Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[kaz]

Of course you were. Rulings you like, a-okay...rulings you don't ..."judicial activism!"

The one being political in all those rulings is blatantly you.

- Heller - The Constitution enforced the second amendment. Simple case based on the actual Constitution. That case did not in any way expand Federal power. There is no judicial activism in this unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

- Voting Rights Act. There is no basis in the 14th amendment to punish States because of "historical" behavior. If they discriminate, enforce it, if they don't, don't. The 14th does not say if the Feds have the opinion you have discriminated before, then they can arbitrarily punish them. Again, this does not in any way expand Federal power. Clearly not activism, unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

However,

- Roe v. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution. Murder isn't in the Constitution. This greatly expands Federal power giving the Federal government the right to dictate the definition of murder to States. And when you say I "like it" you're perfect in your record of being wrong every time, I'm pro-choice. There is no Constitutional basis for the Fed to have Roe v. Wade power. Pure judicial activism.

- New London. The Constitution gives the right to take land for "public use." Not to take it from the hands of one private citizen and give it to another. This massively expands all government power. Judicial activism pure and simple, there is no Constitutional basis for that. Pure judicial activism.

New London does show the left's hypocrisy. You supported an evil developer over grandma. Then BTW, they didn't build it. Grandma got kicked out of her home, and it got overgrown by weeds and is sitting there. You're the hypocrite, my dear.

Are you really sure you want to claim that the States have the right to decide what is or isn't murder?

That question isn't even in dispute, you're just wrong.

btw, pro-choice is a rights issue. If you believe that the right of choice should be at the mercy of the whims of the various states, then you are not pro-choice.

I believe in the rule of law, you don't. I have no problem with adding the freedom to get an abortion to the Constitution. I'd vote for it. But making it up as a right isn't conducive to liberty. That which government can give, government can take away.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Geez folks, can't you just give in and let gay folks marry? Do you have to fight over it? Does it really make your marriage worse?
How about the humanity of it allowing these folks that love each other to get married?
What satisfaction do you get out of denying them that?

I have polygamous friends, why can't they get married?

States can legalize polygamy any time they want.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hmmm...the due process in the 14th amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without legislative process.

No it doesn't.

It states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law is not legislative process.

 

[kaz]

Geez folks, can't you just give in and let gay folks marry? Do you have to fight over it? Does it really make your marriage worse?
How about the humanity of it allowing these folks that love each other to get married?
What satisfaction do you get out of denying them that?

I have polygamous friends, why can't they get married?

States can legalize polygamy any time they want.

Without Federal recognition and benefits, that's clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. Polygamists don't only want to marry one person. I have single friends. Their rights are clearly being violated by the 14th amendment as well, they are married to who they want to be married to. No one.

 

[kaz]

Hmmm...the due process in the 14th amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without legislative process.

No it doesn't.

It states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law is not legislative process.

The fifth amendment had already covered that. As for the 14th, here's the trap. The only way to argue the 14th is that the woman's liberty to have an abortion is being removed by the government without due process. However, for the left to seriously argue that, it would be a complete lie since they advocate government massively taking away our liberties without due process, unless you accept, that legislation is sufficient to remove due process. Think about it in the context of what we both said.

The pro-lifers ironically argue the 14th as well, that life is removed without due process. That is of course a stupid argument since the abortion's not being forced by government.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hmmm...the due process in the 14th amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without legislative process.

No it doesn't.

It states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law is not legislative process.

The fifth amendment had already covered that. As for the 14th, here's the trap. The only way to argue the 14th is that the woman's liberty to have an abortion is being removed by the government without due process. However, for the left to seriously argue that, it would be a complete lie since they advocate government massively taking away our liberties without due process, unless you accept, that legislation is sufficient to remove due process. Think about it in the context of what we both said.

The pro-lifers ironically argue the 14th as well, that life is removed without due process. That is of course a stupid argument since the abortion's not being forced by government.

Nah the fifth amendment is a federal restriction, where the 14th is a state restriction.

Nah the pro-abortion crown argument is that the unborn are not worthy of protection until they are viable outside of the womb, till then their argument is the inconvenience of the mother outweighs the life of the un-viable unborn zygot who is still in the womb. Well that's their argument.

