Obergefell Citing Loving v Virginia was Incorrect

[Silhouette]

The Lovings of famous "Loving v Virginia" did not violate the one man/one woman laws of each state so their case wasn't about marriage but instead about racial discrimination. This was a mistake the USSC made last Summer. They thought the Loving case was about marriage. It wasn't. Nothing changed in marriage of one man/ one woman in Loving.

And if you argue it did make homosexual marriage legal at that moment (by the logic of the precedent and arguments in Obergefell), then at that precise moment Loving was Found, polygamy (yet another "orientation" in love) was also legal. If you think it wasn't/isn't, then cite the 14th Amendment in your explanation of "why"..

 

[Skylar]

The Lovings of famous "Loving v Virginia" did not violate the one man/one woman laws of each state so their case wasn't about marriage but instead about racial discrimination. This was a mistake the USSC made last Summer. They thought the Loving case was about marriage. It wasn't. Nothing changed in marriage of one man/ one woman in Loving.

And if you argue it did make homosexual marriage legal at that moment (by the logic of the precedent and arguments in Obergefell), then at that precise moment Loving was Found, polygamy (yet another "orientation" in love) was also legal. If you think it wasn't/isn't, then cite the 14th Amendment in your explanation of "why"..

And thread 65 to your continued obsession with homosexuals.

The court's citation of Loving was superb. As it was cited as precedent of the federal courts interceding on State marriage law when state marriage law violated fundamental rights. With the right to marry being one of them.

Loving found that you couldn't restrict marriage based on race. Obergefell that you couldn't restrict marriage based on gender. We told you this was coming, we told you what basis the Loving ruling would be cited on, we told you the outcome of the Obergefell decision.

You thought you knew better. How'd that work out for you?

And polygamy is never once mentioned in Obergefell. You've imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

 

[ogibillm]

when do we start jailing divorced and single parents?

 

[Silhouette]

So explain using the 14th Amendment how polyamorists cannot marry each other.

 

[Silhouette]

when do we start jailing divorced and single parents?

Never because they don't possess a contract that strips children of either a mother or father for life. It is merely a situation, not contractual bondage.

 

[Skylar]

when do we start jailing divorced and single parents?

Never. Remember, Sil was a single mom. So none of her standards apply to single parents.

 

[jillian]

The Lovings of famous "Loving v Virginia" did not violate the one man/one woman laws of each state so their case wasn't about marriage but instead about racial discrimination. This was a mistake the USSC made last Summer. They thought the Loving case was about marriage. It wasn't. Nothing changed in marriage of one man/ one woman in Loving.

And if you argue it did make homosexual marriage legal at that moment (by the logic of the precedent and arguments in Obergefell), then at that precise moment Loving was Found, polygamy (yet another "orientation" in love) was also legal. If you think it wasn't/isn't, then cite the 14th Amendment in your explanation of "why"..

psycho bigot. your lack of knowledge is pathetic. and your obsessive bigotry is worse.

now be quiet.

 

[Skylar]

So explain using the 14th Amendment how polyamorists cannot marry each other.

Its your argument. You make the case for it. Remembering of course that neither Windsor nor Loving nor Obergefell make the slightest mention of it.

 

[mdk]

when do we start jailing divorced and single parents?

Never because they don't possess a contract that strips children of either a mother or father for life. It is merely a situation, not contractual bondage.

Of course not. That standard doesn't allow you to harm gay people. Your standard is nothing more than self-serving bullshit. Luckily, nobody is bound by anti-gay nonsense you pull out of thin air.

 

[Skylar]

when do we start jailing divorced and single parents?

Never because they don't possess a contract that strips children of either a mother or father for life. It is merely a situation, not contractual bondage.

And what court or law recognize children as implied parties in the marriage of their parents?

I've asked you this question dozens of times over months. And you've never once been able to answer it.

 

[rightwinger]

So explain using the 14th Amendment how polyamorists cannot marry each other.

Personally, I don't care if they do

However, as long as polygamy is illegal, the 14th does not apply
Homosexuality is not illegal

 

[ogibillm]

when do we start jailing divorced and single parents?

Never because they don't possess a contract that strips children of either a mother or father for life. It is merely a situation, not contractual bondage.

so by your 'logic' a gay, unwed parent is better than two gay married parents.

because the slut pumping out babies by multiple fathers bringing a parade of men and instability into the home isn't damaging to a kid but two committed people is

 

[Silhouette]

And what court or law recognize children as implied parties in the marriage of their parents?

I've asked you this question dozens of times over months. And you've never once been able to answer it.

Implied contract law: equally binding as expressed.

 

[jillian]

And what court or law recognize children as implied parties in the marriage of their parents?

I've asked you this question dozens of times over months. And you've never once been able to answer it.

Implied contract law: equally binding as expressed.

what are you blathering about?

 

[Silhouette]

So explain using the 14th Amendment how polyamorists cannot marry each other.

Personally, I don't care if they do

However, as long as polygamy is illegal, the 14th does not apply
Homosexuality is not illegal

Polygamy was decriminalized in Utah I think last year or the year before.

 

[mdk]

And what court or law recognize children as implied parties in the marriage of their parents?

I've asked you this question dozens of times over months. And you've never once been able to answer it.

Implied contract law: equally binding as expressed.

Here is the exhaustive list of US states/commonwealths where children are an implied party to a marriage contract:

1.


Glad I could help.

 

[jillian]

So explain using the 14th Amendment how polyamorists cannot marry each other.

Personally, I don't care if they do

However, as long as polygamy is illegal, the 14th does not apply
Homosexuality is not illegal

Polygamy was decriminalized in Utah I think last year or the year before.

what psychopathology or mental illness makes you obsessed with gays? were you dumped by someone gay? love someone of the same sex?

mostly, no one cares.

you're boring and nuts and a waste of bandwidth

 

[Dot Com]

The Lovings of famous "Loving v Virginia" did not violate the one man/one woman laws of each state so their case wasn't about marriage but instead about racial discrimination. This was a mistake the USSC made last Summer. They thought the Loving case was about marriage. It wasn't. Nothing changed in marriage of one man/ one woman in Loving.

And if you argue it did make homosexual marriage legal at that moment (by the logic of the precedent and arguments in Obergefell), then at that precise moment Loving was Found, polygamy (yet another "orientation" in love) was also legal. If you think it wasn't/isn't, then cite the 14th Amendment in your explanation of "why"..

And thread 65 to your continued obsession with homosexuals.

The court's citation of Loving was superb. As it was cited as precedent of the federal courts interceding on State marriage law when state marriage law violated fundamental rights. With the right to marry being one of them.

Loving found that you couldn't restrict marriage based on race. Obergefell that you couldn't restrict marriage based on gender. We told you this was coming, we told you what basis the Loving ruling would be cited on, we told you the outcome of the Obergefell decision.

You thought you knew better. How'd that work out for you?

And polygamy is never once mentioned in Obergefell. You've imagined it. And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

she is indeed obsessed w/ it. I never took much notice of her until last month when she went on a posting spree about it and hasn't let-up since. Scary

 

[Dot Com]

when do we start jailing divorced and single parents?

Never. Remember, Sil was a single mom. So none of her standards apply to single parents.

lol I know right?

 

[Skylar]

And what court or law recognize children as implied parties in the marriage of their parents?

I've asked you this question dozens of times over months. And you've never once been able to answer it.

Implied contract law: equally binding as expressed.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to find even one law or court ruling recognizing that children are 'implied parties' in the marriage of their parents.

If you're not talking about of your ass, that is. Otherwise we'll get even more excuses for why no such law or case exists.