Marriage Equality Does Not Exist In Any State

[Silhouette]

I'm not sure what the issue is with polygamy honestly. Is this a religion thing? It's certainly not about kids...

Personally, I've always felt that polygamy should be legal and that what we as a country did to the Mormon's isn't proper - forcing them to change their religion in order to become a state and all. While I think it's an outdated and /wrong/ decision on the part of our founders, I also understand the absolute legal nightmare it would be to modern law...

Lemme guess..."polygamy hurts children"? (while stripping them of the hope of either a father or mother for life doesn't?)..

What you feel isn't relevant. What is legal is. Polygamy, as incest or monosexuality (singles who prefer to be single) are all merely sexual lifestyles like "gay" is. If children are a secondary consideration in gay marriage, then so shall they be in polygamy, incest and anything else.. You can't make "gay marriage" legal while excluding other same or similar types of "sexually repugnant lifestyles to marriage". The 14th is about equality. You can't in one moment cite the 14th as a means of creating a special protection for just some members of a vast and wide (nearly limitless) category of people. All adults want to marry whom they wish. Think of the harm being done to the children of polygamy & incest... keeping the stigma of their parents not being considered "married" attached to them. Right Justice Kennedy?

 

[EverCurious]

I'm not a "bro", I never had the surgery...


I've had quite a few friends who were in multiple partner relationships, hell my first marriage was an open marriage. IF polygamous folks gain enough numbers to challenge their right to marry to the SCOTUS then they might win. So what? Are you really so twisted in your head that you think that if you say polygamy isn't legal, then gays can't marry anymore?

The Bible does not get to dictate whom people are allowed to love and marry. Do keep pushing your beliefs on everyone else though, this kind of thing just drives more away from your religion and pushes it closer to its demise. I'm okay with that frankly, because then folks can go back to /real/ spirituality that comes from within themselves, rather than the twisted words and forced beliefs of authoritarian mouth pieces like yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not a "bro", I never had the surgery...
I've had quite a few friends who were in multiple partner relationships, hell my first marriage was an open marriage. IF polygamous folks gain enough numbers to challenge their right to marry to the SCOTUS then they might win. So what? Are you really so twisted in your head that you think that if you say polygamy isn't legal, then gays can't marry anymore?

The Bible does not get to dictate whom people are allowed to love and marry. Do keep pushing your beliefs on everyone else though, this kind of thing just drives more away from your religion and pushes it closer to its demise. I'm okay with that frankly, because then folks can go back to /real/ spirituality that comes from within themselves, rather than the twisted words and forced beliefs of authoritarian mouth pieces like yourself.

Who the fuck brought up the Bible? You did, not me. My "beliefs" are that the 14th is applied equally and does not play favorites. Bearing that in mind, how it is that polygamists cannot marry today?

I expect no (more) strawmen, only details in your answer...

 

[Skylar]

Nice dance around the point bro. If even one family of polygamists wants to marry but can't (The Browns of Brown v Utah) that's a travesty and violation of the spirit and faith of the 14th Amendment..that you just used to make "gay marriage" "legal"..

Says you. Citing you. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Nor does it make the arguments you're making.

At every stage, you're citing yourself. And then insisting that the courts are bound to whatever you make up.

No. No they're not.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm not a "bro", I never had the surgery...
I've had quite a few friends who were in multiple partner relationships, hell my first marriage was an open marriage. IF polygamous folks gain enough numbers to challenge their right to marry to the SCOTUS then they might win. So what? Are you really so twisted in your head that you think that if you say polygamy isn't legal, then gays can't marry anymore?

The Bible does not get to dictate whom people are allowed to love and marry. Do keep pushing your beliefs on everyone else though, this kind of thing just drives more away from your religion and pushes it closer to its demise. I'm okay with that frankly, because then folks can go back to /real/ spirituality that comes from within themselves, rather than the twisted words and forced beliefs of authoritarian mouth pieces like yourself.

