Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’

[Sun Devil 92]

Turley's case was not a polygamy case; it was cohabitation case.

That means nothing.

It's the language he was citing (you know.....resonates).

It wasn't about polygamy. There is no legal polygamy under Utah law, and there isn't now.

Get another cup of coffee.

I said that. He was citing language and how it resonates with what his case was about (which really wasn't polygamy to begin with).

The Daily Caller as usual totally misrepresents Turley in the article:

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition. We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

You are just now reading that ?

It isn't about polygamy......isn't that pretty plain.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The GAYstapo claimed that gay marriage couldn't possibly lead to polygamy, but here it is:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

Read more: Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision SCOTUS Opinion Resonates With Our Arguments The Daily Caller​

What possible argument could there be now to deny polygamy? Or even set an age of consent?

Does it matter ?

13 year olds are screwing each other all the time.

I don't see them going to jail in droves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Turley's case was not a polygamy case; it was cohabitation case.

That means nothing.

It's the language he was citing (you know.....resonates).

Nothing Turley said in any way 'opened the door' for states to be required to sanction polygamy as a legal form of marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Turley's case was not a polygamy case; it was cohabitation case.

That means nothing.

It's the language he was citing (you know.....resonates).

It wasn't about polygamy. There is no legal polygamy under Utah law, and there isn't now.

Get another cup of coffee.

I said that. He was citing language and how it resonates with what his case was about (which really wasn't polygamy to begin with).

The Daily Caller as usual totally misrepresents Turley in the article:

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition. We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

You are just now reading that ?

It isn't about polygamy......isn't that pretty plain.

Did you bother to read the thread title? Or the first post?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’"

Turley has long been discredited concerning this false comparison fallacy, he's been whining about this nonsense since Lawrence.

Obergefell has no bearing whatsoever on 'polygamy,' unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts; indeed, there are no civil rights 'violations' because one can't be 'discriminated' against concerning being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That means nothing.

It's the language he was citing (you know.....resonates).

It wasn't about polygamy. There is no legal polygamy under Utah law, and there isn't now.

Get another cup of coffee.

I said that. He was citing language and how it resonates with what his case was about (which really wasn't polygamy to begin with).

The Daily Caller as usual totally misrepresents Turley in the article:

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition. We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

You are just now reading that ?

It isn't about polygamy......isn't that pretty plain.

Did you bother to read the thread title? Or the first post?

I was about to ask you if you even bothered to read your own posts.....

Much less the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It wasn't about polygamy. There is no legal polygamy under Utah law, and there isn't now.

Get another cup of coffee.

I said that. He was citing language and how it resonates with what his case was about (which really wasn't polygamy to begin with).

The Daily Caller as usual totally misrepresents Turley in the article:

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition. We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

You are just now reading that ?

It isn't about polygamy......isn't that pretty plain.

Did you bother to read the thread title? Or the first post?

I was about to ask you if you even bothered to read your own posts.....

Much less the OP.

You're talking gibberish now.

 

[Freewill]

The GAYstapo claimed that gay marriage couldn't possibly lead to polygamy, but here it is:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

Read more: Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision SCOTUS Opinion Resonates With Our Arguments The Daily Caller​

What possible argument could there be now to deny polygamy? Or even set an age of consent?

Does it matter ?

13 year olds are screwing each other all the time.

I don't see them going to jail in droves.

Nothing matters any more.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The GAYstapo claimed that gay marriage couldn't possibly lead to polygamy, but here it is:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

Read more: Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision SCOTUS Opinion Resonates With Our Arguments The Daily Caller​

What possible argument could there be now to deny polygamy? Or even set an age of consent?

Does it matter ?

13 year olds are screwing each other all the time.

I don't see them going to jail in droves.

Nothing matters any more.

Or, brother.

Obviously you have no idea how untrue and ridiculous this is.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's interesting that two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry....but many who support that find polygamy repulsive.

The only thing repulsive here is the slippery slope and false dichotomy fallacies that always seem to come up when people try to foolishly link polygamy to same sex marriage.

 

[SwimExpert]

What possible argument could there be now to deny polygamy?

Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

98 U.S. 145 (1878)

Or even set an age of consent?

Because, ya know.....consent. Marriage is a civil contract. In order for a contract to be valid, those party to it must consent to the agreement.

 

[dilloduck]

It's interesting that two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry....but many who support that find polygamy repulsive.

The only thing repulsive here is the slippery slope and false dichotomy fallacies that always seem to come up when people try to foolishly link polygamy to same sex marriage.

What is foolish about people who are in love with each other being allowed to get "married" ?

 

[dilloduck]

What possible argument could there be now to deny polygamy?

Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

98 U.S. 145 (1878)

Or even set an age of consent?

Because, ya know.....consent. Marriage is a civil contract. In order for a contract to be valid, those party to it must consent to the agreement.

So change the frickin law----just like they did for gays.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's interesting that two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry....but many who support that find polygamy repulsive.

The only thing repulsive here is the slippery slope and false dichotomy fallacies that always seem to come up when people try to foolishly link polygamy to same sex marriage.

What is foolish about people who are in love with each other being allowed to get "married" ?

Don't put words in my mouth, idiot.

 

[Silhouette]

Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.

Such a bummer, the social construct of polygamy that would be so harmful to children in it. And so much better for the children to have King Kennedy and his two impeachable consorts Kagan and Ginsburg decree that fatherless or motherless "marriages" are today's vogue family.

Which is worse, having a mother and father or not having one or the other?

 

[mdk]

The GAYstapo claimed that gay marriage couldn't possibly lead to polygamy, but here it is:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

Read more: Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision SCOTUS Opinion Resonates With Our Arguments The Daily Caller​

What possible argument could there be now to deny polygamy? Or even set an age of consent?

Does it matter ?

13 year olds are screwing each other all the time.

I don't see them going to jail in droves.

Nothing matters any more.

You seem to be taking this ruling well.

 

[mdk]

Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.

Such a bummer, the social construct of polygamy that would be so harmful to children in it. And so much better for the children to have King Kennedy and his two impeachable consorts Kagan and Ginsburg decree that fatherless or motherless "marriages" are today's vogue family.

Which is worse, having a mother and father or not having one or the other?

My guess is having two loving parents is better then having none.

 

[dilloduck]

It's interesting that two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry....but many who support that find polygamy repulsive.

The only thing repulsive here is the slippery slope and false dichotomy fallacies that always seem to come up when people try to foolishly link polygamy to same sex marriage.

What is foolish about people who are in love with each other being allowed to get "married" ?

Don't put words in my mouth, idiot.

So you have no problem with several people getting married to each other. Good for you.

 

[mudwhistle]

The GAYstapo claimed that gay marriage couldn't possibly lead to polygamy, but here it is:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

Read more: Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision SCOTUS Opinion Resonates With Our Arguments The Daily Caller​

Well, what would you expect him to say? Good luck with that stuff guy.

Obviously anyone who doesn't support polygamy is a hater.

 

[mudwhistle]

Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.

Such a bummer, the social construct of polygamy that would be so harmful to children in it. And so much better for the children to have King Kennedy and his two impeachable consorts Kagan and Ginsburg decree that fatherless or motherless "marriages" are today's vogue family.

Which is worse, having a mother and father or not having one or the other?

My guess is having two loving parents is better then having none.

I think having 5 loving parents is even better.