To your argument about pro-lifers being incorrect based on the 14th amendment... government is not committing all first degree murders either. Murder is against the law. By your argument murder is constitutionally protected. Bull.. Roe v. Wade was a very bad ruling.

At any rate my disagreement with you is that legislative process is not due process. Not sure why you are trying to equate a process for legislating with a process for ensuring the rule of law is upheld.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have polygamous friends, why can't they get married?

Because laws prohibiting plural marriage are applied to everyone equally, there is no particular class of persons singled out for exclusion. Such laws are rationally based, seek a legitimate legislative end, and exhibit animus toward no class of persons. And no state’s law currently written can accommodate plural marriage.

That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples accessing marriage law.

Laws that prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law singles out homosexuals as a class of persons to make them different from everyone else. Such laws lack a rational basis, they fail to seek a legitimate legislative end, have no objective, documented evidence in their support, and are predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals. And the marriage laws in all 50 states can currently accommodate same-sex couples.

You may ask this ignorant, inane question as many times as you want, and the facts of law rendering this question ignorant and inane will forever remain the same.

What is the rationality to prohibit plural marriages? Who is harmed by a plural marriage?

Laws prohibiting bigamy are rationally based because to possess more than one marriage license constitutes fraud. See: Model Penal Code section 230.1. Marriage law is contract law, which involves not only the two married partners but the state as well. There is no Constitutional right to commit fraud.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its laws of property ownership, marital property, inheritance, and parental rights.

With regard to parental rights, for example, should a ‘member’ of a plural marriage seek a ‘divorce,’ there can be no resolution as to the custody of any child that person had while in the plural marriage if every adult member of the ‘marriage’ possessed an official, sanctioned state marriage license.

Note that the prohibition is restricted to the possession of multiple marriage licenses only, not multiple ‘spouses.’ One may have more than one ‘spouse’ in the context of religious dogma, provided no married person in such a ‘relationship’ seeks to defraud the state by attempting to acquire yet another marriage license.

It’s important to understand that no state has written any marriage law that accommodates more than two persons. There is no law that three or more people can say they’re being prohibited from accessing in violation of their equal protection rights.

And again, this is clearly not the case with regard to same-sex couples.

 

[kaz]

At any rate my disagreement with you is that legislative process is not due process. Not sure why you are trying to equate a process for legislating with a process for ensuring the rule of law is upheld.

I'm not saying that. The argument is going in too many directions and we're both getting confused. So let me go back to what I was trying to drive at.

We agree that the Constitution protects life, liberty and property from being taken without due process from Federal as well as State and Local governments by whatever amendment you want to chose, so ...

... f, you believe that government cannot tell a woman she can't have an abortion because it's a violation of her liberty without due process, then, most of what government does in terms of confiscating, spending and redistributing our money as well as other regulations over what we can and cannot do are also violations of the Constitution.

I am not actually arguing that the legislative process is due process, what I'm saying is that you can't have it apply selectively. If government cannot tell me I can't have an abortion without due process, then government can't tell me I can't go to an unlicensed doctor without due process, or I can't take drugs without due process, or I can't buy whatever gun I want without due process, or ...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hmmm...the due process in the 14th amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without legislative process.

No it doesn't.

It states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law is not legislative process.

Correct.

Due process is either administrative or judicial, a law-making entity cannot conduct ‘due process’ upon itself.

 

[kaz]

Because laws prohibiting plural marriage are applied to everyone equally, there is no particular class of persons singled out for exclusion. Such laws are rationally based, seek a legitimate legislative end, and exhibit animus toward no class of persons. And no state’s law currently written can accommodate plural marriage.

That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples accessing marriage law.

Laws that prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law singles out homosexuals as a class of persons to make them different from everyone else. Such laws lack a rational basis, they fail to seek a legitimate legislative end, have no objective, documented evidence in their support, and are predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals. And the marriage laws in all 50 states can currently accommodate same-sex couples.

You may ask this ignorant, inane question as many times as you want, and the facts of law rendering this question ignorant and inane will forever remain the same.

