Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

Except that they can't.

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place..

Says who?

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional marriage laws 3 times before Obergefel- and it may do so again. And none of them opens the door to any other form of marriage.

Americans have a right to marry. States can restrict marriage- but they need to be able to establish a specific benefit that the restriction accomplishes.

If the State cannot make a compelling interest why polygamy should be restricted they will likely lose in court.

Now- do you support or oppose polygamous marriage?

If you oppose it- why?

No, I don't oppose it. Personally, I had rather see a man with more than one female wife or a woman with more than one male husband than I had to see the total depravity of gay and lesbian unions.

LOL......because of course you find gay unions 'total depravity' but polygamy just good clean fun.

 

[Boss]

Yes the States are required to recognize marriages from other States. As the USSC makes ludicrously clear.

Here's the thing... You guys are not explaining what you mean by this. "Recognize" HOW?

Do you mean, if the State of Alabama decided to hand out free turkey to married couples, they would have to also hand out turkey to gay married couples? Okay... if they do that, fine! ...But what if the State doesn't have any free turkey for married couples programs and doesn't offer any sort of benefit for "married" people? How are they supposed to "recognize" your marriage?

I don't think there is anything in the Constitution about a right to be recognized. Maybe you can find that somewhere... perhaps we should ask the collective geniuses of Sotomayor, Kegan and Ginsberg? Maybe they can tell us where to look for this mysterious inalienable right you think we have to be recognized?

 

[Skylar]

Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.

No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.

Except that they can't.

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place. There is already one case before the court now where one man is trying to marry his two common-law wives. Of course the married filing jointly deduction will need to be looked at again.

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.

As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.

There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.

Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.

Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons.

Almost insignificant.

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

 

[Skylar]

Yes the States are required to recognize marriages from other States. As the USSC makes ludicrously clear.

Here's the thing... You guys are not explaining what you mean by this. "Recognize" HOW?

Record it as a marriage in the Office of Vital Statistics. Uphold the laws surrounding marriage. And apply those laws to those who are legally married.

Just like SB377 does.

 

[Boss]

If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.

You are the one who declared to us that Alabama was getting out of the marriage business.

As usual- you were ignorant and wrong- and now are trying to spin your false statements into something less than just BS.

Well, they are getting out of the marriage business. But if you want to believe they're not or that what they're doing changes nothing, then I am fine with that... sounds like we have a winner of a plan! You have no objections, I have no objections... we're all happy, happy, happy!

 

[the_human_being]

No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.

Except that they can't.

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place. There is already one case before the court now where one man is trying to marry his two common-law wives. Of course the married filing jointly deduction will need to be looked at again.

Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it.

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.

It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.

 

[Syriusly]

As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.

There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.

Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.

Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons.

Almost insignificant.

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

 

[Pop23]

Incest is an act which I prefer stay out of marriage entirely.

Then why do you keep advocating incestuous marriage?

I don't.

Then you didn't cite sibling marriage repeatedly? Because distinctly remember you doing exactly that.

Sure, many siblings are heterosexuals of the same sex, wishing to marry for the benefits it brings.

Of course a pervert like you would think otherwise. That's what perverts do.

Have you come up with that law yet that makes sex a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license?

You can't Sally?

Poor Pop.

He wants everyone else to explain to him why he is against sibling marriage.

Good Lord you are lame.

Here we see a fool, says to be progressive. Makes a claim to be concerned about rights.

Yet the fool thinks there is an existing law that states married people must engage in sex.

This fool, who claims to be a fighter for the people's rights forgets about a few basic rights:

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty (except siblings in this morons book)

And

No one can be denied a right by the state unless the state can prove a compelling interest in denial of those rights.

Sally can't provide that compelling interest for denying this right.........

So dance Sally dance.

 

[Syriusly]

If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.

You are the one who declared to us that Alabama was getting out of the marriage business.

As usual- you were ignorant and wrong- and now are trying to spin your false statements into something less than just BS.

Well, they are getting out of the marriage business. But if you want to believe they're not or that what they're doing changes nothing, then I am fine with that... sounds like we have a winner of a plan! You have no objections, I have no objections... we're all happy, happy, happy!

Not getting out of marriage business at all- just the marriage license business.

I am just enjoying watching your usual spin.

 

[the_human_being]

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place..

Says who?

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional marriage laws 3 times before Obergefel- and it may do so again. And none of them opens the door to any other form of marriage.

Americans have a right to marry. States can restrict marriage- but they need to be able to establish a specific benefit that the restriction accomplishes.

If the State cannot make a compelling interest why polygamy should be restricted they will likely lose in court.

Now- do you support or oppose polygamous marriage?

If you oppose it- why?

No, I don't oppose it. Personally, I had rather see a man with more than one female wife or a woman with more than one male husband than I had to see the total depravity of gay and lesbian unions.

LOL......because of course you find gay unions 'total depravity' but polygamy just good clean fun.

At least it's natural and not something totally revolting.

 

[jillian]

Seem to spend an inordinant amount of time thinking about gay men ya know.

you noticed, eh?

 

[Syriusly]

Then why do you keep advocating incestuous marriage?

I don't.

Then you didn't cite sibling marriage repeatedly? Because distinctly remember you doing exactly that.

Sure, many siblings are heterosexuals of the same sex, wishing to marry for the benefits it brings.

Of course a pervert like you would think otherwise. That's what perverts do.

Have you come up with that law yet that makes sex a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license?

