Brown Family Pushes Polyamory-Orientation To USSC Ultimately For Marriage Equality: A Poll

[Skylar]

could you imagine having more than one hubby....omg....what kinda hell would that be?

It doesn't matter. It would be hell to get HIV/AIDS from ass-sex from your statistically 100% of the time promiscuous "husband"; but that still didn't stop "gay marriage" did it? Nor will your own misgivings about polyamory/polygamy marriage stop it from it's day in Court.

What the hell does HIV have do with your inane babble about polyamory?

 

[strollingbones]

i dont care but it goes to show its more about sex than the browns let on

 

[Silhouette]

What the hell does HIV have do with your inane babble about polyamory?

^^ Dunno, I didn't introduce the strawman, someone else did. I was busy talking about this vv

**********

Using sexual orientation to win a case from a recent precedent citing sexual orientation's "intrinsic rights' is not "blathering legal nonsense". Are you saying that citing legal precedent is "blathering legal nonsense"? Because then all arguments are "blathering legal nonsense" by your definition

... I am saying that you making up legal precedent is blathering nonsense and will not be used by Turley in the Brown case. Sadly for you, lawyers have to cite precedent that actually exists, not whatever bullshit you pull out of thin air.

From Obergefell v Hodges; Opinion, pages 7-8: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17....

Your buddies at the APA went gave the Justices their "information" and off that they based their Decision. Kody Brown has an immutable sexual attraction to more than one woman/wife (obviously). And from this he has adopted the Mormon Church offshoot that accepts polygamy, combining his lust with his faith to I suppose legitimize both. In any event, faith notwithstanding, it is his sexual orientation and the consent of his adult wives that will put them over the finish line...

Continued:

in Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996), the Court invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s Constitution that sought to foreclose any branch or political subdivision of the State from protecting persons against discrimination based on sexual orientation..

Oops, there it is again...

More.. (page 9-10)

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

Uh, oh...you mean like the "intimate choices" a polyamorously-oriented man makes towards his wives? If they are consenting and define that choice as a part of their "personal identity and beliefs"...polygamy is a done deal under Obergefell.

And as to "two" being sacred, you can throw that out the window also: (pages 10-11)

..it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present

Well then, if "two" was the past, it surely cannot rule the present, now can it?

And....*drum roll*....Turley's citation du jour: (page 11)

The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

One discord might be granting protections and coverages for just one sexual orientation, "intimate choices" "personal identity" and "beliefs" but denying other sexual orientations, intimate choices, personal identity and beliefs. Can't have a law that applies to just one person's gig but not anothers. And since the Court already said history doesn't constrain marriage, then "two" goes out with the bathwater along with the baby.

 

[Silhouette]

i dont care but it goes to show its more about sex than the browns let on

Exactly! Thanks for making my point. The Browns' situation IS more about sex than the Browns let on. Kody's sexual orientation and the consent "into it" aspect of his wives as well. Sexual orientation, intimate choices, lifestyle.... Remember that when you're reading my last post. Right mdk? Skylar?

 

[Skylar]

What the hell does HIV have do with your inane babble about polyamory?

^^ Dunno, I didn't introduce the strawman, someone else did. I was busy talking about this vv

**********

Using sexual orientation to win a case from a recent precedent citing sexual orientation's "intrinsic rights' is not "blathering legal nonsense". Are you saying that citing legal precedent is "blathering legal nonsense"? Because then all arguments are "blathering legal nonsense" by your definition

... I am saying that you making up legal precedent is blathering nonsense and will not be used by Turley in the Brown case. Sadly for you, lawyers have to cite precedent that actually exists, not whatever bullshit you pull out of thin air.

From Obergefell v Hodges; Opinion, pages 7-8: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17....

Your buddies at the APA went gave the Justices their "information" and off that they based their Decision. Kody Brown has an immutable sexual attraction to more than one woman/wife (obviously). And from this he has adopted the Mormon Church offshoot that accepts polygamy, combining his lust with his faith to I suppose legitimize both. In any event, faith notwithstanding, it is his sexual orientation and the consent of his adult wives that will put them over the finish line...

Continued:

in Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996), the Court invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s Constitution that sought to foreclose any branch or political subdivision of the State from protecting persons against discrimination based on sexual orientation..

Oops, there it is again...

More.. (page 9-10)

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

Uh, oh...you mean like the "intimate choices" a polyamorously-oriented man makes towards his wives? If they are consenting and define that choice as a part of their "personal identity and beliefs"...polygamy is a done deal under Obergefell.

And as to "two" being sacred, you can throw that out the window also: (pages 10-11)

..it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present

Well then, if "two" was the past, it surely cannot rule the present, now can it?

And....*drum roll*....Turley's citation du jour: (page 11)

The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

One discord might be granting protections and coverages for just one sexual orientation, "intimate choices" "personal identity" and "beliefs" but denying other sexual orientations, intimate choices, personal identity and beliefs. Can't have a law that applies to just one person's gig but not anothers. And since the Court already said history doesn't constrain marriage, then "two" goes out with the bathwater along with the baby.

I don't think strawman means what you think it means. As every position we've attributed to you.....you've actually taken.

You keep citing your imagination as evidence. And..it isn't.