What is the rationality to prohibit plural marriages? Who is harmed by a plural marriage?

Laws prohibiting bigamy are rationally based because to possess more than one marriage license constitutes fraud. See: Model Penal Code section 230.1. Marriage law is contract law, which involves not only the two married partners but the state as well. There is no Constitutional right to commit fraud.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its laws of property ownership, marital property, inheritance, and parental rights.

With regard to parental rights, for example, should a ‘member’ of a plural marriage seek a ‘divorce,’ there can be no resolution as to the custody of any child that person had while in the plural marriage if every adult member of the ‘marriage’ possessed an official, sanctioned state marriage license.

Note that the prohibition is restricted to the possession of multiple marriage licenses only, not multiple ‘spouses.’ One may have more than one ‘spouse’ in the context of religious dogma, provided no married person in such a ‘relationship’ seeks to defraud the state by attempting to acquire yet another marriage license.

It’s important to understand that no state has written any marriage law that accommodates more than two persons. There is no law that three or more people can say they’re being prohibited from accessing in violation of their equal protection rights.

And again, this is clearly not the case with regard to same-sex couples.

In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.

 

[kaz]

Hmmm...the due process in the 14th amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without legislative process.

No it doesn't.

It states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law is not legislative process.

Correct.

Due process is either administrative or judicial, a law-making entity cannot conduct ‘due process’ upon itself.

The supreme court can and does. They decide what's Constitutional with no check or balance. And they massively abuse that power.

As for legislation, I clarified my argument.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is the rationality to prohibit plural marriages? Who is harmed by a plural marriage?

Laws prohibiting bigamy are rationally based because to possess more than one marriage license constitutes fraud. See: Model Penal Code section 230.1. Marriage law is contract law, which involves not only the two married partners but the state as well. There is no Constitutional right to commit fraud.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its laws of property ownership, marital property, inheritance, and parental rights.

With regard to parental rights, for example, should a ‘member’ of a plural marriage seek a ‘divorce,’ there can be no resolution as to the custody of any child that person had while in the plural marriage if every adult member of the ‘marriage’ possessed an official, sanctioned state marriage license.

Note that the prohibition is restricted to the possession of multiple marriage licenses only, not multiple ‘spouses.’ One may have more than one ‘spouse’ in the context of religious dogma, provided no married person in such a ‘relationship’ seeks to defraud the state by attempting to acquire yet another marriage license.

It’s important to understand that no state has written any marriage law that accommodates more than two persons. There is no law that three or more people can say they’re being prohibited from accessing in violation of their equal protection rights.

And again, this is clearly not the case with regard to same-sex couples.

In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.

I don’t see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?

The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hmmm...the due process in the 14th amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without legislative process.

No it doesn't.

It states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law is not legislative process.

The fifth amendment had already covered that. As for the 14th, here's the trap. The only way to argue the 14th is that the woman's liberty to have an abortion is being removed by the government without due process. However, for the left to seriously argue that, it would be a complete lie since they advocate government massively taking away our liberties without due process, unless you accept, that legislation is sufficient to remove due process. Think about it in the context of what we both said.

The pro-lifers ironically argue the 14th as well, that life is removed without due process. That is of course a stupid argument since the abortion's not being forced by government.

This is remarkably ignorant and makes no sense.

The 14th Amendment applies the Federal Constitution to the states, ensuring that due process and equal protection of the law is afforded to the people of the states as citizens of the United States, not residents of a given state. See: Gitlow v. New York (1925).

Prior to the advent of incorporation doctrine, Fifth Amendment protection with regard to the right of due process placed restrictions on the Federal government only, where the states were at liberty to violate the civil liberties of their residents. The Fifth Amendment didn’t ‘cover’ anything at the state and local level.

Thankfully this is no longer the case given the fact our civil liberties are inalienable.

Thus state governments are compelled to recognize the due process rights of their residents, both with regard to procedural due process where one’s life and liberty are at stake in the context of criminal law, or substantive due process with regard to one’s Fifth Amendment right to personal liberty and privacy from unwarranted intrusions by the state in the context of civil law.

