Thanks Obama- Oklahoma Mom who once Married her Son will now go to Jail for Marrying her Daughter

[TheProgressivePatriot]

For that matter, where in the 14th does it mention sexual behaviors? Or where does it mention "just these deviant sexual behaviors, but not others"...?

Your understand that the 14th Amendment is about equality, right? No matter how "icky" other people find the minority in question...Your cult's lawyers argued this constantly in court, yet know you invoke it as a means to deny other icky orientations the same rights you insisted were yours.

You have a piss poor understanding of how the Constitution works, but I already know that. Do I really have to explain to you that the 14th Amendment - and in fact the Constitution itself says nothing about many rights that we enjoy through the evolution of Constitutional Case Law??


The Federal government is supreme and the courts acted within the law in the Obergefell case:

Why it is proper for the Federal Government and the federal courts to have the last word?

The Founders believed that a republican government was one in which:

• The power of government is held by the people.

• The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.

• The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people.

http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/lesson-plans/450-lesson3-what-is-a-republican-government

Nothing here trumps or negates the constitution and the bill of rights, which the people ratified through their elected representatives as they later did with the 14th amendment.

The constitution is clear on the principle of federal supremacy

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Judicial review is an established principle: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/judicial+review


While judicial review of state laws is clearly outlined in the supremacy clause, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not resolve the question of whether the federal

And as I said, if YOU have a particular "deviant sexual behavior " that feel that the law should recognize...GO FOR IT!

 

[Tilly]

What is so low about promoting a deviant sexual behavior as legal (Lawrence v Texas) and then using that precedent to force that behavior into "rights to marry" at the USSC level?

True, that would be sinking rather low. But for some reason in certain icky sex behaviors, it doesn't bother you. That's a very subjective and hypocritical stance you have. What if the mother in question here is sexually oriented since birth to her own adult children? I mean if using another guy's asshole as an artificial vagina is "oriented since birth", why is her case "for sure not oriented since birth"??

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

Where did I say ‘you people’, regressiveperv?

And of course you are supporting it.
Normal people don’t suggest that sickos who want to have sex with their children and siblings FIGHT in court for the right to do so!

The myriad reason it is wrong have already been established hence it is illegal.

What next? Would you like people to fight for the right to have sex with their toddlers?
With their dogs?

You entertain some very sick notions in that twisted mind of yours and your attempt at disguising them is thoroughly transparent, regressiveperv. Yuck!

Settle the fuck down! So you don't believe in equal protection under the law and due process. Got that! I would not be surprised if you were one of the people who would stoop to calling me a hypocrite for coming out unequivocally against sibling/ parent-child marriage while supporting gay marriage. YOU PEOPLE just use these issue in a feeble attempt to score points

I don’t believe in people trying to legalise having sex with their children and siblings. That you do confirms your sick mentality. It’s that simple.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

Where did I say ‘you people’, regressiveperv?

And of course you are supporting it.
Normal people don’t suggest that sickos who want to have sex with their children and siblings FIGHT in court for the right to do so!

The myriad reason it is wrong have already been established hence it is illegal.

What next? Would you like people to fight for the right to have sex with their toddlers?
With their dogs?

You entertain some very sick notions in that twisted mind of yours and your attempt at disguising them is thoroughly transparent, regressiveperv. Yuck!

Settle the fuck down! So you don't believe in equal protection under the law and due process. Got that! I would not be surprised if you were one of the people who would stoop to calling me a hypocrite for coming out unequivocally against sibling/ parent-child marriage while supporting gay marriage. YOU PEOPLE just use these issue in a feeble attempt to score points

I don’t believe in people trying to legalise having sex with their children and siblings. That you do confirms your sick mentality. It’s that simple.

Some have never met a perversion they've never embraced

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tilly and Silhouette....The twisted crack pots of the USMB. Obsessed with "deviant sexual behavior" and imagining that every one is promoting it

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

Where did I say ‘you people’, regressiveperv?

And of course you are supporting it.
Normal people don’t suggest that sickos who want to have sex with their children and siblings FIGHT in court for the right to do so!

The myriad reason it is wrong have already been established hence it is illegal.

What next? Would you like people to fight for the right to have sex with their toddlers?
With their dogs?

You entertain some very sick notions in that twisted mind of yours and your attempt at disguising them is thoroughly transparent, regressiveperv. Yuck!

