The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't you take government?

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto. But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws? (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

Interesting that you say that considering that it has ALREADY gone in front of the SCOTUS and been declared Constitutional.

Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling on ObamaCare

 

[bodecea]

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?

1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution

Here's the legal problem with using the current marriage license for polygamy.

The 1000+ rights and protections for marriage today have a default feature automatically there. If one partner dies, the other gets the house, etc. Same with child custody, etc.
If you add a 3rd party, then it becomes complicated and the current marriage rights and protections are not enough.....the entire
Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples Resources Human Rights Campaign
would have to be overhauled.

Yep, those laws will have to change and the lawyers will have a field day doing it. Can you imagine the legal fees for a divorce of 5 people?

but my point remains valid, the arguments for polysexual marriage are EXACTLY the same as the arguments for man/man and woman/woman marriage.

Um....no, for the reasons I illustrated. It's not impossible to make an argument, but it isn't the exact same.

 

[bodecea]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

That's interesting. Your source?

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?

I stand corrected:

ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union

Interesting read. But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.

 

[Syriusly]

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?

1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution

So you really don't know what the arguments that are being made regarding same gender marriage other than bullet points?

those are the arguments being made, but if you disagree with my summation, tell us what I missed.

Sure- glad you asked. Let me give you some quotes from the Wisconsin case that overturned Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage(and I strongly suggest reading it to understand why so many cases against gay marriage are winning)

Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the state may not
intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions made by individuals
and that, when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so
in an even-handed manner.....

....All plaintiffs meet the requirements for getting married in Wisconsin, with the
exception that each wishes to marry someone of the same sex.....


This is a crucial point- explained in detail in the ruling
Roughly:
a) marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court
b) rights can only be denied by the State if the States can provide a compelling State interest that is accomplished by denying the right

First, because I have concluded that the marriage ban significantly
interferes with plaintiffs’ right to marry under the due process clause, defendants must show
that the ban furthers “sufficiently important state interests” that are “closely tailored to
effectuate only those interests.”

This is an important distinction- because Wisconsin was unable to provide an important state interest that banning gay marriage actually accomplishes.

The court also addressed the issue that you raise(since Wisconsin raised it as a slippery slope issue)

Thus,the important question for this case is not whether another individual’s marriage claim may
be analogous to plaintiffs’ claim, but whether plaintiffs’ claim is like the claims raised in cases
such as Loving, Zablocki, Turner and Windsor. I have concluded that it is.

When the Supreme Court struck down the marriage restrictions in those other cases, it did not engage
in hypothetical discussions about what might come next. See also Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d
259, 287-88 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (Collester, J., dissenting) (“It is . . . unnecessary for us
to consider here the question of the constitutional rights of polygamists to marry persons of
their choosing. . . . One issue of fundamental constitutional rights is enough for now.”).

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

A more fundamental point is that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is different from other
marriage restrictions because it completely excludes gay persons from participating in the
institution of marriage in any meaningful sense. In other words, gay persons simply are
asking for the right to marry someone. With the obvious exception of minors, no other class
is being denied this right. As in Romer, plaintiffs are not asking for “special rights”; they are
asking only for the rights that every adult already has

And finally coming to the decision:

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

As the court noted- the case for same gender marriage can be distinguished from bans on incestuious and polygamous marriage- the question is whether States can make more compelling arguments that the bans on those marriages are justified.

IF States cannot provide compelling arguments to justify banning incestuous and polygamous marriages- well there is a reasonable chance that they would indeed lose- and would deserve to lose.

 

[bodecea]

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

And what is that exact same legal argument?

1. discrimination
2. equal rights
3. the right to marry who you love
4. fairness
5. the constitution

So you really don't know what the arguments that are being made regarding same gender marriage other than bullet points?

those are the arguments being made, but if you disagree with my summation, tell us what I missed.

Sure- glad you asked. Let me give you some quotes from the Wisconsin case that overturned Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage(and I strongly suggest reading it to understand why so many cases against gay marriage are winning)

Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the state may not
intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions made by individuals
and that, when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so
in an even-handed manner.....

....All plaintiffs meet the requirements for getting married in Wisconsin, with the
exception that each wishes to marry someone of the same sex.....


This is a crucial point- explained in detail in the ruling
Roughly:
a) marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court
b) rights can only be denied by the State if the States can provide a compelling State interest that is accomplished by denying the right

First, because I have concluded that the marriage ban significantly
interferes with plaintiffs’ right to marry under the due process clause, defendants must show
that the ban furthers “sufficiently important state interests” that are “closely tailored to
effectuate only those interests.”

This is an important distinction- because Wisconsin was unable to provide an important state interest that banning gay marriage actually accomplishes.

