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

[Silhouette]

If somebody wants to have more than one wife who gives a shit? There are some cultures that do this routinely

Yeah, like Muslims. At least you're not lying saying "there's no legal slippery slope". So kudos for that.

I think a very large part of the country gives a shit. But we'll see.

How other people choose to live is none of your business

So incest marriage too then? OK. I'll put you down for that as well. You've heard about the mom who wants to marry her son I take it?

You're remotely aware I assume that in marriage, children are almost always involved? Care at all about 1. Gay marriage, where kids are legally divorced from either a mother or father for life? 2. Polygamy marriage, where multiple parents and billions of kids dilute the childrens' individual attention? 3. Incest marriage where birth defects are the norm?

None of that strikes a chord with you? Consideration of children and their implicit interest in marriage is what actually won Obergefell. Kennedy made it his championing cause, shortsidedly (he hadn't contemplated legally divorcing a child from either a mother or father for life; and the known harm that causes children statistically). If Kennedy had voted the other way, Obergefell would've tanked. Breyer just kissed Kennedy's ass like he always seems to do..Sotomayor was a shoe-in and the entire country knew well in advance how Ginsburg and Kagan would vote; because they openly demonstrated bias before they heard the case...

 

[mdk]

If somebody wants to have more than one wife who gives a shit? There are some cultures that do this routinely

Yeah, like Muslims. At least you're not lying saying "there's no legal slippery slope". So kudos for that.

I think a very large part of the country gives a shit. But we'll see.

How other people choose to live is none of your business

So incest marriage too then? OK. I'll put you down for that as well. You've heard about the mom who wants to marry her son I take it?

You're remotely aware I assume that in marriage, children are almost always involved? Care at all about 1. Gay marriage, where kids are legally divorced from either a mother or father for life? 2. Polygamy marriage, where multiple parents and billions of kids dilute the childrens' individual attention? 3. Incest marriage where birth defects are the norm?

None of that strikes a chord with you? Consideration of children and their implicit interest in marriage is what actually won Obergefell. Kennedy made it his championing cause, shortsidedly (he hadn't contemplated legally divorcing a child from either a mother or father for life; and the known harm that causes children statistically). If Kennedy had voted the other way, Obergefell would've tanked. Breyer just kissed Kennedy's ass like he always seems to do..Sotomayor was a shoe-in and the entire country knew well in advance how Ginsburg and Kagan would vote; because they openly demonstrated bias before they heard the case...

You can't support Kim Davis' religious freedoms without supporting the Brown's. You can't play favorites. Sorry.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Woo or polygamy....called it!!!! Thank the left for all kinds of deviancy!!!!!!!!

Gonna go to a Now convention and pick up a few hotties.....I can have multiple women now!!!!!!

I think it's hilarious that someone picked "republican" in the poll I actually only included that option as a litmus test for liars.

Well you know certain people on this board would never fault democrats for anything!

 

[Silhouette]

You can't support Kim Davis' religious freedoms without supporting the Brown's. You can't play favorites. Sorry.

This thread has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with sexual orientation. Polyamory. Might want to check the title again.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If somebody wants to have more than one wife who gives a shit? There are some cultures that do this routinely

Yeah, like Muslims. At least you're not lying saying "there's no legal slippery slope". So kudos for that.

I think a very large part of the country gives a shit. But we'll see.

How other people choose to live is none of your business

So incest marriage too then? OK. I'll put you down for that as well. You've heard about the mom who wants to marry her son I take it?

You're remotely aware I assume that in marriage, children are almost always involved? Care at all about 1. Gay marriage, where kids are legally divorced from either a mother or father for life? 2. Polygamy marriage, where multiple parents and billions of kids dilute the childrens' individual attention? 3. Incest marriage where birth defects are the norm?

None of that strikes a chord with you? Consideration of children and their implicit interest in marriage is what actually won Obergefell. Kennedy made it his championing cause, shortsidedly (he hadn't contemplated legally divorcing a child from either a mother or father for life; and the known harm that causes children statistically). If Kennedy had voted the other way, Obergefell would've tanked. Breyer just kissed Kennedy's ass like he always seems to do..Sotomayor was a shoe-in and the entire country knew well in advance how Ginsburg and Kagan would vote; because they openly demonstrated bias before they heard the case...