Settle the fuck down! So you don't believe in equal protection under the law and due process. Got that! I would not be surprised if you were one of the people who would stoop to calling me a hypocrite for coming out unequivocally against sibling/ parent-child marriage while supporting gay marriage. YOU PEOPLE just use these issue in a feeble attempt to score points

I don’t believe in people trying to legalise having sex with their children and siblings. That you do confirms your sick mentality. It’s that simple.

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

 

[Nia88]

What the hell is wrong with this family?

 

[Tilly]

That you think people who find sex between parents and their children and siblings abhorrent says everything about you that anyone ever needs to know, regressiveperv.

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

Where did I say ‘you people’, regressiveperv?

And of course you are supporting it.
Normal people don’t suggest that sickos who want to have sex with their children and siblings FIGHT in court for the right to do so!

The myriad reason it is wrong have already been established hence it is illegal.

What next? Would you like people to fight for the right to have sex with their toddlers?
With their dogs?

You entertain some very sick notions in that twisted mind of yours and your attempt at disguising them is thoroughly transparent, regressiveperv. Yuck!

Settle the fuck down! So you don't believe in equal protection under the law and due process. Got that! I would not be surprised if you were one of the people who would stoop to calling me a hypocrite for coming out unequivocally against sibling/ parent-child marriage while supporting gay marriage. YOU PEOPLE just use these issue in a feeble attempt to score points

I don’t believe in people trying to legalise having sex with their children and siblings. That you do confirms your sick mentality. It’s that simple.

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that it is incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

The reason you no doubt support it is that you hope it would pass, and you know there’s a chance it could after Obergefell.

Would you also like people to clog up the courts for the right to:

Murder people they don’t like?
To marry and have sex with their horse?
With babies!
Their dog!
Legalise paedophilia?

After all if it’s just the principle, why not waste courts’ time and money on other such perversions as the above - even though there are already laws against them for good reason!

You have no boundaries as evidenced by the sheer volume of your posts on all manner of perversities. Next thing we know you’ll be championing parents who've married their kids to have the right to adopt children!

It seems the slippery slope couldn’t possibly ever be quite slippery enough to satisfy your anything goes laissez faire attitude! Quite sick.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Who the hell are "you people" and who here said that it is a good thing? I only said that if someone wants to marry their child or sibling, that have the right to pursue it legally. In our system based on equal protection under the law, access to the legal system should not be based on anyone's visceral reaction to the issue. What part of that do you not understand.?

Where did I say ‘you people’, regressiveperv?

And of course you are supporting it.
Normal people don’t suggest that sickos who want to have sex with their children and siblings FIGHT in court for the right to do so!

The myriad reason it is wrong have already been established hence it is illegal.

What next? Would you like people to fight for the right to have sex with their toddlers?
With their dogs?

You entertain some very sick notions in that twisted mind of yours and your attempt at disguising them is thoroughly transparent, regressiveperv. Yuck!

Settle the fuck down! So you don't believe in equal protection under the law and due process. Got that! I would not be surprised if you were one of the people who would stoop to calling me a hypocrite for coming out unequivocally against sibling/ parent-child marriage while supporting gay marriage. YOU PEOPLE just use these issue in a feeble attempt to score points

I don’t believe in people trying to legalise having sex with their children and siblings. That you do confirms your sick mentality. It’s that simple.

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that it is incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

The reason you no doubt support it is that you hope it would pass, and you know there’s a chance it could after Obergefell.

Would you also like people to clog up the courts for the right to murder people they don’t like?
To marry and have sex with their horse?
With babies!
Their dog!
Legalise paedophilia?

After all if it’s just the principle, why not waste courts’ time and money on other such perversions as the above - even though there are already laws against them for good reason!

You have no boundaries as evidenced by the sheer volume of your posts on all manner of perversities. Next thing we know you’ll be championing parents who've married their kids to have the right to adopt children!

It seems the slippery slope couldn’t possibly ever be quite slippery enough to satisfy your anything goes laissez faire attitude! Quite sick.

Oh my poor, poor troubled and overwrought Tilly. You just can't how many other scary, slippery slope turds are you going to dredge up. Dead people maybe.

Tell me dear Tilly, how many such cases have been clogging the courts since Obergefell ?

And by the way, to insinuate that I would like to see incest legalized , or that it could in any way be tied to Obergefell is really, really stupid.

 

[Syriusly]

Settle the fuck down! So you don't believe in equal protection under the law and due process. Got that! I would not be surprised if you were one of the people who would stoop to calling me a hypocrite for coming out unequivocally against sibling/ parent-child marriage while supporting gay marriage. YOU PEOPLE just use these issue in a feeble attempt to score points

I like your summation of the 14th Amendment there PP. Where in Obergefell did is say "but other minority sexual orientations are exempt from these findings"?

