Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

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.

Bigamy would only be fraud if those in the relationships don't agree to them. You assume they would not.

Now I agree they would be few and far between, but I fail to see the Compelling State interest to deny these relationship. Like any other legal partnership that I know of, the participation in one does not prohibit the members in other partnerships.

To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice:

If Sue loves Tedd and Ted loves Bill, why is it that Sue can Marry Tedd, and Tedd can't marry Bill?

So, why can't Sue Marry Bill & Tedd (polygamy), or Sue Marry Bill and Bill Marry Tedd? (bigomy).

 

[Pop23]

There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children. And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children. Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..

It is the paradox that the USSC created when they removed the opposite gender qualification from a law that does not require sex as a requirement to enter into these partnership.

It seems to create a legal contract that is simply a financial tool not much different than an S-Corp or LLC

Ignoring this before making this paradox a part of the discussion was exactly why this was framed as "gay marriage" and not Same Gender Marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. That has nothing to do with my post.

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I love watching Sil and Pop contradict each other.

 

[Pop23]

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

For an idiot you are pretty stoopid.

The State must produce a compelling reason to deny an individual his rights.

So, since sex is not a requirement, it is your bigotted traditionalist view, and nothing else that would deny a same sex sibling couple the rights, dignity and benefits of marriage.

Geez, it appears I am actually the Progressive in this discussion and your side is stuck in the 50's.

 

[Pop23]

I love watching Sil and Pop contradict each other.

Only a mutually exclussive thinker would see it that way though.

Me, I'm a progressive arguing with a bunch of wing-nuts.

 

[Silhouette]

There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children. And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children. Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..

It is the paradox that the USSC created when they removed the opposite gender qualification from a law that does not require sex as a requirement to enter into these partnership.

It seems to create a legal contract that is simply a financial tool not much different than an S-Corp or LLC

Ignoring this before making this paradox a part of the discussion was exactly why this was framed as "gay marriage" and not Same Gender Marriage.

I think you missed my main point. That is, that if states can still regulate marriage with respect to incest and polygamy based on "what the state finds best for a child's interest" then the state can regulate ALL marriage that it finds it needs to regulate "for a child's best interest". And that would include anyone applying who boldly declares "we will provide any children in our home either no mother or no father for life".

So, either incest, polygamy and gay marriage are all legal at once, because of equality, or all three of them are subject to state regulation "for the good of children".

 

[Skylar]

There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children. And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children. Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..

It is the paradox that the USSC created when they removed the opposite gender qualification from a law that does not require sex as a requirement to enter into these partnership.

It seems to create a legal contract that is simply a financial tool not much different than an S-Corp or LLC

Ignoring this before making this paradox a part of the discussion was exactly why this was framed as "gay marriage" and not Same Gender Marriage.

I think you missed my main point. That is, that if states can still regulate marriage with respect to incest and polygamy based on "what the state finds best for a child's interest" then the state can regulate ALL marriage that it finds it needs to regulate "for a child's best interest".

The courts have found that denying same sex marriage hurts children:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family
and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

A point reiterated in Obergefell:

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.

They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

So the court would have to ignore their own findings and instead believe you. Which is unlikely. Rendering your perspective legally irrelevant.

And as the children of same sex couples are fine, practically irrelevant.

And as denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents, logically irrelevant.

 

[Faun]

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.

Well that's not true. The U.S. has concurrent jurisdiction with each of the states. Where do you come up with this idiocy?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Well that's not true. The U.S. has concurrent jurisdiction with each of the states. Where do you come up with this idiocy?

Exactly. Even Madison described it as 'concurrent sovereigns'.

 

[Faun]

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

 

[Skylar]

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, that would apply only to those territories or regions where the Feds have exclusive jurisdiction. This would include DC, federal holdings, federal territories and the like. For the States, the feds hold concurrent jurisdiction....sharing it with the individual state governments respectively.

 

[Faun]

Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.

 

[Pop23]

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

 

[Pop23]

More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage. It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states. If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.

WHOA!

You found a statute requiring sex in marriage?

Hey dumbass, link to it!

 

[Skylar]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

 

[Pop23]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

 

[Montrovant]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

According to you it doesn't. According to the law, at this point, it does. If the law is challenged we will see what the states argue is the interest in preventing immediate family from marrying.

I have given you multiple possible reasons other than procreation that could be argued, but you have dismissed them. I doubt you would accept any possible reason as it would go against your narrative.

 

[Skylar]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

And exactly as I predicted you would.....you deflected. Blathering obessively about incest marriage....until you're asked to make your case. And then predictably deflecting and abandoning your entire argument.

If you're going to treat your argument like garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why we treat your argument the same way.

 

[Skylar]

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).

Incest is a crime.

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage.

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex?

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership.

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.

According to you it doesn't. According to the law, at this point, it does. If the law is challenged we will see what the states argue is the interest in preventing immediate family from marrying.

I have given you multiple possible reasons other than procreation that could be argued, but you have dismissed them. I doubt you would accept any possible reason as it would go against your narrative.

You're under the misconception that Pop cares about any of the reasons. Or even discussing the topic. The purpose of his incest marriage obsession is to shut these threads down. He's trolling.

So troll the troll. I call it 'ubertrolling'.