Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

I'd go a step further and say that Obergefell already accomplished that. Polygamists and any other combination that sees fit may now walk into their County courthouse and demand a marriage license based on Obergefell. Their case would be won so quickly it would make your head spin. Because the only opposing argument to polygamy is "it would be bad for kids involved". And at that precise moment in time the court would admit that kids' counsel should've been briefing the courts at every step of the gay marriage crusade because of the radical change that Obergefell forces them to endure: a contract banishing them for life from the hope of ever having either a mother or father.

Too embarrassing to face that mistake in due process, the Courts would quickly grant polygamists their win and children's interests in marriage would once again get the shove under the carpet. Which is Machiavellian because children are the most important elements of the nuclear family. Their formative environment is the seed of society's formative environment into the future.

Agree entirely. I would ask those that disagree, what compelling State interest, based on Obergfell, coult the State use to defend?

Answer: NONE

That ship has sailed

And it's not like we didn't warn about this earlier.

All that's needed is for polygamists or any other child-hostile weirdo-combination to walk into a courthouse anywhere in the US and demand marriage. I say we make that happen to drive the point home. Like yesterday. Every time I brought up polygamy pre-Obergefell, the LGBT nazis here on the board kept saying "that would be terrible for the children!!" Meanwhile they pushed on to revise the contract to systematically-deprive "the poor children!!" of either a mother or father for life.

Imagine being a boy and your only "father" role model you get from the marriage contract is a nasty mannish dyke you accidentally walk in on wearing a strap-on dildo with his mom (who for some reason is sexually attracted to those mannish trappings)? You think that a boy like that isn't going to grow up fucked up in the head? Oh, and "Happy Father's Day" to all the kids bound by a lesbian-marriage contract for life....

 

[dblack]

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.

I realize most people here accept the premise: Government is the 'decider' in all things. And that it all boils down to manipulating government to serve your own ends. It's that premise that I'm fighting against. Using the government to score perks for 'your side' might feel like a win, but it's not. It's simply legitimizing that system that keeps us all at each others throats.

 

[Pop23]

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

I'd go a step further and say that Obergefell already accomplished that. Polygamists and any other combination that sees fit may now walk into their County courthouse and demand a marriage license based on Obergefell. Their case would be won so quickly it would make your head spin. Because the only opposing argument to polygamy is "it would be bad for kids involved". And at that precise moment in time the court would admit that kids' counsel should've been briefing the courts at every step of the gay marriage crusade because of the radical change that Obergefell forces them to endure: a contract banishing them for life from the hope of ever having either a mother or father.

Too embarrassing to face that mistake in due process, the Courts would quickly grant polygamists their win and children's interests in marriage would once again get the shove under the carpet. Which is Machiavellian because children are the most important elements of the nuclear family. Their formative environment is the seed of society's formative environment into the future.

Agree entirely. I would ask those that disagree, what compelling State interest, based on Obergfell, coult the State use to defend?

Answer: NONE

That ship has sailed

And it's not like we didn't warn about this earlier.

All that's needed is for polygamists or any other child-hostile weirdo-combination to walk into a courthouse anywhere in the US and demand marriage. I say we make that happen to drive the point home. Like yesterday. Every time I brought up polygamy pre-Obergefell, the LGBT nazis here on the board kept saying "that would be terrible for the children!!" Meanwhile they pushed on to revise the contract to systematically-deprive "the poor children!!" of either a mother or father for life.

Imagine being a boy and your only "father" role model you gets from the marriage contract is a nasty mannish dyke you accidentally walks in on wearing a strap-on dildo with his mom? You think that boy like that isn't going to grow up fucked up in the head?

Consider this:

A man walks into the courthouse with 4 women and requests a marriage licence for him and the 4 women. He is denied for the reason that the State does not want to sanction a relationship that is bad for the children that might be produced in this relationship. Fair enough, right?

They leave and 5 heterosexual males walk in and want the same. The argument the State has is????

Yep, that would do it.

 

[Silhouette]

That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.

I realize most people here accept the premise: Government is the 'decider' in all things. And that it all boils down to manipulating government to serve your owns ends. It's that premise that I'm fighting against. Using the government to score perks for 'your side' might feel like a win, but it's not. It's simply legitimizing that system that keeps us all at each others throats.

So dblack, how do you feel about polygamy-marriage?

 

[Pop23]

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.