Who the fuck brought up the Bible? You did, not me. My "beliefs" are that the 14th is applied equally and does not play favorites. Bearing that in mind, how it is that polygamists cannot marry today?

I expect no (more) strawmen, only details in your answer...

Well the reason that polygamists can't marry today is because of the legacy of Christian opposition to polygamy and, basically, because no one has yet challenged it with enough numbers and fortitude to change it - similar to gay marriage. Despite the US's bullshit of forcing Utah to put a ban on polygamy in its state constitution in order to achieve statehood, and the addition of such to the US constitution, it's only a matter of time before Christian opposition is overwhelmed by other religions who encourage polygamy, so I have little doubt it will be eventually legalized and amended out of the constitution(s). Hopefully the government has their red tape in line for when that happens so the transition will be smooth.

 

[Silhouette]

Well the reason that polygamists can't marry today is because of the legacy of Christian opposition to polygamy and, basically, because no one has yet challenged it with enough numbers and fortitude to change it - similar to gay marriage. .

What???????????? Christians objected to gay marriage too. It was voted down in California and most other states. So, opposition to polygamy (just another sexual lifestyle) is a moot point. It is de facto legal today if gay marriage is. The 14th doesn't play favorites. There isn't a need to challenge anything. It simply IS by virtue of the 14th Amendment recently being "upgraded" (by the Judicial Branch) to include "sexual lifestyles protected to marry" (There are no guarantees in the Constitution specifying marriage). Nobody proved that gay is anything but a sexual lifestyle so far. Did you read anything about "gay" being an inborn innate and static state of being? (Anne Heche) No? Neither did I... Besides it could just as easily be armchair, self-diagnosed claimed the same way by polygamists..

If polygamists are being denied marriage licensing in the various states, there is no marriage equality. It is a farce; a special red carpet rolled out by the Supreme Court's slim majority as a favor to their favorite deviant sex behaviors (but not others) using...*drum roll*...the 14th Amendment of equality! How's that for irony?

 

[Silhouette]

Says you. Citing you. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Nor does it make the arguments you're making.

.

Did Obergefell cite the 14th for the repugnant to the majority sexual lifestyle of "same gender marriage" to make it "legal"? Yes, or no? And if yes (which is the answer), then the 14th cannot discriminate against other sexual lifestyles repugnant to the majority can they?

No, you can't use the 14th on the one hand to say some sexual lifestyles may marry while you, without any discernible reason whatsoever, say that other sexual lifestyles don't enjoy the same protections under the 14th. They AUTOMATICALLY do by the very Obergefell finding.

 

[mdk]

Says you. Citing you. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Nor does it make the arguments you're making.

.

Did Obergefell cite the 14th for the repugnant to the majority sexual lifestyle of "same gender marriage" to make it "legal"? Yes, or no? And if yes (which is the answer), then the 14th cannot discriminate against other sexual lifestyles repugnant to the majority can they?

No, you can't use the 14th on the one hand to say some sexual lifestyles may marry while you, without any discernible reason whatsoever, say that other sexual lifestyles don't enjoy the same protections under the 14th. They AUTOMATICALLY do by the very Obergefell finding.

The Obergefell finding in Imaginenation may have legalized polygamy but the actual finding, here in the real world, did no such thing.

 

[Nosmo King]

"Marriage Equality" defined: the ability of adults to marry whom they wish.

Polygamists and incest adults cannot be married to the ones they want to be and consent to be with. Ergo, there is no marriage equality in any state.

What there is, is a quasi-legal status of JUST gay marriage where the Court's Five decided that JUST this majority-repugnant sexual lifestyle gets special class protections. Using the 14th Amendment, ironically. The 14th Amendment says "no discrimination". So, either gay marriage in Obergefell was not and cannot be legal using the 14th rationale, or ALL adults may marry whomever they want of any lifestyle arrangement.

The arguments cast out for consumption by the LGBT blogger machine is "polygamists etc. can fight for their own rights to marry. Gay is a separate issue".