The court also addressed the issue that you raise(since Wisconsin raised it as a slippery slope issue)

Thus,the important question for this case is not whether another individual’s marriage claim may
be analogous to plaintiffs’ claim, but whether plaintiffs’ claim is like the claims raised in cases
such as Loving, Zablocki, Turner and Windsor. I have concluded that it is.

When the Supreme Court struck down the marriage restrictions in those other cases, it did not engage
in hypothetical discussions about what might come next. See also Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d
259, 287-88 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (Collester, J., dissenting) (“It is . . . unnecessary for us
to consider here the question of the constitutional rights of polygamists to marry persons of
their choosing. . . . One issue of fundamental constitutional rights is enough for now.”).

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

A more fundamental point is that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is different from other
marriage restrictions because it completely excludes gay persons from participating in the
institution of marriage in any meaningful sense. In other words, gay persons simply are
asking for the right to marry someone. With the obvious exception of minors, no other class
is being denied this right. As in Romer, plaintiffs are not asking for “special rights”; they are
asking only for the rights that every adult already has

And finally coming to the decision:

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

As the court noted- the case for same gender marriage can be distinguished from bans on incestuious and polygamous marriage- the question is whether States can make more compelling arguments that the bans on those marriages are justified.

IF States cannot provide compelling arguments to justify banning incestuous and polygamous marriages- well there is a reasonable chance that they would indeed lose- and would deserve to lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because no gender is being told they can't marry.

They are being told which gender they cannot marry. That is gender discrimination.

No different than being told what race you have to marry.

Your argument is as stupid as when interracial marriages were illegal and some bigoted idiot (redundant phrase) like you would say, "No race is being told they can't marry."

They also used religion as an excuse to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

race and sex are not analogous

Bigotry is bigotry.

yes, it is, and your bigotry against anyone who disagrees with you is quite evident. WTF makes your position superior to all others? Who the fuck are you that you think you can dictate how others must think and believe?

Thats the problem with you fricken libtards, you think that you are smarter than everyone else, but you aren't

That is what the anti-CR folks said. The hatred is almost all on the far right social con side.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes. It wasn't well made, but my point was he doesn't get to define what marriage is for others.

Actually I do. It's called democracy.

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't you take government?

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

Immaterial, so your question need not be answered. Scoot along, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, you don't know that we are not a democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't you take government?

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto. But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws? (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

It already has.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

That's interesting. Your source?

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

There is no source.

 

[Redfish]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

That's interesting. Your source?

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

There is no source.

ok, I'll do the work for you

ACLU defends polygamy

 

[Redfish]

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto. But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws? (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

It already has.

Nope, the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional. Then the whole house of cards will fall.

 

[Redfish]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.

on what legal basis do you support discrimination against polygamists?

 

[Syriusly]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

They will fail, and the sun will rise in the east.

on what legal basis do you support discrimination against polygamists?

On what rational basis do you believe that he does?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

It already has.

 

[bodecea]

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

That's interesting. Your source?

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

There is no source.

ok, I'll do the work for you

ACLU defends polygamy

Thank you...but you are a day late and a dollar short.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes. Did you? Laws are decided by the democratic process, not activist judges. Go back to school because you have no clue how our government works.

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto. But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws? (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

Interesting that you say that considering that it has ALREADY gone in front of the SCOTUS and been declared Constitutional.

Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling on ObamaCare

It's being jeopardized anew using a different angle, funding for the exchanges. Obamacare is being featured right now in "1000 ways to die".

 

[bodecea]

Wow- you are so amazingly wrong.

We are a representative, Constitutional Republic.

While we have some forms of direct democracy- the 27 states that have referendum laws- the United States itself has no direct democracy.

And since we are a Constitutional Republic- all laws are subject to the Constitution- and judges determine whether they are or not-- something Conservatives applaud when it is the NRA filing lawsuits, and when an 'activist' judge overturns a law Conservatives find objective.

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto. But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws? (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

It already has.

Nope, the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional. Then the whole house of cards will fall.

Interesting that you think so.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

does congress pass laws by majority vote? yes or no

They do...unless when overiding a Presidential veto. But are they allowed to pass UnConstitutional laws? (Actually they are, but those laws will not stand)

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

It already has.

Nope, the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional. Then the whole house of cards will fall.

Interesting that you think so.

The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

We the perceptive intellectuals are cursed with being 2 steps ahead of everyone else. What we're saying will soon become evident to all.

Just as with all the other unfulfilled prophecies the rubes here make, this one, too, will be conveniently forgotten when it does not come to pass.

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

That's interesting. Your source?

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?

I stand corrected:

ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union

Interesting read. But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.

It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.