I realize most people here accept the premise: Government is the 'decider' in all things. And that it all boils down to manipulating government to serve your owns ends. It's that premise that I'm fighting against. Using the government to score perks for 'your side' might feel like a win, but it's not. It's simply legitimizing that system that keeps us all at each others throats.

We agree, but to get this changed, in Marriage first, then across the board, the danger has to be EXPLICIT, or it will be ignored. This could be what tips that scale in the right direction. We agree, but our methods are simply different.

 

[Silhouette]

Consider this:

A man walks into the courthouse with 4 women and requests a marriage licence for him and the 4 women. He is denied for the reason that the State does not want to sanction a relationship that is bad for the children that might be produced in this relationship. Fair enough, right?

They leave and 5 heterosexual males walk in and want the same. The argument the State has is????

Yep, that would do it.

I appreciate your example and your logical reasoning. Very much. However, it isn't "fair enough" and I've been arguing that for some time. A child's interest in the marriage contract was never taken into consideration in gay marriage. That mistake shouldn't be "fair enough" in future miscarriages of justice on children's behalf re: their interests in their benefits from the marriage contract. And as to "explicit" danger to children, what could be more of a psychological danger to a boy than being told "there's a contract that extinguishes any hope you have of a father in your life".

Other than that, yes, I see your example and how the State has ZERO argument once the mistake is set in stone (Obergefell).

 

[dblack]

That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.

I realize most people here accept the premise: Government is the 'decider' in all things. And that it all boils down to manipulating government to serve your owns ends. It's that premise that I'm fighting against. Using the government to score perks for 'your side' might feel like a win, but it's not. It's simply legitimizing that system that keeps us all at each others throats.

So dblack, how do you feel about polygamy-marriage?

I don't.

 

[Silhouette]

DODGE ^^

 

[dblack]

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.

I realize most people here accept the premise: Government is the 'decider' in all things. And that it all boils down to manipulating government to serve your owns ends. It's that premise that I'm fighting against. Using the government to score perks for 'your side' might feel like a win, but it's not. It's simply legitimizing that system that keeps us all at each others throats.

We agree, but to get this changed, in Marriage first, then across the board, the danger has to be EXPLICIT, or it will be ignored. This could be what tips that scale in the right direction. We agree, but our methods are simply different.

No, I don't agree.

 

[dblack]

DODGE ^^

No, it's not. Unlike you, i'm not preoccupied with trying to tell other people how to live. I don't give one rat's ass how other people form families. That's your agenda, not mine.

 

[Pop23]

The good news Dblack, is that Obergfell might just accomplish what you wish. It was poorly thought out and implemented. It opens the door for litigation that could eventually get Government out of Marriage.

That's not my 'wish'. Ideally, yes, government shouldn't be dictating terms on marriage. But that's not my interest in these discrimination threads. My wish is that we come to recognize that our approach to civil rights legislation has some serious flaws (eg 'protected classes', 'public accommodations'), and, at this point, is causing more problems than it solves.

I realize most people here accept the premise: Government is the 'decider' in all things. And that it all boils down to manipulating government to serve your owns ends. It's that premise that I'm fighting against. Using the government to score perks for 'your side' might feel like a win, but it's not. It's simply legitimizing that system that keeps us all at each others throats.

We agree, but to get this changed, in Marriage first, then across the board, the danger has to be EXPLICIT, or it will be ignored. This could be what tips that scale in the right direction. We agree, but our methods are simply different.

No, I don't agree.

You will get your way anyway, but it will happen through my example.

 

[Silhouette]

DODGE ^^

No, it's not. Unlike you, i'm not preoccupied with trying to tell other people how to live. I don't give one rat's ass how other people form families. That's your agenda, not mine.

So then you are absolutely and totally for polygamy marriage. Thanks for answering the question. And as I have said, using the 14th Amendment as a guideline, polygamy marriage IS ALREADY LEGAL in all 50 states.

Let me repeat that: Obergefell + The equality-mandate of the 14th Amendment = any lifestyle that so chooses may marry and involve children in that marriage. It cannot be any other way without rewriting federal laws on "equal rights and privileges". What makes gay marriage objectively superior to any other non man/woman marriage? Nothing. It was a subjective elevation by 5 unelected lawyers in DC.

 

[Pop23]

DODGE ^^

No, it's not. Unlike you, i'm not preoccupied with trying to tell other people how to live. I don't give one rat's ass how other people form families. That's your agenda, not mine.