For that matter, where in the 14th does it mention sexual behaviors? Or where does it mention "just these deviant sexual behaviors, but not others"...?.

Obergefell was a case about same gender couples- just as Loving was a case about opposite race couples.

Just as Loving did not address same gender marriage, Obergefell did not address incest or polygamy.

If you want to pursue marrying your mother, you will have to convince a court that you can based upon the 14th Amendment.

Let us know how that goes.

 

[Syriusly]

Still waiting to see the footage of when Obama married these two 'lovebirds'- you know based upon the claim of the OP.

Meanwhile- what can you expect from Republican Oklahoma?

 

[Silhouette]

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

The case made in Lawrence was that what consenting adults do sexually in private is not a crime. So, gays already legalized incest between consenting adults; according to Lawrence + the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

The case made in Lawrence was that what consenting adults do sexually in private is not a crime..

So this is your opportunity to go to argue in court that you should not be prevented- legally- from having sex with your sister.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

So, gays already legalized incest between consenting adults; according to Lawrence + the 14th Amendment.

I don't remember the 'gays' being the Justices on the Supreme Court- or that the majority opinion said anything about incest being legal.

IF Lawrence had said that- then this mother and daughter would not have been convicted.

But Lawrence didn't legalize incest.

Swing and a miss.

 

[Geaux4it]

The left owns this freak of nature

-Geaux
------------

Patricia Ann Spann, 46, and her biological daughter Misty Velvet Dawn Spann, 26, got married in the town of Lawton about 17 months after same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Oklahoma.

To get around the potential snag of their shared family name, Patricia Spann listed her name as Patricia Ann Clayton on the pair’s marriage license application, filed with Comanche County.

For her part in marrying her daughter, two years after she was legally allowed to contact her children following an annulled marriage to her biological son, Patricia Spann will serve time in jail, according to the Oklahoman.

The newspaper reported that she pleaded guilty to felony incest Tuesday, and under a plea deal, the 46-year-old will serve two years in prison followed by eight years of probation. She will have to register as a sex offender following her release.

Oklahoma mom who once married her son will now go to jail for marrying her daughter

I'm gonna throw in 1 obvious point and one that should be asked!! A--the entire OK system failed this family! B--Isn't OK one of the biggest Mormon population states? And there are SOME fucked up 'family units' among that group.

ZERO to do with same sex marriage. NO immediate family members are allowed to be married, male or female. Maybe Obama 'slipped it in'.

No, one is just as inappropriate as the other

-Geaux

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

The case made in Lawrence was that what consenting adults do sexually in private is not a crime. So, gays already legalized incest between consenting adults; according to Lawrence + the 14th Amendment.

And your point is WHAT exactly? What does that have to do with marriage? Are you so deranged that that you think that sex and marriage are the same thing, or that gay relationships are about nothing more than sex? Or maybe you think that Lawrence opened the door to sodomy with same sex animals. WHAT exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Silhouette]

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

The case made in Lawrence was that what consenting adults do sexually in private is not a crime. So, gays already legalized incest between consenting adults; according to Lawrence + the 14th Amendment.

And your point is WHAT exactly? What does that have to do with marriage? Are you so deranged that that you think that sex and marriage are the same thing, or that gay relationships are about nothing more than sex? Or maybe you think that Lawrence opened the door to sodomy with same sex animals. WHAT exactly are you trying to say?

You're saying incest is an icky sex act. Lawrence took one type of icky sex between consenting adults and made it legal in private. From there, your cult ran that all the way across the finish line to say those consenting adults should be able, therefore, to marry. Yes, Lawrence was cited in Obergefell. What makes your icky sex acts legally superior to incest? And, why does one group of icky sex acts between consenting adults get the green light while others do not? Because incest is "immoral"? Sodomy is immoral.

Please cite the 14th Amendment and explain how Lawrence (and from there, Obergefell) ONLY means sodomy and not incest between consenting adults. Thanks.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't believe that people should be deciding who has access to the legal system based on their opinion and sensibilities. Believing that they have a right to make their case is not the same as believing that incest is right, or, a right. Let them try to make a case for it and in the process make a damned fool of themselves. Give it the light of day rather than have it fester in the shadows . If you cant comprehend this, it's not my problem.

The case made in Lawrence was that what consenting adults do sexually in private is not a crime. So, gays already legalized incest between consenting adults; according to Lawrence + the 14th Amendment.