My rebuttal: According to the 14th there can be no adults left out of lifestyle rights (even when repugnant) when it comes to equality.

Discuss.

Let's pry your skull open and cram in information for the last time on this subject. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship between two consenting adults lets. Therefore incest is ruled out because there is an existing next-of-kin relationship. And there's that pesky number of consenting adults:two. So that eliminates polygamy.

Can't mm it this concept to your thoughts today so that you will no longer burden bandwidth with such banality

 

[Silhouette]

The Obergefell finding in Imaginenation may have legalized polygamy but the actual finding, here in the real world, did no such thing.

Finally! You admit it. And you, knowing law as you do, KNOW it isn't mere imagination. Polygamy is legal today as gay marriage is. Otherwise there is no marriage equality. Correct.

 

[Silhouette]

Let's pry your skull open and cram in information for the last time on this subject. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship between two consenting adults lets. Therefore incest is ruled out because there is an existing next-of-kin relationship. And there's that pesky number of consenting adults:two. So that eliminates polygamy.

Can't mm it this concept to your thoughts today so that you will no longer burden bandwidth with such banality

The marriage contract was conceived of to bind a mother and father together for the children's sake for a variety of reasons. I like how you said "next of kin" instead of "children". That way you wouldn't have to admit that children are the reason marriage was invented and maintained the way it was for over a thousand years..

Incest is not ruled out because of next of kin. It reinforces next of kin. A child of incest is a child and eventually an adult who will inherit.

The number of consenting adults..."pesky"? Are you serious? Voters across the majority of states found a man marrying a man (stripping children of a mother for life) a bit more than "pestky" and still that didn't stand in the way of "marriage equality" (for now..). Two is as applicable as man/woman. If you're dismantling marriage to include all adults, you don't get to pick and choose.

They're either all included or states get to define who does or who does not marry.. ALL consenting adults or there are qualifiers and the states get to decide those, because there is NOTHING in the constitution about marriage. Nada. You know how the 14th Amendment works: no playing favorites!

 

[mdk]

The Obergefell finding in Imaginenation may have legalized polygamy but the actual finding, here in the real world, did no such thing.

Finally! You admit it. And you, knowing law as you do, KNOW it isn't mere imagination. Polygamy is legal today as gay marriage is. Otherwise there is no marriage equality. Correct.

I did no such thing but lying to yourself is pretty much all you have left at this point.

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's pry your skull open and cram in information for the last time on this subject. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship between two consenting adults lets. Therefore incest is ruled out because there is an existing next-of-kin relationship. And there's that pesky number of consenting adults:two. So that eliminates polygamy.

Can't mm it this concept to your thoughts today so that you will no longer burden bandwidth with such banality

The marriage contract was conceived of to bind a mother and father together for the children's sake for a variety of reasons. I like how you said "next of kin" instead of "children". That way you wouldn't have to admit that children are the reason marriage was invented and maintained the way it was for over a thousand years..

Incest is not ruled out because of next of kin. It reinforces next of kin. A child of incest is a child and eventually an adult who will inherit.

The number of consenting adults..."pesky"? Are you serious? Voters across the majority of states found a man marrying a man (stripping children of a mother for life) a bit more than "pestky" and still that didn't stand in the way of "marriage equality" (for now..). Two is as applicable as man/woman. If you're dismantling marriage to include all adults, you don't get to pick and choose.

They're either all included or states get to define who does or who does not marry.. ALL consenting adults or there are qualifiers and the states get to decide those, because there is NOTHING in the constitution about marriage. Nada. You know how the 14th Amendment works: no playing favorites!

Next-of-kin refers to the parties in the contract, not offspring.

Swing and a miss!

 

[Silhouette]

Next-of-kin refers to the parties in the contract, not offspring.

Swing and a miss!

Yes but before there were lawyers there was marriage. And marriage was created so that children did not find themselves without either a mother or father.