You can't support Kim Davis' religious freedoms without supporting the Brown's. You can't play favorites. Sorry.

You can when marriage has always been man and woman in the us.....now you opened a Pandoras box.....we called it......gonna be fun pushing this to its logical conclusion

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

If somebody wants to have more than one wife who gives a shit? There are some cultures that do this routinely

Taz is correct in my opinion!

From the Muslim culture to FLDS Mormon Culture Polygamy is part of their culture and who are you to object?

If they can afford the extra spouse then so be it and let them enjoy the misery...

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You can when marriage has always been man and woman in the us.....now you opened a Pandoras box.....we called it......gonna be fun pushing this to its logical conclusion

Guess we opened Pandora's Box when we started letting blacks use white water fountains too. After all, it had always been that way.

 

[mdk]

You can't support Kim Davis' religious freedoms without supporting the Brown's. You can't play favorites. Sorry.

This thread has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with sexual orientation. Polyamory. Might want to check the title again.

The Browns are citing their religious freedom and the right to privacy to make their case. Why don't you support their religious freedom?

 

[mdk]

If somebody wants to have more than one wife who gives a shit? There are some cultures that do this routinely

Yeah, like Muslims. At least you're not lying saying "there's no legal slippery slope". So kudos for that.

I think a very large part of the country gives a shit. But we'll see.

How other people choose to live is none of your business

So incest marriage too then? OK. I'll put you down for that as well. You've heard about the mom who wants to marry her son I take it?

You're remotely aware I assume that in marriage, children are almost always involved? Care at all about 1. Gay marriage, where kids are legally divorced from either a mother or father for life? 2. Polygamy marriage, where multiple parents and billions of kids dilute the childrens' individual attention? 3. Incest marriage where birth defects are the norm?

None of that strikes a chord with you? Consideration of children and their implicit interest in marriage is what actually won Obergefell. Kennedy made it his championing cause, shortsidedly (he hadn't contemplated legally divorcing a child from either a mother or father for life; and the known harm that causes children statistically). If Kennedy had voted the other way, Obergefell would've tanked. Breyer just kissed Kennedy's ass like he always seems to do..Sotomayor was a shoe-in and the entire country knew well in advance how Ginsburg and Kagan would vote; because they openly demonstrated bias before they heard the case...

You can't support Kim Davis' religious freedoms without supporting the Brown's. You can't play favorites. Sorry.

You can when marriage has always been man and woman in the us.....now you opened a Pandoras box.....we called it......gonna be fun pushing this to its logical conclusion

Nope. Sorry. Either you support religious freedom or you don't. The law doesn't apply to them if it violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You can when marriage has always been man and woman in the us.....now you opened a Pandoras box.....we called it......gonna be fun pushing this to its logical conclusion

Guess we opened Pandora's Box when we started letting blacks use white water fountains too. After all, it had always been that way.

I love this comparison......being black and being gay are not the same.
And I guess you're for all sexual deviancies

 

[Silhouette]

Guess we opened Pandora's Box when we started letting blacks use white water fountains too. After all, it had always been that way.

Race has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. Sorry. Either you support religious freedom or you don't. The law doesn't apply to them if it violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Nope, sorry. Obergefell was about sexual orientation, not religion. Please take another look at the title.


.........and in marches the Strawman's brigade!

 

[Silhouette]

It's my personal opinion, now that you brought it up mdk, that Sotomayor is setting a trap for the Brown family and their attorney. If they frame their arguments coming from a religious perspective only, they will fall flat on their face. If they come at their arguments emphasizing sexual orientation as it relates to their religion, they will succeed. Some men are naturally sexually attracted to multiple women. And some men have chosen to live this lifestyle as part of a religion. Not all men who are attracted to multiple women and live that lifestyle are religious though. It just so happens the Browns are.

The Brown's attorney needs to be very leery about framing their arguments under religion. Sexual orientation already has a brand spanking new and fresh precedent set. Slam dunk, like I said in the OP.

 

[mdk]

Nope. Sorry. Either you support religious freedom or you don't. The law doesn't apply to them if it violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Nope, sorry. Obergefell was about sexual orientation, not religion. Please take another look at the title.


.........and in marches the Strawman's brigade!

