Kim Davis loses again...

[airplanemechanic]

You still didn't answer the question. I give up. You obvoiusly can't come up with a good answer because of the absurdity of two women being able to get married. If they can get married I should be able to marry two women.

The only stupidity is allowing two women or two men to marry in the first place. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of it all.

/end thread.

 

[Seawytch]

You still didn't answer the question. I give up. You obvoiusly can't come up with a good answer because of the absurdity of two women being able to get married. If they can get married I should be able to marry two women.

/end thread.

If you don't think there is a compelling reason to prevent bigamy, you can take your case to court. Best of luck to you. Do hurry, Julie Andrews is still single.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No no, right here in America.

So you didn't answer the question. So I'll ask it agian.

If two women can marry, why can't I marry two women?

OK....2 responses...

1. You should direct your question to Kim Davis who has actually managed to marry 4 men.

2. Your question should be better phrased thusly: Why shouldn't one woman be allowed to marry TWO other women......or one man TWO other men.......of course, AT THE SAME TIME.

(just trying to help you with your stupidity.)

All your response translates to is you don't have an answer. Hello slippery slope

 

[bodecea]

You still didn't answer the question. I give up. You obvoiusly can't come up with a good answer because of the absurdity of two women being able to get married. If they can get married I should be able to marry two women.

The only stupidity is allowing two women or two men to marry in the first place. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of it all.

/end thread.

What is absurd about people marrying who love each other and wish to commit their lives to each other?

 

[bodecea]

Here's a question for liberals.

If two women can marry, why can't I marry two women?

Work your legal briefs.

 

[airplanemechanic]

There is no difference btw homosexual marraige and bigamy. It's all involving consenting adults. If two consenting women can marry each other, why can't two consenting women marry one consenting man? Whats wrong with two women who love a man marrying him? Why stop them? And if a man loves two women, why stop them? Hey, if love is good enough for two fags, its good enough for 2 women and a man right?

Slippery slope is getting slipperier.....(is that a word?)

 

[Seawytch]

There is no difference btw homosexual marraige and bigamy. It's all involving consenting adults. If two consenting women can marry each other, why can't two consenting women marry one consenting man?

Slippery slope is getting slipperier.....(is that a word?)

When will you be filing your court briefs?

If you truly believe there is no societal harm in allowing polygamist marriages, you should fight for your rights. How many times do you want us to wish you the best of luck?

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is no difference btw homosexual marraige and bigamy.

Yes there is. Same-sex marriage is not illegal, bigamy is illegal.

There is no difference btw homosexual marraige and bigamy.

With that said, bigamy is being illegally married to more than one person at a time. If it is legal to marry more than one person at a time then that is not bigamy, it's commonly referred to as polygamy.

The idea there is no difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy is not true.

With same-sex marriage the current marital laws work just fine. They deal with two people establishing an intimate legal relationship, establishing a new primary next-of-kin if you will.

On the other hand polygamy does not allow for the use of existing marital laws.

There are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized polygamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each polygamy marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.

A fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy.

>>>>

 

[Jackson]

This graphic tells it all:

And here is the actual document denying her injunction:

103-ORDER-denying-injunction-pending-appeal.pdf

BOOM.

FYI.

Discuss. Is Kim Davis smart enough to know when to give up and simply be a human being?

She's loving the notoriety. So much for being humble.

 

[Flopper]

No no, right here in America. If your response to the question is "move to a Muslim country" my response to "why can't two fags marry here" is "move to a fag loving nation in Europe." Oh, don't like that, huh? Kinda stings don't it? Well, whats good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

So you didn't answer the question. So I'll ask it again.

If two women can marry, why can't I marry two women?

Wait, are you going to deny me the right to marry two women, when two women can marry each other? Wait a minute now, two fags can marry, lesbos can marry, but I can't marry two women? Whoa. Looks like a new surpreme court ruling in the making.

Gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents. By allowing men to hoard wives, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it

 

[nat4900]

Here's a scenario that may be acceptable to these moronic right wingers.....

A gay man marries a gay woman, while his true-love partner, marries the gay woman's true love also....Then the 4 of them all live together.

Now, would that make these idiots feel a bit better?

 

[boilermaker55]

No, she is not. She is injecting her faith to people where there is no business injecting it.
She can attend her place of worship and if she wants, get a license and stand on the street corner and preach all she wants. But not in a a government building.
She is wrong! You are wrong!
She is a liar to begin with saying...""I don't want to have this conflict. I don't want to be in the spotlight, and I certainly don't want to be a whipping post; I am no hero," Davis said. "I just want to serve my neighbors quietly without violating my conscience. And so this morning, I am forced to fashion a remedy that reconciles my conscience with Judge Bunning's orders."
This is the biggest lie from the liar. "
violates my deeply-held religious convictions and conscience. For me, this would be an act of disobedience to my God."

She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith. She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.

 

[charwin95]

Here's a question for liberals.

If two women can marry, why can't I marry two women?

That is called Orgy...

 

[bendog]

Here's a question for liberals.

If two women can marry, why can't I marry two women?

The male is supposed to be unhappy in marriage. It's a matter of tradition.

 

[Seawytch]

Why is it that when the polygamy strawman is brought up, it's always 2 women, one dude?

If we make Polygamy work in our modern society, two men and one woman is just as likely.

 

[Skylar]

She is a Christian who defended her Constitutional right to her freedom to follow her faith.

If she herself didn't want to issue licenses, that's one thing. But to forbid her clerks to as well? If 'following her faith' compells her to use the Power of the State to force unwilling people to obey her religion, then she's clearly mixed up the word 'freedom' with 'power'.

They aren't the same thing.

She's defending her faith and the Constitution as it was written. The Supreme Court had no right to change the laws of the land - permitting same sex marriage. It was not their place.

The Supreme Court most definitely gets to interpret the constitution. And decide when rights are being violated. As they did in Obergefell. It absolutely is their place.

 

[Clementine]

 

[Seawytch]

I know you guys love your false analogies, but there is no comparison. With "sanctuary cities", the law IS different.

Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law

And in all your strawman examples, you're free to sue. If the defendants lost, appealed, lost on appeal and STILL continued to violate the law, they could be held in contempt of court...and you'd have a valid analogy.

Until then you're whining.

 

[Flopper]

Why is it that when the polygamy strawman is brought up, it's always 2 women, one dude?

If we make Polygamy work in our modern society, two men and one woman is just as likely.

Polyandry, one women with multiple mates is not popular among men or women. Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, only 4 had polyandry.

There are a number of reason why polyandry is rare. One being, that one man can impregnate several women at a time. A woman can only carry one man's offspring at a time, so if she had several husbands, how are all the other husbands going to produce offspring?

Polyandry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Debra K]

September 15, 2015: Kim Davis loses again. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied her emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. Kim Davis moved the Court of Appeals to enjoin the Governor from enforcing his post-Obergefell mandate that all county clerks issue marriage licenses to qualified applicants.

Davis has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on her federal constitutional claims. We need not address the merits of her claims under Kentucky law because the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution precludes the federal courts from compelling state officials to comply with state law. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 105-06 (1984).

Source: 15-5961 #37