Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
She's always thinking that gheys getting married has opened the legal door for all forms to be automatically opened..
Sil thinks spamming something that in no way proves her claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation somehow proves her claim. It's The Prince's Trust and Ferber all over again. Round and round we go...
Of course. But the results are always the same.
Nothing.
I wouldn't say always. It is largely and widely accepted that Dylan Roof wasn't really a racist, but a disgruntled queer seeking revenge for a different and unaffiliated church coming out against gay marriage. lol
Laughing.....oh, shit! I'd forgotten about that inane babble. Was that before or after Sil blamed the abdication of the Pope on the gays?
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.Changing the law is easy, actually finding the partners is the hard sell...
Obergefell and Loving apply to all Americans.
But neither have anything to do with polygamous marriage.
yeah...unless polygamists identify with a sexual orientation towards multiple partners...Then your premise is fucked isn't it? In fact, your premise will be so fucked at that point it will need its own legal classification as a sexual orientation.
Obergefell and Loving apply to all Americans.
But neither have anything to do with polygamous marriage.
Obergefell and Loving apply to all Americans.
But neither have anything to do with polygamous marriage.
And again- that has nothing to do with either Obergefell or Loving.
So are you in favor of polygamous marriage- or against it?
And again- that has nothing to do with either Obergefell or Loving.
So are you in favor of polygamous marriage- or against it?
Actually any type of sexual orientation between consenting adults applies to Obergefell, or rather, Obergefell applies to it.
Obergefell applies to all Americans. It doesn't mention polygamy at all.
So are you in favor of polygamous marriage - yes or no?
And again- that has nothing to do with either Obergefell or Loving.
So are you in favor of polygamous marriage- or against it?
Actually any type of sexual orientation between consenting adults applies to Obergefell, or rather, Obergefell applies to it.
I'm glad you asked if I'm in favor of polygamous marriage....again...because I already answered that once. I told you, if you were honest to say you remembered, that no, I'm not in favor of it. But I wasn't in favor of another orientation marrying either, but you got that done anyway. The question isn't whether or not I am in favor of it. The question is are the majority of particularly women middle and middle left voters in favor of it? And of course the answer to that question is "NO"....a big, emphatic, "we were betrayed!" NO!
And again- that has nothing to do with either Obergefell or Loving.
So are you in favor of polygamous marriage- or against it?
Actually any type of sexual orientation between consenting adults applies to Obergefell, or rather, Obergefell applies to it.
...I'm glad you asked if I'm in favor of polygamous marriage....again...because I already answered that once. I told you, if you were honest to say you remembered, that no, I'm not in favor of it. But I wasn't in favor of another orientation marrying either, but you got that done anyway. The question isn't whether or not I am in favor of it. The question is are the majority of particularly women middle and middle left voters in favor of it? And of course the answer to that question is "NO"....a big, emphatic, "we were betrayed!" NO!
Funny how your standard of 'if you support marriage equality for gays then you have to support marriage equality polygamists' doesn't apply to you when it comes to religious freedoms. You can't support the religious freedoms of the the Kleins' and Kim Davis without supporting the religious freedoms of the Brown family. Hypocrite.
Obergefell applies to all Americans. It doesn't mention polygamy at all.
So are you in favor of polygamous marriage - yes or no?
Are you in favor of reading my last post? Try reading IDIOT.
.
What do religious freedoms have to do with sexual orientation? Other than an "intimate choice"? You do realize that even though the Browns mentioned religion and privacy to their intimate choices, the fact that Kody is sexually attracted to multiple women as part of his lifestyle is not moot or off the table. They all belong covered under Obergefell. Read pages 7-12 in the Opinion, line by line and get back to me.
Like I said, it matters not how I feel or don't feel, or even how you feel or don't feel. What matter is the broad reach of Obergefell when it said it is against the law to deny marriage to someone based on their sexual orientation, "intimate choices" and lifestyles. These parameters between consenting adults are not narrowly limited to just "gays and lesbians only!". Because that would be a violation of the broad spirit of the 14th Amendment.
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.
Obergefell applies to all Americans. It doesn't mention polygamy at all.
So are you in favor of polygamous marriage -
yes or
no?
Obergefell applies to all sexual orientations if it applies to one. Check the 14th Amendment if you don't believe me. If it can be demonstrated in a court of law that some men are only sexually gratified by having sex with more than one woman on a regular basis, and have made that an "intimate choice" and lifestyle...and if all adults involved in that are consenting and happy about it, Obergefell means polygamy is already legal. All it will take is a formality like the Brown case before the Court to issue the orders to the 50 states to comply. Slam-D-U-N-K.
It's true. Obergefell is null and void because of New York vs Ferber (1982 USSC). That case found that adults cannot exercise any civil right to the detriment, mental or physical, of a child. "Gay marriage" uses a contract to permanently divorce a child from either a mother or father for life. There are numerous studies that show this is harmful to a child. And where single parents do deprive a child of the opposite parent, it isn't written in a contract and hope still exists. The contractual part of this harm to children is the crux of it. The Infants Doctrine says that no contract may exist that has as any of its terms a bind that harms a child physically or mentally. The Doctrine goes further to say that if such a contract DOES exist, has been created, or even upheld as is the case with Obergefell, that contract is null and void upon its face, without any legal challenge. In other words, the Infants Doctrine overrules the USSC. It even overrules the US Constitution; which is the same as saying it overrules the US Supreme Court, should they find in opposition to the Doctrine. New York vs Ferber establishes it. This is why Obergefell is an illegal Ruling. That and for a half dozen other equally weighty reasons.The Brown family can't cite Obergefell. According to your sharp legal mind that ruling is null and void b/c of Ferber. lol
It's true. Obergefell is null and void because of New York vs Ferber (1982 USSC). That case found that adults cannot exercise any civil right to the detriment, mental or physical, of a child. "Gay marriage" uses a contract to permanently divorce a child from either a mother or father for life. There are numerous studies that show this is harmful to a child. And where single parents do deprive a child of the opposite parent, it isn't written in a contract and hope still exists. The contractual part of this harm to children is the crux of it. The Infants Doctrine says that no contract may exist that has as any of its terms a bind that harms a child physically or mentally. The Doctrine goes further to say that if such a contract DOES exist, has been created, or even upheld as is the case with Obergefell, that contract is null and void upon its face, without any legal challenge. In other words, the Infants Doctrine overrules the USSC. It even overrules the US Constitution; which is the same as saying it overrules the US Supreme Court, should they find in opposition to the Doctrine. New York vs Ferber establishes it. This is why Obergefell is an illegal Ruling. That and for a half dozen other equally weighty reasons.
It is that last bit where the state of Alabama's Judge Moore will prevail if he is clever enough. But that's the topic of another thread.
All that being said, as long as the USSC is (erroneously) considering Obergefell "legal and binding", they'll be backed to a wall with their own words. And this is the delight I'm taking in watching all this unfold, as I simultaneously am opposed to polygamy marriage as equally as I am opposed to "gay marriage". It's fun watching fascist Justices be bound by their own words into shame and retraction. It's pleasurable watching judicial arrogance be dethroned in less than 2 years.
So I write this thread encouraging the Browns to weave in their sexual orientation into their religious and privacy pleadings so that the Court will clip its own wings of hubris. And in that, I take great pleasure.