Concerning abortion, you continue to exhibit your ignorance of the law by confusing procedural due process addressing criminal law such as murder, and substantive due process addressing individual liberty and privacy rights. Consequently, there is no due process 'violation' with regard to abortion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Laws prohibiting bigamy are rationally based because to possess more than one marriage license constitutes fraud. See: Model Penal Code section 230.1. Marriage law is contract law, which involves not only the two married partners but the state as well. There is no Constitutional right to commit fraud.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its laws of property ownership, marital property, inheritance, and parental rights.

With regard to parental rights, for example, should a ‘member’ of a plural marriage seek a ‘divorce,’ there can be no resolution as to the custody of any child that person had while in the plural marriage if every adult member of the ‘marriage’ possessed an official, sanctioned state marriage license.

Note that the prohibition is restricted to the possession of multiple marriage licenses only, not multiple ‘spouses.’ One may have more than one ‘spouse’ in the context of religious dogma, provided no married person in such a ‘relationship’ seeks to defraud the state by attempting to acquire yet another marriage license.

It’s important to understand that no state has written any marriage law that accommodates more than two persons. There is no law that three or more people can say they’re being prohibited from accessing in violation of their equal protection rights.

And again, this is clearly not the case with regard to same-sex couples.

In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.

I don’t see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?

The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.

Correct. There is nothing ‘arbitrary.’

And again, it can be argued that the issue of plural marriage ‘rights’ is moot, given the fact no state has on its books ‘marriage law’ accommodating three or more persons.

In order to make a 14th Amendment equal protection violation claim, there must first be a state law that one is not allowed to access.

 

[kaz]

Laws prohibiting bigamy are rationally based because to possess more than one marriage license constitutes fraud. See: Model Penal Code section 230.1. Marriage law is contract law, which involves not only the two married partners but the state as well. There is no Constitutional right to commit fraud.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its laws of property ownership, marital property, inheritance, and parental rights.

With regard to parental rights, for example, should a ‘member’ of a plural marriage seek a ‘divorce,’ there can be no resolution as to the custody of any child that person had while in the plural marriage if every adult member of the ‘marriage’ possessed an official, sanctioned state marriage license.

Note that the prohibition is restricted to the possession of multiple marriage licenses only, not multiple ‘spouses.’ One may have more than one ‘spouse’ in the context of religious dogma, provided no married person in such a ‘relationship’ seeks to defraud the state by attempting to acquire yet another marriage license.

It’s important to understand that no state has written any marriage law that accommodates more than two persons. There is no law that three or more people can say they’re being prohibited from accessing in violation of their equal protection rights.

And again, this is clearly not the case with regard to same-sex couples.

In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.

I don’t see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?

The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.

There are two ways to skin the cat.

1) Government decides what "marriage" is

2) The participants do

To say man/woman or two "people" is government deciding.

You cannot say you support gay marriage because government should not decide, but then say that it's two people, government decided that. But government can't decide it's man woman. You can say you support that, but you can't play the game of saying there's an inherent right in gay marriage even if government says no, but there is no inherent right to polygamy. Or a marriage of one.

Either government decides, or the people do.

 

[kaz]

This is remarkably ignorant and makes no sense

With me you pick. Serious discussion or insult. You continue to insult. So you picked.

Your argument is that you like government, and therefore the right to government is self fulfilling. Unless you don't want it, then it's Unconstitutional.

 

[RKMBrown]

Laws prohibiting bigamy are rationally based because to possess more than one marriage license constitutes fraud. See: Model Penal Code section 230.1. Marriage law is contract law, which involves not only the two married partners but the state as well. There is no Constitutional right to commit fraud.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its laws of property ownership, marital property, inheritance, and parental rights.

With regard to parental rights, for example, should a ‘member’ of a plural marriage seek a ‘divorce,’ there can be no resolution as to the custody of any child that person had while in the plural marriage if every adult member of the ‘marriage’ possessed an official, sanctioned state marriage license.

Note that the prohibition is restricted to the possession of multiple marriage licenses only, not multiple ‘spouses.’ One may have more than one ‘spouse’ in the context of religious dogma, provided no married person in such a ‘relationship’ seeks to defraud the state by attempting to acquire yet another marriage license.