The Browns' are claiming it has to do with their religious freedoms and their right to privacy. They are not claiming polygamy is a sexual orientation, you are. Why would we ignore their claims and instead believe your imagination? Again, if you support Kim Davis' religious freedoms you have to support the Browns' religious freedoms.

 

[mdk]

It's my personal opinion, now that you brought it up mdk, that Sotomayor is setting a trap for the Brown family and their attorney. If they frame their arguments coming from a religious perspective only, they will fall flat on their face. If they come at their arguments emphasizing sexual orientation as it relates to their religion, they will succeed. Some men are naturally sexually attracted to multiple women. And some men have chosen to live this lifestyle as part of a religion. Not all men who are attracted to multiple women and live that lifestyle are religious though. It just so happens the Browns are.

The Brown's attorney needs to be very leery about framing their arguments under religion. Sexual orientation already has a brand spanking new and fresh precedent set. Slam dunk, like I said in the OP.

Another delusional conspiracy theory rears its ugly head.

Why would the Browns' attorney take legal advice from a person whose legal predictions are almost always wrong? If they need advice on obsessive homophobia I am sure you'll be the first person they contact.

 

[jwoodie]

You can when marriage has always been man and woman in the us.....now you opened a Pandoras box.....we called it......gonna be fun pushing this to its logical conclusion

Guess we opened Pandora's Box when we started letting blacks use white water fountains too. After all, it had always been that way.

Insipid responses like this reveal the emotional dystopia suffered by rabid proponents of "marriage equality" when hoisted by their own petards.

 

[Silhouette]

The Browns' are claiming it has to do with their religious freedoms and their right to privacy. They are not claiming polygamy is a sexual orientation, you are. .

Well I think they have until the 10th of September to make that correction clear. Certainly all they would have to do is mention in argument that their sexual orientation is part of their faith and it's a done deal. The words "sexual orientation" are legally-magical as you know. The mere mention of them causes powerful men to shudder and doors everywhere to fly open...including bathroom doors where deranged men can enter women's facilities. At least in theory.

If a man can use a woman's bathroom and two men can legally divorce a child from a mother for life, then the Browns' polyamory should not be barred from its "civil rights" either..

 

[mdk]

The Browns' are claiming it has to do with their religious freedoms and their right to privacy. They are not claiming polygamy is a sexual orientation, you are. .

Well I think they have until the 10th of September to make that correction clear. Certainly all they would have to do is mention in argument that their sexual orientation is part of their faith and it's a done deal. The words "sexual orientation" are legally-magical as you know. The mere mention of them causes powerful men to shudder and doors everywhere to fly open...including bathroom doors where deranged men can enter women's facilities. At least in theory.

If a man can use a woman's bathroom and two men can legally divorce a child from a mother for life, then the Browns' polyamory should not be barred from its "civil rights" either..

Don't be shocked when they don't make the claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation.

Besides, children don't need a mother or a father according to you. All they need is hope.

 

[Silhouette]

Don't be shocked when they don't make the claim that polygamy is a sexual orientation.

Besides, children don't need a mother or a father according to you. All they need is hope.

I've already taken steps to get a hold of them personally to discuss this. It's not that I don't trust their attorney Jonathan Turley. He seems pretty ethical to me. But I've seen attorneys take money from the opposition to frame a losing case more often than I care to to talk about. It appears that one of those might have been the guy "defending" DOMA. Remember him arguing FOR the opposition at one point? Jesus Christ.

Being a sharp attorney, Turley knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that to include polyamory as a legitimate sexual orientation is an undeniable win. What makes me more uneasy is the blatant loophole the 10th circuit gave them to allow them to appeal. Also, the generosity of Sotomayor to grant them until September to frame their arguments. It's too easy. If Turley fails to discuss sexual orientation with respect to his clients' case, I'll take that as a very strong indicator that he might be corrupt. An attorney's goal is to win a case for his client by exhausting all means. Omitting a clear-win will be a very terrible stain on his record.

That being said, I believe he is ethical and will frame it into their arguments. Especially if the Browns bring it to his attention and insist. They might become very leery of him if he refuses to do what it takes to win.

 

[jwoodie]

That being said, I believe he is ethical and will frame it into their arguments.

Like Comey?