Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Montrovant]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?

What the fuck is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

 

[Pop23]

Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument. You're just too stupid to know it.

Because one was male and the second female, prohibited to marry because that prohibition was across the board, equally applied

The question is why? So that the state did not licence incestuous relationships that could have a short term impact on an innocent child or a long term negative impact on society.

When responding you must remember that the government has the duty to protect the innocent child and long term impacts on society.

We equally applied the law to all that were allowed to marry because ALL ELIGIBLE to marry could cause both short term and long term harm.

Now that the qualification that the partners be if opposite gender, and a large segment of the eligible couplings could not cause this harm:

What is the States Compelling Interest in denial of these CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, from them?

What prohibition? According to your idiocy, there was none. That's why your argument collapses under the weight of its own stupidity. Do you understand now?

No idiot, no siblings could marry. That's a prohibition.

 

[Faun]

You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that? Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No? Then your argument is without merit. Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No? Then your argument is without merit. You fail twice in one post. Next?

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest.

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

 

[Pop23]

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?

What the fuck is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

Go on then, run them through again if it makes you feel better

 

[Pop23]

You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest.

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

 

[Faun]

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument. You're just too stupid to know it.

Because one was male and the second female, prohibited to marry because that prohibition was across the board, equally applied

The question is why? So that the state did not licence incestuous relationships that could have a short term impact on an innocent child or a long term negative impact on society.

When responding you must remember that the government has the duty to protect the innocent child and long term impacts on society.

We equally applied the law to all that were allowed to marry because ALL ELIGIBLE to marry could cause both short term and long term harm.

Now that the qualification that the partners be if opposite gender, and a large segment of the eligible couplings could not cause this harm:

What is the States Compelling Interest in denial of these CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, from them?

What prohibition? According to your idiocy, there was none. That's why your argument collapses under the weight of its own stupidity. Do you understand now?

No idiot, no siblings could marry. That's a prohibition.

Not according to the nonsense you've been posting here. According to you, there was no compelling interest to deny them from marrying each other.

I know that sounds rightarded; but then, that is your argument.

 

[Faun]

Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument. You're just too stupid to know it.

Because one was male and the second female, prohibited to marry because that prohibition was across the board, equally applied

The question is why? So that the state did not licence incestuous relationships that could have a short term impact on an innocent child or a long term negative impact on society.

When responding you must remember that the government has the duty to protect the innocent child and long term impacts on society.

We equally applied the law to all that were allowed to marry because ALL ELIGIBLE to marry could cause both short term and long term harm.

Now that the qualification that the partners be if opposite gender, and a large segment of the eligible couplings could not cause this harm:

What is the States Compelling Interest in denial of these CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, from them?

What prohibition? According to your idiocy, there was none. That's why your argument collapses under the weight of its own stupidity. Do you understand now?

No idiot, no siblings could marry. That's a prohibition.

Not according to the nonsense you've been posting here. According to you, there was no compelling interest to deny them from marrying each other.

I know that sounds rightarded; but then, that is your argument.

 

[Syriusly]

What the fuck is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest.

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same-
sex marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.


BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
88

 

[Pop23]

Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary.

Glad I could put your mind at rest.

That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument. You're just too stupid to know it.

Because one was male and the second female, prohibited to marry because that prohibition was across the board, equally applied

The question is why? So that the state did not licence incestuous relationships that could have a short term impact on an innocent child or a long term negative impact on society.

When responding you must remember that the government has the duty to protect the innocent child and long term impacts on society.

We equally applied the law to all that were allowed to marry because ALL ELIGIBLE to marry could cause both short term and long term harm.

Now that the qualification that the partners be if opposite gender, and a large segment of the eligible couplings could not cause this harm:

What is the States Compelling Interest in denial of these CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, from them?

What prohibition? According to your idiocy, there was none. That's why your argument collapses under the weight of its own stupidity. Do you understand now?

No idiot, no siblings could marry. That's a prohibition.

Not according to the nonsense you've been posting here. According to you, there was no compelling interest to deny them from marrying each other.

I know that sounds rightarded; but then, that is your argument.

Because some people are blind, we can't deny everyone the right to drive.

Your way of thinking:

Because some people are blind(opposite sex siblings) we must deny everyone the right to drive.

1. What is the compelling state interest in denying the blind?

2. What about those that are not blind?

Get it?

 

[Faun]

Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest.

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

 

[Pop23]

A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer.

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, "Duh, because it's not legalz!" That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, "If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!" Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage.

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed. Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

 

[Pop23]

No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights.

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none.

Yikes

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest.

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell? Was it just tradition? Potential genetic abnormalities? Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

 

[Syriusly]

Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.

But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest.

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

According to a judge they do.

According to you they don't.

Go test it out in court if you think you are right.

 

[Pop23]

Why ask, list em if you think there are others.

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

 

[Pop23]

But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest.

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

According to a judge they do.

According to you they don't.

Go test it out in court if you think you are right.

This is not a court, if your only argument is a quote of an opinion of a judge, why even participate?

What? Your strawman defense start failing?

 

[Syriusly]

Why ask? For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them? I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions. Why would I do it again?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

 

[Syriusly]

They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.

You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling

And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated. Why would I want to torture you like that?

You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.

According to a judge they do.

According to you they don't.

Go test it out in court if you think you are right.

This is not a court, if your only argument is a quote of an opinion of a judge, why even participate?

What? Your strawman defense start failing?

You ignore every opinion other than your own.

I just enjoy showing how your opinion is so out of touch with reality that you ignore what a Judge says.

 

[Pop23]

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Ok Syriously:

I've pointed this out before.

A major motion picture and a huge best seller called 50 Shades of Gray featured a couple who's relationship was exploitive and abussive.

NOTHING PROHIBITED THEM FROM LEGAL MARRIAGE.

Get it.

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.