 

[mdk]

 

[Skylar]

i dont care but it goes to show its more about sex than the browns let on

Exactly! Thanks for making my point. The Browns' situation IS more about sex than the Browns let on. Kody's sexual orientation and the consent "into it" aspect of his wives as well. Sexual orientation, intimate choices, lifestyle.... Remember that when you're reading my last post. Right mdk? Skylar?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. Remember.....you made that up, citing your imagination.

And your imagination is legally meaningless. See how that works?

You make shit. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

 

[mdk]

i dont care but it goes to show its more about sex than the browns let on

Exactly! Thanks for making my point. The Browns' situation IS more about sex than the Browns let on. Kody's sexual orientation and the consent "into it" aspect of his wives as well. Sexual orientation, intimate choices, lifestyle.... Remember that when you're reading my last post. Right mdk? Skylar?

The Brown family is making their case about religious freedoms and their right to privacy, not whatever horseshit you invent from your addled mind.

 

[Moonglow]

Changing the law is easy, actually finding the partners is the hard sell...

 

[Silhouette]

Page full, mission accomplished...sort of...

 

[Silhouette]

Changing the law is easy, actually finding the partners is the hard sell...

No change in law needed, refer to post #231. Obergefell already applies to ALL (not just some) sexual orientations, intimate choices and lifestyles between consenting adults. The Browns included.

 

[Skylar]

Page full, mission accomplished...sort of...

And your mission was to push your imagination as evidence?

If so, then you've succeeded wildly.

 

[Skylar]

Changing the law is easy, actually finding the partners is the hard sell...

No change in law needed, refer to post #231. Obergefell already applies to ALL (not just some) sexual orientations, intimate choices and lifestyles between consenting adults. The Browns included.

Except that no court nor law recognizes polyamory as a sexual orientation. You made it up. Nor is sexual orientation the basis of the Obergefell ruling. But equal protection and due process.

Remember.....your imagination isn't actually legal evidence. Which might explain why Brown isn't citing any of your pseudo-legal nonsense.

 

[Moonglow]

Changing the law is easy, actually finding the partners is the hard sell...

No change in law needed, refer to post #231. Obergefell already applies to ALL (not just some) sexual orientations, intimate choices and lifestyles between consenting adults. The Browns included.

Then where do I find willing participants..??

 

[mdk]

Changing the law is easy, actually finding the partners is the hard sell...

No change in law needed, refer to post #231. Obergefell already applies to ALL (not just some) sexual orientations, intimate choices and lifestyles between consenting adults. The Browns included.

Then why are they suing if their marriage is already legal? Derp!

 

[Moonglow]

Changing the law is easy, actually finding the partners is the hard sell...

No change in law needed, refer to post #231. Obergefell already applies to ALL (not just some) sexual orientations, intimate choices and lifestyles between consenting adults. The Browns included.

Then why are they suing if their marriage is already legal? Derp!

She's always thinking that gheys getting married has opened the legal door for all forms to be automatically opened..

 

[hazlnut]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

August 9, 2016
Polygamist Kody Brown of "Sister Wives" fame have been granted more time to pursue an appeal in their case against Utah, FOX13 reports...U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the family until Sept. 10 to file a petition of certiorari to have the nation's top court review their case....'Sister Wives' to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage | Fox News

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah. We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote..: "..The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court. This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse. The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

It's traditional biblical marriage.

Why would conservative Christians have a problem with this?

 

[Moonglow]

And the Brown's case is moving up. Wonder how I missed this??

August 9, 2016
Polygamist Kody Brown of "Sister Wives" fame have been granted more time to pursue an appeal in their case against Utah, FOX13 reports...U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the family until Sept. 10 to file a petition of certiorari to have the nation's top court review their case....'Sister Wives' to petition U.S. Supreme Court to recognize plural marriage | Fox News

“While disappointed, the Brown family remains committed to this case and the struggle for equal rights for all families in Utah. We will now take this fight to the Supreme Court,” Brown family attorney Jonathan Turley wrote..: "..The Tenth Circuit did not deny the violation of free speech and free exercise by Mr. Buhman – violations found by the trial court. Rather it barred the Brown family from challenging his actions in federal court. This country rests on the rule of law, which is reduced to a mere pretense if citizens are barred from the courthouse. The Browns respectfully disagree with the panel and will seek relief before the United States Supreme Court.”

Wow! The Tenth Circuit tried to BAN the Brown family's right to appeal! Can you imagine that? "Sorry, the right to due process doesn't apply to you citizen"

Gee, I wonder what group might have influenced trying to keep the Browns not being able to take their case any further? 20 guesses and the first 19 don't count..

Polyamory: the sexual orientation towards multiple partners. Obergefell 2015, the famous case making it illegal for states to deny marriage licenses based on people's sexual orientation. The Brown's case is a slam dunk if they frame it under sexual orientation.

It's traditional biblical marriage.

Why would conservative Christians have a problem with this?

What do they not have a problem with? They can get what they want and still bitch about it...

 

[Silhouette]

It's traditional biblical marriage.

Why would conservative Christians have a problem with this?

What do conservative Christians have to do with this? This has to do with marriage equality of "intimate choices and lifestyles"; not religion. And Obergefell has spoken on that. See post #231 for details.

 

[mdk]

It's traditional biblical marriage.

Why would conservative Christians have a problem with this?

What do conservative Christians have to do with this? This has to do with marriage equality of "intimate choices and lifestyles"; not religion. And Obergefell has spoken on that. See post #231 for details.

Yes, if you ignore the claims of the Brown family then this has nothing to do with religion. lol