And your point is WHAT exactly? What does that have to do with marriage? Are you so deranged that that you think that sex and marriage are the same thing, or that gay relationships are about nothing more than sex? Or maybe you think that Lawrence opened the door to sodomy with same sex animals. WHAT exactly are you trying to say?

You're saying incest is an icky sex act. Lawrence took one type of icky sex between consenting adults and made it legal in private. From there, your cult ran that all the way across the finish line to say those consenting adults should be able, therefore, to marry. Yes, Lawrence was cited in Obergefell. What makes your icky sex acts legally superior to incest? And, why does one group of icky sex acts between consenting adults get the green light while others do not? Because incest is "immoral"? Sodomy is immoral.

Please cite the 14th Amendment and explain how Lawrence (and from there, Obergefell) ONLY means sodomy and not incest between consenting adults. Thanks.

Your pathetic and profound ignorance of constitutional law is astounding indeed

No case attempting to legalize incest was brought before the court and therefor laws against incest are undisturbed , just lie laws against bestiality are undisturbed by these decision

The only thing that I am unsure of is whether you are really this ignorant, or if your playing a sick and perverted game .

 

[Silhouette]

What I'm making you see is that once minority icky sex acts between consenting adults is decriminalized, other adult consenting icky sex act practitioners cannot be legally denied the same rights and privileges that other icky sex act consenting adults enjoy.

How would you segregate them? "One is immoral & the other isn't!" Seriously? I think YOU haven't read the 14th Amendment.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What I'm making you see is that once minority icky sex acts between consenting adults is decriminalized, other adult consenting icky sex act practitioners cannot be legally denied the same rights and privileges that other icky sex act consenting adults enjoy.

How would you segregate them? "One is immoral & the other isn't!" Seriously? I think YOU haven't read the 14th Amendment.

Jesus Fucking H Christ on a cracker!! You are not making me see anything except how ridiculous you are. It is your ignorance of the law and the constitution that is allowing you to see some strange shit that isn't there.

Let me try this out on you.

Gay folks won the right to marry, and private sex acts between consenting adults were decriminalized because the states COULD NOT provide a compelling state interest or even a rational basis for prohibiting them. ( those are legal terms in constitutional law that relate to the level of scrutiny afforded a case at SCOTUS)

If someone petitioned the court to make sex with animals, children , close relatives, dead people or whatever legal, the state would again have to show- at minimum - a rational basis for prohibiting those practices. Are you with me so far?

Now -is it possible that you are so crazy or intellectually challenged to see that the state just might find it easier to prove a rational basis or compelling interest -than they did in the previous cases? Please give me a sign that you are bright enough to understand that.

 

[Roudy]

The left owns this freak of nature

-Geaux
------------

Patricia Ann Spann, 46, and her biological daughter Misty Velvet Dawn Spann, 26, got married in the town of Lawton about 17 months after same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Oklahoma.

To get around the potential snag of their shared family name, Patricia Spann listed her name as Patricia Ann Clayton on the pair’s marriage license application, filed with Comanche County.

For her part in marrying her daughter, two years after she was legally allowed to contact her children following an annulled marriage to her biological son, Patricia Spann will serve time in jail, according to the Oklahoman.

The newspaper reported that she pleaded guilty to felony incest Tuesday, and under a plea deal, the 46-year-old will serve two years in prison followed by eight years of probation. She will have to register as a sex offender following her release.

Oklahoma mom who once married her son will now go to jail for marrying her daughter

It was only a matter of time. Next the Left will ask for the right to marry their animals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The left owns this freak of nature

-Geaux
------------

Patricia Ann Spann, 46, and her biological daughter Misty Velvet Dawn Spann, 26, got married in the town of Lawton about 17 months after same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Oklahoma.

To get around the potential snag of their shared family name, Patricia Spann listed her name as Patricia Ann Clayton on the pair’s marriage license application, filed with Comanche County.

For her part in marrying her daughter, two years after she was legally allowed to contact her children following an annulled marriage to her biological son, Patricia Spann will serve time in jail, according to the Oklahoman.

The newspaper reported that she pleaded guilty to felony incest Tuesday, and under a plea deal, the 46-year-old will serve two years in prison followed by eight years of probation. She will have to register as a sex offender following her release.

Oklahoma mom who once married her son will now go to jail for marrying her daughter

It was only a matter of time. Next the Left will ask for the right to marry their animals.

Wrong smart ass. If anybody wants to be doing animals it is the grade school drop out, buck tooth, red neck, gun toting Trump dupes from Alabama and Mississippi . Where you from Boy?