Is Gay Marriage Already Void? &/Or Is Polygamy Already Legal?

[Syriusly]

Can we conclude close relatives should marry too? How come it's not unconstitutional for our govt. to tell them to fuck off? What arguments supporting gay marriage don't apply to marriage between close relatives?

Or marriages of the polyamorous (polygamist) kink? The answer is "none". There can be no argument arbitrarily favoring one minority sex kink over another. Nor banning adult fathers from marrying adult sons. It's "their kink"..... Once the majority is taken out of deciding about social behaviors, one minority is as potent as another in telling the majority to fuck off.

Okay now that we have established that you wholeheartedly approve of polygamous marriage- what are you going to do to challenge your state's law against it?

 

[Syriusly]

Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.

While the narrative suggests marriage is about love and love only, the INTENT of marriage was in accord with universal law for purposes of reproduction and survival It's was also intended to support stability, economics and nation building. Gay marriage is a contradiction, and it's a slap in the face to tradition, normalcy and common sense.

The govt telling gays to fuck off is unconstitutional. They should have never been involved..
The only person that should be able to tell a gay couple no is a church.

Can we conclude close relatives should marry too? How come it's not unconstitutional for our govt. to tell them to fuck off? What arguments supporting gay marriage don't apply to marriage between close relatives?

Do you think that a brother should be able to marry his sister?

Or not.

Americans have the right to legally marry. The State regulates marriage. The State however cannot deny marriage to Americans without a compelling reason. The Supreme Court has found 4 times now that the State did not have a compelling reason when:

1. States banned mixed race marriages
2. States banned a parent who owed child support from marrying
3. States banned a person in prison from marrying
4. States banned same gender marriages.

So the question is- does the State have a compelling reason to ban the marriage between a father and a daughter?

If you don't think the State has a compelling reason to ban it- then logically you would support that marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

It's simple:

Marriage is a contract....Article I, section 10, clause 1.:.....No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It's right there. Plain as day.

The states paid for mothers & fathers to be in homes for the best shot for kids. "Gay marriage" ripped that benefit away, promising instead to use the contract to banish kids involved for life from either a mother or father.

The states don't pay me a thing because we are married with a child. Not a thing. My wife and I get no benefit from the state for being a married couple.
If we were not married- we could still claim the same child deduction.

Gay marriage doesn't deny anything to anyone. If a gay couple has kids and marry- the only thing that changes is that the kids have more legal protections- and suffer less harm.

And you hate that. You always advocate for what will cause harm for the children of gay couples.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you think that a brother should be able to marry his sister?

Or not.

Americans have the right to legally marry. The State regulates marriage. The State however cannot deny marriage to Americans without a compelling reason. The Supreme Court has found 4 times now that the State did not have a compelling reason when:

1. States banned mixed race marriages
2. States banned a parent who owed child support from marrying
3. States banned a person in prison from marrying
4. States banned same gender marriages.

So the question is- does the State have a compelling reason to ban the marriage between a father and a daughter?

If you don't think the State has a compelling reason to ban it- then logically you would support that marriage.

I don't think you even get there. The Contracts Clause of Art 1, Sec. 10 prohibits states from impairing the obligations of contracts, which includes gay or multi-partner marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you think that a brother should be able to marry his sister?

Or not.

Americans have the right to legally marry. The State regulates marriage. The State however cannot deny marriage to Americans without a compelling reason. The Supreme Court has found 4 times now that the State did not have a compelling reason when:

1. States banned mixed race marriages
2. States banned a parent who owed child support from marrying
3. States banned a person in prison from marrying
4. States banned same gender marriages.

So the question is- does the State have a compelling reason to ban the marriage between a father and a daughter?

If you don't think the State has a compelling reason to ban it- then logically you would support that marriage.

I don't think you even get there. The Contracts Clause of Art 1, Sec. 10 prohibits states from impairing the obligations of contracts, which includes gay or multi-partner marriages.

Interesting argument but that isn't what the case law says.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Interesting argument but that isn't what the case law says.

Which cases? Not saying you're wrong. I would like to read them.

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting argument but that isn't what the case law says.

Which cases? Not saying you're wrong. I would like to read them.

Loving v. Virginia

Zablocki v. Rehail

Turner v. Safley

Obergefell

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Interesting argument but that isn't what the case law says.

Which cases? Not saying you're wrong. I would like to read them.

Loving v. Virginia

Zablocki v. Rehail

Turner v. Safley

Obergefell

I have not read the Zablocki and Turner cases, but Loving was a criminal case and Obergefell did not address Art. 1, Sec.10. Those cases do not deal with the contract obligation or the Contract Clause. I don't think anyone has made the argument, which supports my concern that EVERYONE has viewed marriage in the wrong light.

When marriage is viewed as anything other than a contract, rights are destroyed and government takes more power.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Zeblocki is about a marriage license restriction.

When I read or hear "Marriage License" I immediately want to overthrow all government. WHAT THE FUCK HAVE WE REDUCED OURSELVES TO?

