It's Time to Talk About Polygamy, the Woman's Vote & Political Strategy

[JakeStarkey]

Reported for rules violation. I have added the full post below:

By changing my question to fit your absurd needs, you clearly admit that marriage equality is of no harm to your personal and civil liberties. This is the part you cut and for which you have no answer.

You have in no way whatsoever have given conclusive evidence that children are at any more risk of abuse by heterosexuals or homosexuals. You give a stupid answer about pride. Step along.

Thus your hetero fascism is getting very smelly. Your post in defense of it makes it stink even more.

Yeah, the children of Utah will be just as safe when marriage equality means all parents can adopt.


And you and your disturbed ilk don't make the cultural rules anymore in America: you don't have the votes, you don't have the courts.

Don't care. I have had lengthy discussions with the mods here who value free speech over anything else. Report away.

And, California did have the votes as evidenced by the initiative law [which cannot be changed without their permission] defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

There will be no "stepping along" when the core of democracy is threatened by a fascist rule and coup. Polygamy will be next to force itself on those who do not want it [the majority of voters]

Stupidity goeth before a fall. The only perversion here is your personal sense of righteousness on this matter, and Sil is wrong.

Core democracy is based on the courts and the votes, which Sil and her buddies don't have.

The millennials despise their hetero-fascism.

Yep, the hetero-fascists indeed will be stepping along down the road.

 

[Silhouette]

Stupidity goeth before a fall. The only perversion here is your personal sense of righteousness on this matter, and Sil is wrong.

Core democracy is based on the courts and the votes, which Sil and her buddies don't have.

The millennials despise their hetero-fascism.

Yep, the hetero-fascists indeed will be stepping along down the road.

Are you kidding? You're saying Prop 8 did not pass by a majority? You're saying Utah didn't pass traditional man/woman marriage statute by 2/3rds majority? You're saying that in all the states that passed same or similar traditional definitions by their majorities are somehow "made up"?

You are trying to ignore that in Windsor, emphasis and weight was given to the decision on gay marriage being that within the broadest consensus within each respective state.

The rude awakening is going to be yours at the federal level. You heard it here first. It's already been foreshadowed and Upheld constitionally that way in Windsor. So unless they plan on reversing their own decision of the same group of Justices in less than two years, you're out of luck on the "judicial" end of your proclamation.

As to the votes, you seem very eager to remove people's right to vote on this topic...you know..for all the support you profess to have for gay marriage among the voters. Why rip the power of that "support" away from "the majority who support gay marriage"?

Something ain't adding up pal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, you no longer have the votes or the courts.

Two, SCOTUS says Prop 8 doesn't cut the mustard; and you no longer have those votes.

Windsor you have continually, deliberately, knowingly, and willfully misrepresent.

What does not add up is your lack of conscience masquerading as a philosophy.

 

[Silhouette]

One, you no longer have the votes or the courts.

Two, SCOTUS says Prop 8 doesn't cut the mustard; and you no longer have those votes.

Windsor you have continually, deliberately, knowingly, and willfully misrepresent.

What does not add up is your lack of conscience masquerading as a philosophy.

The phrase is "cut the muster", not "cut the mustard"

But anyway, if you're so sure traditional marriage no longer 'has the votes', why fear so deeply the voters' support of this supposedly-popular cult movement and put an initiative on state ballots across the country?

Here, so you can "ketchup"... Windsor says that under the question of gay marriage, states broad consensus has the "unquestioned authority" "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". Look it up. United States v. Windsor

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have not spent time in the south, at all, dear.

No one is fearing anything: the time to tolerate the willful ignorance of your side is long gone and past.

Windsor has also retained the right of SCOTUS when it necessary to intervene in the protecting of civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...pv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition of cut the mustard

cut the mustard phrase of cut
1. informal come up to expectations; reach the required standard.
"I didn't cut the mustard as a hockey player"

Or, in Sil's case, a legal expert, she did not cut the mustard.

Good southern boys and girls hide in the grass and watch the city slicker sillies coming on down the bunny trail. Then they get em.

 

[Silhouette]

You have not spent time in the south, at all, dear.

No one is fearing anything: the time to tolerate the willful ignorance of your side is long gone and past.

Windsor has also retained the right of SCOTUS when it necessary to intervene in the protecting of civil rights.

No, not "when necessary". "If deemed appropriate"...which has not been deemed one way or the other yet.

 

[LockeJaw]

Ahaha! I see the self appointed moderator, Jake Starkey, was banned. What for?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If gay marriage succeeds in setting the new precedent for interpretation of the 14th Amendment to incude minor groupings of behaviors objectionable to the majority as having "special protection" [and the complete eventual destruction of American democratic rule], polygamy will be the very next victory at the Supreme Court level.

...

There is no 'special protection' in equal protection. American democracy is a representative democracy not a popular democracy, so...(you do know Madison and others loathed democracy?)...so we have 'rule of law' where the minority is protected from the majority/mob rule.

good gawd, go back to grade school

btw, Polygamy involves different issues than being treated equal. A marriage contract is between two people. One cannot be married to more than one person at a time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If gay marriage succeeds...

Once they allow one set of incomplete behavioral groupings a certain "right", that right cannot be arbitrarily denied other incomplete behavioral groupings...and so on... Think of lady justice with the blindfold on.

