Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Boss- firmly in the camp of Virginia, arguing the same argument Virginia argued in support of the ban on mixed race marraige.

Poor bitter homophobe- still terrified that the big bad homosexuals will be trying to force him to have sex with them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Boss- firmly in the camp of Virginia, arguing the same argument Virginia argued in support of the ban on mixed race marraige.

Poor bitter homophobe- still terrified that the big bad homosexuals will be trying to force him to have sex with them.

Or hoping for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

 

[Syriusly]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law.

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law.

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.

OK, Thanks. Interesting. I'm not taking a position for or against polygamy. Just that it poses different issue and that it can't be dumbed down to a "if same sex marriage is legal, then this or that must also be"

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law.

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.

It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.

 

[Syriusly]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law.

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.

OK, Thanks. Interesting. I'm not taking a position for or against polygamy. Just that it poses different issue and that it can't be dumbed down to a "if same sex marriage is legal, then this or that must also be"

I agree.

I have seen this done by others- basically they get pissed off about gays being allowed to marry each other and then of course tell us that MEANS sisters can marry brothers and a guy can have 40 wives.

And want us to explain why they can't.

All I do is point out that they are different- and the courts have recognized that they are different.

 

[Syriusly]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law.

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.

It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.

Like I said- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.

I believe that law applied to US Territories, not that it applied to States.


>>>>

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.

I believe that law applied to US Territories, not that it applied to States.


>>>>

Nonsense

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law.

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.

OK, Thanks. Interesting. I'm not taking a position for or against polygamy. Just that it poses different issue and that it can't be dumbed down to a "if same sex marriage is legal, then this or that must also be"

Correct.

Such an 'argument' fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Unlike three or more persons seeking to 'marry,' same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as marriage law is currently written.

Three or more persons aren't being 'denied' access to marriage law; it's simply a matter where there are no laws in existence that can accommodate such a configuration; one cannot be 'discriminated against' by being 'denied access' to a law that doesn't exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law.

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.

They may 'claim' whatever they want, but no rights have been 'violated.'

Bigamy is in essence fraud, and the states are at liberty to enact measures to prevent fraud and punish those convicted of committing fraud against the state by marrying someone while being married to another.

But bigamy and polygamy aren't the same thing, where the latter is nothing more then 'living together,' where to seek to criminalize such a union is un-Constitutional:

“U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees basic rights, including freedom of religion.
[...]
Utah's bigamy law is stricter than the laws in 49 other states - most of the other states prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses. Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.

Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.”

Sister Wives: Federal judge rules anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional

Consequently, laws prohibiting polygamy are un-Constitutional, while laws prohibiting bigamy (fraud) pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Boss]

Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.

Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.

Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?

Well I don't know who "we" is.. I just know that I read about a case out west, I think it was Idaho... a man had brought the case and won but the state had appealed and it was heading up the ladder. So I don't know what happened and haven't been following it but they sounded like it was going to be interesting because of the recent SCOTUS ruling. If not his case there will be one.. it will make it to SCOTUS and again.. you will have come to support it because you have to now.

 

[rdean]

There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," there is only one marriage law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.

LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!

What Republicans really want to do is kill gays. Literally kill them so they are dead.

Republicans kill gays - Google Search

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.

I believe that law applied to US Territories, not that it applied to States.


>>>>

Nonsense

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

July 1, 1862
Bigamy in the territories of the United States, how punished
Congressional Record, 37th Congress, Session II, Ch. 125 page 501

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry another person, whether married or single, in a Territory of the United States, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the cases specified in the proviso to this section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years..."​

>>>>

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.

I believe that law applied to US Territories, not that it applied to States.


>>>>

Nonsense

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

July 1, 1862
Bigamy in the territories of the United States, how punished
Congressional Record, 37th Congress, Session II, Ch. 125 page 501

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry another person, whether married or single, in a Territory of the United States, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the cases specified in the proviso to this section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years..."​

>>>>

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>

Read it again, dumbass. States are US territory and where the US has exclusive jurisdiction. You really are dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.

Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>

Read it again, dumbass. States are US territory and where the US has exclusive jurisdiction. You really are dumb as a box of rocks.

1. It doesn't say "are", it says "in a US Territory", at the time Utah was a US Territory and not a State.

2. The Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction in US Territories, it does not have exclusive jurisdiction in States.

You have heard of these things call "States" right? They are another level of government so jurisdiction is shared.



Here is a link to the United States Code -->> http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

Please share with us the number of times the word "bigamy" appears in the current United States Code.

>>>>

 

[Pop23]

It was much different than other contracts prior to Obergfell as there was the requirement that this contract, like no other that I know of be one that included one of each gender.

Now that exclussion is gone, and not replaced with a safeguard against incest. These justices, being knowledgable jurists removed that exclussion knowing full well that sex was not a requirement of marriage.

So it becomes a partnership of two (debatable) in which the state allows the participants to define what that contract is to them.

Since sex is not a requirement, and

1. A contract cannot be entered into for criminal purposes

2. A contract cannot be entered into while under duress or coercion

Tell me what compelling state interest there is for the state to allow any two people, not entering into an illegal contract, to marry.

Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Tell me- why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but only if they prove that they cannot procreate- but does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of their ability to procreate?

I don't know, but I'll hazard a guess

Procreation?

Procreation?

Wisconsin doesn't care whether siblings can procreate or not- always illegal.

But they care if First cousins can procreate- they can only marry if they cannot procreate.

So what makes you think 'procreation' is the reason Wisconsin forbids infertile siblings from marrying- but not infertile First cousins?

There would be no reason since sex is not a requirement to marry.

Only a Perv like you would think two adults would enter into a contract to have sex.

LOL- Pops gets cranky when I don't dance with his straw man.

Wisconsin makes his straw man burst into flames- since procreaton- and sex- clearly have nothing to do with Wisconsin's ban on the marriage of siblings.

Then you can clearly state the States compelling interest?

I see, you're just a parrot.