It’s important to understand that no state has written any marriage law that accommodates more than two persons. There is no law that three or more people can say they’re being prohibited from accessing in violation of their equal protection rights.

And again, this is clearly not the case with regard to same-sex couples.

In other words, your definition of marriage is as arbitrary and illogical to defend as someone who thinks it's between a man and a woman. You are willing to pay the price for two adults, but not three. That's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're in any way better than a man/woman advocate. You just have a different view.

I don’t see how that is arbitrary. That is a matter of contractual reality. How are you going to structure that in a polygamous relationship?

The comparison of gay and straight marriages to polygamous ones is misguided as they are not similar barriers. One is arbitrary and the other is simply not workable without massively changing the rights involved with marriage.

There are many contracts between groups of 3 or more people. You are being silly. In a divorce they don't cut the kids in half. Plural marriages have been around for centuries. You act like a group of 3 is significantly different than a group of 2. That is just asinine.

 

[FA_Q2]

There are two ways to skin the cat.

1) Government decides what "marriage" is

2) The participants do

To say man/woman or two "people" is government deciding.

You cannot say you support gay marriage because government should not decide, but then say that it's two people, government decided that. But government can't decide it's man woman. You can say you support that, but you can't play the game of saying there's an inherent right in gay marriage even if government says no, but there is no inherent right to polygamy. Or a marriage of one.

Either government decides, or the people do.

I disagree but then again, I am not taking the stance that the people decide anything in this context. The government decides what they are going to legally recognize as a contractual relationship. That is a simple reality. In the case of gay marriage though (and incautious marriage as well) the government can pick that it will recognize a contract between two people but cannot decide to not recognize consensual contracts between two men or related individuals and still be consistent.

Essentially, the government can define the number of parties that are in the contract but it should NOT be capable of defining the individual people in that requirement past the fact that it must be consensual. I am going to eliminate the entire ‘government should get out of marriage entirely’ argument now before we get into that. I would agree with that and have a strong inclination that you would as well but I really do want to address the concept that defining marriage as one man and one woman is just as arbitrary as two people. That is false as there are no barriers in the first but there are clear physical barriers within the rights themselves that cannot involve more than one other person. Those rights would need to be changed significantly to make that right tenable for multiple parties hence, NOT arbitrary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because laws prohibiting plural marriage are applied to everyone equally, there is no particular class of persons singled out for exclusion. Such laws are rationally based, seek a legitimate legislative end, and exhibit animus toward no class of persons. And no state’s law currently written can accommodate plural marriage.

That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples accessing marriage law.

Laws that prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law singles out homosexuals as a class of persons to make them different from everyone else. Such laws lack a rational basis, they fail to seek a legitimate legislative end, have no objective, documented evidence in their support, and are predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals. And the marriage laws in all 50 states can currently accommodate same-sex couples.

You may ask this ignorant, inane question as many times as you want, and the facts of law rendering this question ignorant and inane will forever remain the same.

Actually, laws defining marraige as one man one woman are equally applied to everyone. They would not be applied equally if they forbid a woman who had ever had sex from getting married, or only allowed men who had fathered children to get married. What made Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional is that it specifically took away a benefit that was given to other people based on a criteria that was entirely different than was used by the states. Simply stating that there is a rational basis for a law, without actually being able to articulate it, does not work in court. You are the one that keeps pretending you understand the law, you should know that.

The rest of your post is pure speculation based on your unsupported belief that your interpretation of case law trumps the entire world.

By the way, the reason that no state can write a law that allows plural marraige is that federal law specifically forbids it. That law was upheld at the same time that laws that made it illegal for blacks to marry whites were considered constitutional. Since you are clearly unable to demonstrate what the rational basis the government has for not allowing polygamy when it cannot make the equally unsupported arguments against interracial marraige you have no argument left.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license?

Practicing up on being a false witness in case the government ever needs you to get rid of someone who doesn't agree with the Ministry of Truth?

You refuse to answer the question and respond with only nonsense.

Again:

“What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license”?

That question is making an assumption based on facts that are not in evidence. It makes no more sense for you to demand I answer it that it would be for me to demand an answer to the question "When did you stop beating your wife?"