Marriage was taken out of the context of a contract and put into the context of a privilege, requiring permission from government.

We're so for lost. There is no hope.

 

[Syriusly]

Interesting argument but that isn't what the case law says.

Which cases? Not saying you're wrong. I would like to read them.

Loving v. Virginia

Zablocki v. Rehail

Turner v. Safley

Obergefell

I have not read the Zablocki and Turner cases, but Loving was a criminal case and Obergefell did not address Art. 1, Sec.10. Those cases do not deal with the contract obligation or the Contract Clause. I don't think anyone has made the argument, which supports my concern that EVERYONE has viewed marriage in the wrong light.

When marriage is viewed as anything other than a contract, rights are destroyed and government takes more power.

I am always suspicious about when everyone- other than myself- understands something incorrectly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

 

[TheDude]

Preventing same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Gays have/had the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry the opposite sex.

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

Race is not equal gender. Again, let me know which arguments for gay marriage cannot be applied to marriage between close relatives. I like perspective. Truth is, a heterosexual couple involved in incest have a stronger argument than gays do.

 

[Silhouette]

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

But race is accounted for specifically in the 14th Amendment. Can you quote from the Constitution were "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" are provided for as a class with special protections?

 

[Harryhands]

And of course interracial marriage bans were NOT discrimination. It's no more discrimination than preventing children from driving. Someonehad the exact same rights as everyone else, as they were free to marry within their race.



>>>>

But race is accounted for specifically in the 14th Amendment. Can you quote from the Constitution were "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" are provided for as a class with special protections?

Here. Point out race?



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[OKTexas]

OK so no benefits at all to any married couple from the states. Gotcha.

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens. To get what you want the state would have to be in charge of all genitals. Let's skip that part.

No, what I said is don't make me financially liable for what they chose to do. The State can just leave me the hell alone and let those who chose to have their spawn pay the bills for them.


.

 

[Harryhands]

why should married couples be getting benefits others dont? Its discrimination.

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens. To get what you want the state would have to be in charge of all genitals. Let's skip that part.

No, what I said is don't make me financially liable for what they chose to do. The State can just leave me the hell alone and let those who chose to have their spawn pay the bills for them.


.

It doesn't work that way. You pay for babies you don't want, I pay for bombs. So sorry. That's life, Snowflake.

 

[OKTexas]

The same can be said for having children.


.

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens. To get what you want the state would have to be in charge of all genitals. Let's skip that part.

No, what I said is don't make me financially liable for what they chose to do. The State can just leave me the hell alone and let those who chose to have their spawn pay the bills for them.


.

It doesn't work that way. You pay for babies you don't want, I pay for bombs. So sorry. That's life, Snowflake.

Bombs are part of common defense, show me the constitutional mandate for me to subsidize other peoples kids. I can show you where Madison says it's not there.


.

 

[Harryhands]

The state has an interest in seeing that babies get made. It has no future otherwise.

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens. To get what you want the state would have to be in charge of all genitals. Let's skip that part.

No, what I said is don't make me financially liable for what they chose to do. The State can just leave me the hell alone and let those who chose to have their spawn pay the bills for them.


.

It doesn't work that way. You pay for babies you don't want, I pay for bombs. So sorry. That's life, Snowflake.

Bombs are part of common defense, show me the constitutional mandate for me to subsidize other people kids. I can show you where Madison says it's not there.


.

General welfare. That means that citizens, including children, eat. And it makes no difference either way as I am required to pay for things I don't like or use and so are you. It's part of your birthright, like freedom of speech and religion. That ain't free.

 

[Moonglow]

Our govt shouldnt be telling people who or how many to marry.
Big govt bullshit.

Well the problem is the government is part of the marriage contract. So like welfare benefits, marrieds have to abide by certain rules they set in order to get benefits. That ability to set rules was ripped away in Obegefell 2015. So now the subdominant contract parties (marrieds) are ripping off the states' share of the contract which used to be "pay for father/mother homes for children's best development".

the fed govt shouldnt be in marriage, period. It isnt their place.

Then anyone could marry anything...

 

[OKTexas]

People are going to have kids regardless, no reason I should have to subsidize them. If they can't afford them, don't have them.


.

Unlike your black and white fantasy world I live in the real one where shit happens. To get what you want the state would have to be in charge of all genitals. Let's skip that part.

No, what I said is don't make me financially liable for what they chose to do. The State can just leave me the hell alone and let those who chose to have their spawn pay the bills for them.


.

It doesn't work that way. You pay for babies you don't want, I pay for bombs. So sorry. That's life, Snowflake.

Bombs are part of common defense, show me the constitutional mandate for me to subsidize other people kids. I can show you where Madison says it's not there.


.

General welfare. That means that citizens, including children, eat. And it makes no difference either way as I am required to pay for things I don't like or use and so are you. It's part of your birthright, like freedom of speech and religion. That ain't free.

General welfare is a spending category, not a stand alone power, if it were there would be no need to specify the items congress could spend on to provide for it. The same applies to common defense.


.