...

you make absolutely no sense

 

[LockeJaw]

There is no unequal treatment for gays, Period. They can marry a woman, just As a straight man can. Men can't marry other men, gay or straight.

Your phony social justice fight is just that, PHONY.

If gay marriage succeeds in setting the new precedent for interpretation of the 14th Amendment to incude minor groupings of behaviors objectionable to the majority as having "special protection" [and the complete eventual destruction of American democratic rule], polygamy will be the very next victory at the Supreme Court level.

...

There is no 'special protection' in equal protection. American democracy is a representative democracy not a popular democracy, so...(you do know Madison and others loathed democracy?)...so we have 'rule of law' where the minority is protected from the majority/mob rule.

good gawd, go back to grade school

btw, Polygamy involves different issues than being treated equal. A marriage contract is between two people. One cannot be married to more than one person at a time.

 

[Silhouette]

If gay marriage succeeds in setting the new precedent for interpretation of the 14th Amendment to incude minor groupings of behaviors objectionable to the majority as having "special protection" [and the complete eventual destruction of American democratic rule], polygamy will be the very next victory at the Supreme Court level.

...

There is no 'special protection' in equal protection. American democracy is a representative democracy not a popular democracy, so...(you do know Madison and others loathed democracy?)...so we have 'rule of law' where the minority is protected from the majority/mob rule.
good gawd, go back to grade school

btw, Polygamy involves different issues than being treated equal. A marriage contract is between two people. One cannot be married to more than one person at a time.

But aren't polygamists minorities also by the LGBT definition? Sexual practices, right?

What makes LGBT "special and protected" and "P" not "special and protected"? Please be as specific as you can.

 

[JoeB131]

Ahaha! I see the self appointed moderator, Jake Starkey, was banned. What for?

He gets banned all the time. He's like the Kenny McCormack of USMB.

"Oh my God, they Banned Starkey!"

"You Bastards!"

 

[Silhouette]

Ahaha! I see the self appointed moderator, Jake Starkey, was banned. What for?

He gets banned all the time. He's like the Kenny McCormack of USMB.

"Oh my God, they Banned Starkey!"

"You Bastards!"

..lol.. Good one.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no unequal treatment for gays, Period. They can marry a woman, just As a straight man can. Men can't marry other men, gay or straight.

Yes, nor can one man marry three women or one woman marry five men. Nor can minors marry adults or each other.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=36177]LockeJaw[/MENTION]

There is no unequal treatment for gays, Period. They can marry a woman, just As a straight man can. Men can't marry other men, gay or straight.

Your phony social justice fight is just that, PHONY.

If gay marriage succeeds in setting the new precedent for interpretation of the 14th Amendment to incude minor groupings of behaviors objectionable to the majority as having "special protection" [and the complete eventual destruction of American democratic rule], polygamy will be the very next victory at the Supreme Court level.

...

There is no 'special protection' in equal protection. American democracy is a representative democracy not a popular democracy, so...(you do know Madison and others loathed democracy?)...so we have 'rule of law' where the minority is protected from the majority/mob rule.

good gawd, go back to grade school

btw, Polygamy involves different issues than being treated equal. A marriage contract is between two people. One cannot be married to more than one person at a time.

Marriage as a legal contract, which is what a license is, is between two people, two consenting adults.

Two consenting adults.

please try to keep up with legal arguments

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If gay marriage succeeds in setting the new precedent for interpretation of the 14th Amendment to incude minor groupings of behaviors objectionable to the majority as having "special protection" [and the complete eventual destruction of American democratic rule], polygamy will be the very next victory at the Supreme Court level.

...

There is no 'special protection' in equal protection. American democracy is a representative democracy not a popular democracy, so...(you do know Madison and others loathed democracy?)...so we have 'rule of law' where the minority is protected from the majority/mob rule.
good gawd, go back to grade school

btw, Polygamy involves different issues than being treated equal. A marriage contract is between two people. One cannot be married to more than one person at a time.

But aren't polygamists minorities also by the LGBT definition? Sexual practices, right?

What makes LGBT "special and protected" and "P" not "special and protected"? Please be as specific as you can.

It isn't about minorities with special protections. Please try and stick to and keep up with serious legal arguments and not the cuckoo crap you've posted all over the web.


btw: Your posts are some of the most mentally unhinged I've seen in years. Do we know each other from other boards, or perhaps in another lifetime when I was a psychiatric professional?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no unequal treatment for gays, Period. They can marry a woman, just As a straight man can. Men can't marry other men, gay or straight.

Yes, nor can one man marry three women or one woman marry five men. Nor can minors marry adults or each other.

Nor can an ex-President marry his pet goat.

Jesus, it's about a legal contract between two people, a legal contract recognized and issued by the state

 

[Silhouette]

There is no unequal treatment for gays, Period. They can marry a woman, just As a straight man can. Men can't marry other men, gay or straight.

Yes, nor can one man marry three women or one woman marry five men. Nor can minors marry adults or each other.

Nor can an ex-President marry his pet goat.

Jesus, it's about a legal contract between two people, a legal contract recognized and issued by the state

And what makes the number 'two' so special and protected when man/woman is not? Answer from a blind-justice equality perspective please. You cannot pick and choose when arbitrary discrimination is appropriate and when it isn't.

 

[LockeJaw]

So what if marriage is a legal contract? What qualifies homosexual couples for the exact same contract as real marriages? Other than they "love each other", because that is NOT a good enough reason, logically or legally.