Swing and miss right back atcha. Good luck convincing the world that a long known and commonly understood necessity since the dawn of time is "suddenly subject to change as a convenience to a adult deviant sex lifestyles".. to the detriment of children. That contract is void upon its face. Read the infant doctrine and weep pal. Three strikes and you'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrre OUT!.

Meanwhile, why isn't polygamy legal in your state? Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer..

 

[Nosmo King]

Next-of-kin refers to the parties in the contract, not offspring.

Swing and a miss!

Yes but before there were lawyers there was marriage. And marriage was created so that children did not find themselves without either a mother or father.

Swing and miss right back atcha. Good luck convincing the world that a long known and commonly understood necessity since the dawn of time is "suddenly subject to change as a convenience to a adult deviant sex lifestyles".. to the detriment of children. That contract is void upon its face. Read the infant doctrine and weep pal. Three strikes and you'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrre OUT!.

Meanwhile, why isn't polygamy legal in your state? Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer..

Because you see homosexuality as "adult deviant sex lifestyles".. to the detriment of children", you will never be convinced. Your ossified attitude will have to quite literally die before everyone, and I mean everyone sees marriage as access to contract law not to be hindered by bigotry.

 

[Skylar]

Says you. Citing you. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Nor does it make the arguments you're making.

.

Did Obergefell cite the 14th for the repugnant to the majority sexual lifestyle of "same gender marriage" to make it "legal"? Yes, or no? And if yes (which is the answer), then the 14th cannot discriminate against other sexual lifestyles repugnant to the majority can they?

Obergefell found that States cannot deny marriage licenses to same sex couples.

All the rest is your pseudo-legal gibberish, pulled from your imagination. And your imagination isn't law.

No, you can't use the 14th on the one hand to say some sexual lifestyles may marry while you, without any discernible reason whatsoever, say that other sexual lifestyles don't enjoy the same protections under the 14th. They AUTOMATICALLY do by the very Obergefell finding.

Save of course that they don't. And it doesn't.

Same sex marriage is still legal. Polygamy still isnt'. See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Next-of-kin refers to the parties in the contract, not offspring.

Swing and a miss!

Yes but before there were lawyers there was marriage. And marriage was created so that children did not find themselves without either a mother or father.

Says you, citing yourself.

Swing and miss right back atcha. Good luck convincing the world that a long known and commonly understood necessity since the dawn of time is "suddenly subject to change as a convenience to a adult deviant sex lifestyles".. to the detriment of children. That contract is void upon its face. Read the infant doctrine and weep pal. Three strikes and you'rrrrrrrrrrrrrrre OUT!.

Meanwhile, why isn't polygamy legal in your state? Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer..

You.....you do realize that none of your babble has the slightest relevance to the real world, right? That same sex marriage is still legal. That polygamy still isn't. And that none of your newest batch of made up 'requirements' actually exist?

 

[Silhouette]

Because you see homosexuality as "adult deviant sex lifestyles".. to the detriment of children", you will never be convinced. Your ossified attitude will have to quite literally die before everyone, and I mean everyone sees marriage as access to contract law not to be hindered by bigotry.

And what about your ossified bigotry towards all the other adults and their children currently banned from marriage because of your exclusive class status based on your special deviant sex lifestyle? Read the thread title. Explain why polygamy is still illegal.. And use the 14th Amendment in your answer..

 

[Nosmo King]

Because you see homosexuality as "adult deviant sex lifestyles".. to the detriment of children", you will never be convinced. Your ossified attitude will have to quite literally die before everyone, and I mean everyone sees marriage as access to contract law not to be hindered by bigotry.

And what about your ossified bigotry towards all the other adults and their children currently banned from marriage because of your exclusive class status based on your special deviant sex lifestyle? Read the thread title. Explain why polygamy is still illegal.. And use the 14th Amendment in your answer..

Fot the record, I'm not Gay. I am an American citizen who believes that homophobia is an arcane fear based in lies, suspicions and unwarranted fear. Hardly a philosophy to make laws upon.

 

[Silhouette]

That's an evasive post.