]

Heterosexual couples marry for money all the time. Hello? Anyone home in there?

Not siblings. Hello, anyone home in there?

You didn't say that You said two heterosexual males. Here is your quote.


"Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits."

You knew better, but stipulated that I did not include siblings?

So what is the States Complelling Interest in denying same sex straight siblings the right to the financial benefits of marriage?

What is their compelling interest now, say if it is a brother and sister and one is sterile?

The compelling interest WAS that marriage WAS between a man and woman not too closely related.

That no longer exists.

This was explained many times before. Remember bloodlines?

No, it has not been explained at all. The same theory can be applied to heterosexual marriage. Close relatives are still not going to be married. States have not lost complete control. They just cannot discriminate between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. Make sense?

 

[BullKurtz]

So, you have no point? You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. You are a pathetic man.

Not only are you pathetic, you are mean-spirited, a bully, and just an all around tard.

I'd alright wiped out your pathetic defense of the indefensible so I had ample opportunity to watch you fall into one of your angry fits....you got hinges on your heels when you get punk'd.

 

[Silhouette]

No, it has not been explained at all. The same theory can be applied to heterosexual marriage. Close relatives are still not going to be married. States have not lost complete control. They just cannot discriminate between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. Make sense?

Gay sex is a sexual orientation. Incest is another orientation/drive. Polygamy the same. You're not a lawyer are you Chris? What part about equal protection under the newly created amendment to the Constitution don't you get?

 

[Pop23]

How do same sex heterosexual siblings "groom" the other for abuse?

An explanation would be helpful?

Child molestation happens amongst siblings. Didn't you know that?

It happens between gays also, do we deny them the right to marry because of that?

You realize child molestation is illegal regardless of gender or sexual orientation, Right?

Right, and that is why we look down upon sibling marriage. Most often it is the result of one sibling sexually abusing the other from a young age and they are really messed up.

Yet you deny only one group, and that's because a few times molestation happens?

Seems an odd argument when you think about it? Especially when it was a gay sex act when we speak of same sex siblings.

Look, you keep insisting that if I accept and tolerate two gay people being married, then I must accept incest. That is just not the case.

Nope, never argued that.

Your approval is never required. The state must have a compelling reason to deny rights.

Let's try one more time.

What is the STATES COMPELLING REASON to deny the financial benefits of marriage to heterosexual brothers?

I'll try to help you, there isn't one

 

[Pop23]

Not siblings. Hello, anyone home in there?

You didn't say that You said two heterosexual males. Here is your quote.


"Tell me the abusive nature of two heterosexual males marrying for financial benefits."

You knew better, but stipulated that I did not include siblings?

So what is the States Complelling Interest in denying same sex straight siblings the right to the financial benefits of marriage?

What is their compelling interest now, say if it is a brother and sister and one is sterile?

The compelling interest WAS that marriage WAS between a man and woman not too closely related.

That no longer exists.

This was explained many times before. Remember bloodlines?

No, it has not been explained at all. The same theory can be applied to heterosexual marriage. Close relatives are still not going to be married. States have not lost complete control. They just cannot discriminate between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. Make sense?

With heterosexual siblings, even though there is no requirements to have sex, a child could be created.

What would make you think that's applicable to same sex siblings?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That was faster than I thought it would be... by a couple of months, but here is it:

"A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he’ll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer."

Man Applies for Marriage License to Have Two Wives TheBlaze.com

Now he gets to litigate this. He will lose because, unlike laws banning gay marriage, there are compelling governmental interests in not permitting legally recognized plural marriages. He can be "married" to as many women as he wants, but he can only have one legally recognized, with all of the rights and responsibilities that go with it.

And what governmental interests are those ?

Please tell me that he can't support them.

We'll have en entirely new set of criteria for giving out marriage licenses.

If you are poor.....you can't get married.

Let's hear it.

 

[Pop23]

No, it has not been explained at all. The same theory can be applied to heterosexual marriage. Close relatives are still not going to be married. States have not lost complete control. They just cannot discriminate between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. Make sense?

Gay sex is a sexual orientation. Incest is another orientation/drive. Polygamy the same. You're not a lawyer are you Chris? What part about equal protection under the newly created amendment to the Constitution don't you get?

Sil, really, the arguments for INCLUSSION are the same for any and all alternative lifestyle.

The difficulty is when you get to opposite sex siblings because they can procreate.

The argument then is, can the government deny the right to marry to same sex siblings, which can't procreate because opposite sex siblings can?

The answer is messy either way, but I don't see how a court could now say that procreation is the deciding factor without flipping existing law on its head?