You can't Sally?

Poor Pop.

He wants everyone else to explain to him why he is against sibling marriage.

Good Lord you are lame.

Here we see a fool, says to be progressive. Makes a claim to be concerned about rights.

Yet the fool thinks there is an existing law that states married people must engage in sex.

This fool, who claims to be a fighter for the people's rights forgets about a few basic rights:

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty (except sinlings in this morons book)

And

No one can be denied a right by the state unless the state can prove a compelling interest in denial of those rights.

Sally can't provide that compelling interest for denying this right.........

So dance Sally dance.

LIke I said before-

Poor Pop.

He wants everyone else to explain to him why he is against sibling marriage.

He does this over and over- drags out his straw man to try to get those in favor of marriage equality to join his game on incestuious marraige- because Pops doesn't see any difference between a man marrying a man- and a father marrying his daughter.

Pop can't actually make an argument about what he really is upset about- that homosexuals are being treated equally- so he keeps trotting out his strawman

And by all evidence will continue to do so.

 

[jillian]

OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...

It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts.

There is not one word in the Constitution which requires States to recognize marriage. I think this is something Constitutional Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives can all support.

no. it isn't up to the states. you say that as a reflex in almost every thread.

civil rights are a federal issue.

STATUS is a state issue, but not if the status is delegated in a discriminatory and illegal fashion.

and someone needs to explain to the o/p that the Court determines what is constitutional, not wingers sitting home at their typewriters.

and for the record, once the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, it is BY DEFINITION, constitutional. you cannot call something unconstitutional after judicial review.

you're welcome

 

[Pop23]

Seem to spend an inordinant amount of time thinking about gay men ya know.

you noticed, eh?

Yes, we noticed that of you.

 

[Syriusly]

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place..

Says who?

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional marriage laws 3 times before Obergefel- and it may do so again. And none of them opens the door to any other form of marriage.

Americans have a right to marry. States can restrict marriage- but they need to be able to establish a specific benefit that the restriction accomplishes.

If the State cannot make a compelling interest why polygamy should be restricted they will likely lose in court.

Now- do you support or oppose polygamous marriage?

If you oppose it- why?

No, I don't oppose it. Personally, I had rather see a man with more than one female wife or a woman with more than one male husband than I had to see the total depravity of gay and lesbian unions.

LOL......because of course you find gay unions 'total depravity' but polygamy just good clean fun.

At least it's natural and not something totally revolting.

Well that I imagine will be your argument to the courts in favor of polygamous marriage.

"its not icky like homosexuals are'

 

[the_human_being]

Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.

Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons.

Almost insignificant.

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.

You should read the Constitution some time.

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.

I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.

 

[Pop23]

I don't.

Then you didn't cite sibling marriage repeatedly? Because distinctly remember you doing exactly that.

Sure, many siblings are heterosexuals of the same sex, wishing to marry for the benefits it brings.

Of course a pervert like you would think otherwise. That's what perverts do.

Have you come up with that law yet that makes sex a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license?

You can't Sally?

Poor Pop.

He wants everyone else to explain to him why he is against sibling marriage.

Good Lord you are lame.

Here we see a fool, says to be progressive. Makes a claim to be concerned about rights.

Yet the fool thinks there is an existing law that states married people must engage in sex.

This fool, who claims to be a fighter for the people's rights forgets about a few basic rights:

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty (except sinlings in this morons book)

And

No one can be denied a right by the state unless the state can prove a compelling interest in denial of those rights.

Sally can't provide that compelling interest for denying this right.........

So dance Sally dance.

LIke I said before-

Poor Pop.

He wants everyone else to explain to him why he is against sibling marriage.

He does this over and over- drags out his straw man to try to get those in favor of marriage equality to join his game on incestuious marraige- because Pops doesn't see any difference between a man marrying a man- and a father marrying his daughter.

Pop can't actually make an argument about what he really is upset about- that homosexuals are being treated equally- so he keeps trotting out his strawman

And by all evidence will continue to do so.

^^^^a long winded dance, those high heals have gotta be killin you Sally

 

[Skylar]

If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.

You are the one who declared to us that Alabama was getting out of the marriage business.

As usual- you were ignorant and wrong- and now are trying to spin your false statements into something less than just BS.

Well, they are getting out of the marriage business.

Says you. They say they are merely chanting the how marriage is entered into. They still record the marriages with the Office of Vital Statistics. They don't change any of the marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage. And they never say that they don't recognize marriages from other States.

You made all that up. And you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[the_human_being]

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place..

Says who?

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional marriage laws 3 times before Obergefel- and it may do so again. And none of them opens the door to any other form of marriage.

Americans have a right to marry. States can restrict marriage- but they need to be able to establish a specific benefit that the restriction accomplishes.

If the State cannot make a compelling interest why polygamy should be restricted they will likely lose in court.

Now- do you support or oppose polygamous marriage?

If you oppose it- why?

No, I don't oppose it. Personally, I had rather see a man with more than one female wife or a woman with more than one male husband than I had to see the total depravity of gay and lesbian unions.

LOL......because of course you find gay unions 'total depravity' but polygamy just good clean fun.

At least it's natural and not something totally revolting.

Well that I imagine will be your argument to the courts in favor of polygamous marriage.

"its not icky like homosexuals are'

Why are you against the rights of polygamists to enjoy the bliss of marriage the same way you depraved freaks do?