So then you are absolutely and totally for polygamy marriage. Thanks for answering the question.

The same Government that created this paradox will need to attempt to, somehow fix it. But with any paradox, no solution will fix the unfixable. They will need to drop the institution entirely, or do exactly as the law demands, allow everyone and anyone to enter it, regardless of number of participants, or how closely related.

Which do you think this Government would do?

I think they simply walk away from the institution.

 

[Pop23]

So then you are absolutely and totally for polygamy marriage. Thanks for answering the question.

So then you're a child rapist. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. Isn't this a fun game?

You do not understand the entire concept do you? Being someone who wants to marry multiple partners is not necessarily doing so as might have been common in the days of Utah.

Your statement was ignorant and actually Bigoted.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Pop, I reported his post...

The same Government that created this paradox will need to attempt to, somehow fix it. But with any paradox, no solution will fix the unfixable. They will need to drop the institution entirely, or do exactly as the law demands, allow everyone and anyone to enter it, regardless of number of participants, or how closely related.

Which do you think this Government would do? I think they simply walk away from the institution.

Well, we are the government and that's why we should've stuck with Windsor's 56-reiterations that "the definition of marriage rests with the states". Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? That Obergefell relied on Windsor and found that marriage isn't the authority of the states is one of the biggest forms of judicial-gaslighting I've ever heard of. No wonder Scalia called it "voodoo"..

And as to the paradox you mention, this is why Scalia "suddenly died" in Texas just after he lost his shit over Obergefell. I for one would like to see any note he might have left. But you know we never will...

WE decide if as a country we "walk away from defining marriage"..not five fucking unelected lawyers in DC. (one of which openly declared her bias to the press just weeks before the Obergefell Hearing).

 

[dblack]

^^ Pop, I reported his post....

Of course you did. That's the theme of the thread - using the rules to get one over on people you don't like.

 

[Pop23]

^^ Pop, I reported his post....

Of course you did. That's the theme of the thread - using the rules to get one over on people you don't like.

I disagree, you took reality, that being that their is no rational basis to not allow polygamy to the extreme. And did so in a way to accuse a fellow citizen of being a hideous criminal.

Understand, neither I nor Sil created the "rules" that either will, or must lead to Polygamy (unless you can produce s rational legal basis that it cannot happen), but you chose to sidestep that critical step just because you think we are mean?

That in no way is rational.

 

[dblack]

Understand, neither I nor Sil created the "rules" that either will, or must lead to Polygamy (unless you can produce s rational legal basis that it cannot happen), but you chose to sidestep that critical step just because you think we are mean?

I don't think you're 'mean'. I think you're hypocrites. You're the kind of "conservatives" who are all in on big, intrusive government when it's promoting your agenda. And then tilt 'libertarian' when it's not. I've been watching this dance for thirty years. You guys are a greater threat to freedom than the 'progressives' you're habitually whining about.

 

[Pop23]

Understand, neither I nor Sil created the "rules" that either will, or must lead to Polygamy (unless you can produce s rational legal basis that it cannot happen), but you chose to sidestep that critical step just because you think we are mean?

I don't think you're 'mean'. I think you're hypocrites. You're the kind of "conservatives" who are all in on big, intrusive government when it's promoting your agenda. And then tilt 'libertarian' when it's not. I've been watching this dance for thirty years. You guys are a greater threat to freedom than the 'progressives' you're habitually whining about.

HUH? Pointing out that Big Government screwed the pooch is somehow being in favor of Big Government?

Are you mental?

 

[mdk]

Well, we are the government and that's why we should've stuck with Windsor's 56-reiterations that "the definition of marriage rests with the states". Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal? That Obergefell relied on Windsor and found that marriage isn't the authority of the states is one of the biggest forms of judicial-gaslighting I've ever heard of. No wonder Scalia called it "voodoo"..

And as to the paradox you mention, this is why Scalia "suddenly died" in Texas just after he lost his shit over Obergefell. I for one would like to see any note he might have left. But you know we never will...

WE decide if as a country we "walk away from defining marriage"..not five fucking unelected lawyers in DC. (one of which openly declared her bias to the press just weeks before the Obergefell Hearing).

Remember when you claimed Scalia committed suicide over Obergefell? I do.

Did Obergefell Kill Justice Scalia? Or What?