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

[Silhouette]

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.

Oh, good lord. Now the Infancy Doctrine overrides the US Constitution.

.

Yes, and you might want to read this for details: Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

 

[mdk]

Yes, and you might want to read this for details: Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

I am quite familiar with you pretending that Ferber and the Infancy Doctrine makes gay marriage null and void. It doesn't.

Using your logic concerning Ferber, every divorce is also null and void if the people have children. After all, divorce does harm children. Single parent households are also illegal since those have been shown to harm children as well. Workaholic parents that don't see their children often enough are also in violation of the law. Let me guess, those standards somehow don't apply to the aforementioned? Ether way, no one is bound by whatever mentally ill nonsense you craft to harm gay people and their families. And in that, I take great pleasure.

 

[Silhouette]

Well that's your opinion. Perhaps we'll see more argumentation on the matter. Do you believe children should be protected in marriage or not?

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell and Loving apply to all Americans.

But neither have anything to do with polygamous marriage.

So...polyamorists are not Americans?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is based on what the people want it to be.

Which people? The states majorities? Or minority behaviors wishing to escape majority rule? So a mother and son want to be wed. They are in a minority. Should marriage be based on what those two people want it to be?

 

[Syriusly]

Well that's your opinion. Perhaps we'll see more argumentation on the matter. Do you believe children should be protected in marriage or not?

Silhouette is talking to herself again.

I guess she gets tired of talking to herself on her own website.

 

[Syriusly]

It's true. Obergefell is null and void because of New York vs Ferber (1982 USSC). n

LOL......god you are delusional.

A Supreme Court decision is never 'null and void' because of any prior court decision. IF it is related(which Ferber is not) then the most recent decision would be the precedent.

Obergefell is the law of the land- and why American couples can marry- regardless of the gender of their spouse- in all 50 states.

 

[Syriusly]

I as I simultaneously am opposed to polygamy marriage as equally as I am opposed to "gay marriage".

Ah Silhouette finally taking a position on polygamous marriage.

Why are you against polygamous marriage Silhouette?

Clearly your bizarre 'infant doctrine' does not apply- since any child would have at least one 'mother' and 'father'.

Hell polygamous marriage doesn't even include gay Americans- and that is what your usual objection is to anything- nor will it harm the children of gay parents- so why are you against polygamous marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

What matters is 78% identify ANY marriage equality movement with the democratic party. And the timing! Better hope the GOP doesn't read here at USMB...

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder who might be interested in knowing that 78% of respondents here...and probably in reality 90% of respondents done in a regular poll would identify the marriage equality movement with respect to the Browns' case with the democratic party?

 

[mdk]

I wonder who might be interested in knowing that 78% of respondents here...and probably in reality 90% of respondents done in a regular poll would identify the marriage equality movement with respect to the Browns' case with the democratic party?

Do you need two hands now to count the number of respondents? Two hands and a foot?

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

I'm not so sure the issue of the 14th Amendment applies to polygamy.

Maybe and maybe not.

But who knows?

With the high court currently 8 strong divided 4 to 4, they are likely to let the lower court ruling stand.

That's not good for polygamy.

 

[yiostheoy]

I wonder who might be interested in knowing that 78% of respondents here...and probably in reality 90% of respondents done in a regular poll would identify the marriage equality movement with respect to the Browns' case with the democratic party?

I have not seen any polls on the view of the public regarding polygamy.

Not sure if Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan would see it one way or the other.

They are both Catholic. And the Catholic Church does not condone polygamy.

 

[yiostheoy]

Sil, you can't support religious freedoms unless your support Brown's claims. Either you support religious freedom or you don't.

I would hate to see the USA turn into an Arab harem.

I have lived in Morocco and have seen what this looks like -- 4 wives for every man.

It breeds a subgroup of single useless males good only for jihad.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ But what you hate or don't hate doesn't matter when a minority wants its rights upheld. Tons of people hate the idea of two dudes depriving kids of a mother for life "in marriage"...but that didn't stop gay marriage, did it?

I'm not so sure the issue of the 14th Amendment applies to polygamy...Maybe and maybe not....But who knows?...With the high court currently 8 strong divided 4 to 4, they are likely to let the lower court ruling stand....That's not good for polygamy.

Kody Brown's sexual appetite and intimate choices about his sexual lifestyle with his multiple wives applies. To deny them, the Court would have to violate the spirit of the 14th Amendment; because they cited it to force all 50 states to not deny marriage licenses to adults based on sexual orientation, intimate choices and lifestyle.

There isn't a parallel universe where the Brown family does not qualify under the parameters the Court outlined for marriage 'rights' in its Opinion, pages 7-8. Not a chance. It's a shoe in.

I have not seen any polls on the view of the public regarding polygamy....Not sure if Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan would see it one way or the other....They are both Catholic. And the Catholic Church does not condone polygamy.

1. You don't need to see any polls because you and I both know the women in the middle voting bloc won't welcome the idea of hubby legally being able to take another younger, prettier wife.

2. The Catholic Church didn't condone gay marriage either...much more "muchly" than polygamy; for which there are numerous accounts in the Old Testament. You haven't made a point here either.