Baptist Pastor from Florida rips Kim Davis a new one.

[bodecea]

"Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it"

The good pastor forgot the rest of it....go and sin no more. He's cherry picking the Bible. What a doofus

And she's cherrypicking which sin to not support.
Has she refused her seal to 'no fault' divorce, or to new marriage licenses to those that have had a 'no fault' divorce?
Is she not issuing licenses to thieves or is homosexuality the only sin she's against?

How would she know if a divorced person has repented or asked for forgiveness? No way she would know. She knows gayper marriage is a violation of God's law

It's a small county....I'm sure she knows...and doesn't care. Because, like you, she is a hypocrite.

Now she's a mind reader? You're an idiot, only God knows what's in one's heart. You just respond to be annoying

She holds all the records. She's the court clerk.

Now now...don't ruin it for the little girl. She wants to pretend that the county clerk in a small county doesn't know anyone and is completely in the dark. It certainly worked for the catholic hierarchy for decades.

 

[RKMBrown]

You claim;
"That clerk could have been sued by some other party for issuing the licenses in violation of Kentucky law. The state attorney general could have arrested her for issuing the licenses to same-sex couples. She was caught in the crosshairs. She was doomed to violate either one law or another. It should be the Court's responsibility to foresee things like this." [Emphasis Added]

The Supremacy clause, Article V, Clause 2, of the Constitution made the Kentucky statute in question MOOT the moment the Supremes released their decision in Obergefell v. Hodges last June 26th. There would have been no jeopardy what so ever attached to Kim Davis if she had just done her sworn duty and issued those licenses to any same sex couples requesting one.

You claim. I submit she fulfilled her sworn duty as pertaining to the law she swore to uphold when she took office. The law in effect in Kentucky at the time she took office was the law she took an oath to uphold. The law was changed dummox.

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

The decision was the worst in history. Worse than Plessy v Ferguson. Worse than Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court threw out:
1) 2000 years of Western tradition, which holds marriage is one man, one woman
2) 200 years of American Jurisprudence, which holds judges interpret laws
3) the 10th Amendment, which holds powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states
4) 200 years of tradition that holds states primarily define marriage and similar laws within their borders
5) Over 200 years of tradition that holds the Will of the People is the ultimate arbiter of standards
6) The principle of one man, one vote
7) The principle of limited government

Now the Supreme Court can invent anything, call it a right, and declare that it is protected under the 14th A. There is no limiting principle to it.

Exactly. Next will come polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages. The floodgates are wide open. I'd simply allow Walmart to sell the licenses just as they sell hunting and fishing licenses now. The license means nothing except as a vehicle to clam tax status and other perceived benefits and even the tax status often results in a penalty.

ROFL what a lying bigoted piece of shit you are.

 

[bodecea]

"Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it"

The good pastor forgot the rest of it....go and sin no more. He's cherry picking the Bible. What a doofus

And she's cherrypicking which sin to not support.
Has she refused her seal to 'no fault' divorce, or to new marriage licenses to those that have had a 'no fault' divorce?
Is she not issuing licenses to thieves or is homosexuality the only sin she's against?

How would she know if a divorced person has repented or asked for forgiveness? No way she would know. She knows gayper marriage is a violation of God's law

Has nothing to do with repentance.
Not supposed to remarry until the divorced spouse is deceased. Unless there's no sex involved. Then it wouldn't be adultery.

How does she know the gay couple is having sex? It's the sexual act that is the sin, not the marriage

That's not true. God forgives all sins but one if the person is fully and truly sorry

When someone keeps doing something 4 times, are they fully and truly sorry?

 

[bodecea]

You claim;
"That clerk could have been sued by some other party for issuing the licenses in violation of Kentucky law. The state attorney general could have arrested her for issuing the licenses to same-sex couples. She was caught in the crosshairs. She was doomed to violate either one law or another. It should be the Court's responsibility to foresee things like this." [Emphasis Added]

The Supremacy clause, Article V, Clause 2, of the Constitution made the Kentucky statute in question MOOT the moment the Supremes released their decision in Obergefell v. Hodges last June 26th. There would have been no jeopardy what so ever attached to Kim Davis if she had just done her sworn duty and issued those licenses to any same sex couples requesting one.

You claim. I submit she fulfilled her sworn duty as pertaining to the law she swore to uphold when she took office. The law in effect in Kentucky at the time she took office was the law she took an oath to uphold. The law was changed dummox.

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

The decision was the worst in history. Worse than Plessy v Ferguson. Worse than Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court threw out:
1) 2000 years of Western tradition, which holds marriage is one man, one woman
2) 200 years of American Jurisprudence, which holds judges interpret laws
3) the 10th Amendment, which holds powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states
4) 200 years of tradition that holds states primarily define marriage and similar laws within their borders
5) Over 200 years of tradition that holds the Will of the People is the ultimate arbiter of standards
6) The principle of one man, one vote
7) The principle of limited government

Now the Supreme Court can invent anything, call it a right, and declare that it is protected under the 14th A. There is no limiting principle to it.

Exactly. Next will come polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages. The floodgates are wide open. I'd simply allow Walmart to sell the licenses just as they sell hunting and fishing licenses now. The license means nothing except as a vehicle to clam tax status and other perceived benefits and even the tax status often results in a penalty.

Why didn't polygamous marriages come after legal heterosexual marriages? Why hasn't incestuous marriages come after legal heterosexual marriages? Why is it that you think legal same sex marriage is so gosh darn powerful?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it"

The good pastor forgot the rest of it....go and sin no more. He's cherry picking the Bible. What a doofus

And she's cherrypicking which sin to not support.
Has she refused her seal to 'no fault' divorce, or to new marriage licenses to those that have had a 'no fault' divorce?
Is she not issuing licenses to thieves or is homosexuality the only sin she's against?

How would she know if a divorced person has repented or asked for forgiveness? No way she would know. She knows gayper marriage is a violation of God's law

Has nothing to do with repentance.
Not supposed to remarry until the divorced spouse is deceased. Unless there's no sex involved. Then it wouldn't be adultery.

How does she know the gay couple is having sex? It's the sexual act that is the sin, not the marriage

That's not true. God forgives all sins but one if the person is fully and truly sorry

When someone keeps doing something 4 times, are they fully and truly sorry?

It's my understanding she became a Christian after the divorces. Onnly God knows her heart and there is only one unforgivable sin.

 

[the_human_being]

I wouldn't have any problem with it if the majority actually supported it.

And.....................there you have it folks. The Bill of Rights and civil rights means nothing to this poster.

You feel better now? Good. The rights of the majority mean nothing to you - just so you have your way. You're just another "victim", right?

The majority most certainly has rights, exercised through their votes...but this is not a Democracy like you seem to think it is...we are a Constitutional Republic....the rule of law applies. You can get 99% of the voting public vote for something, but if it goes against the Constitution and it's amendments, it is unConstitutional and cannot become enforceable law. That's how things are in this country. Welcome to U.S. Government 101.

Then why isn't Obama not under arrest for all his Constitutional violations and for not enforcing our immigration laws and laws against civil disobedience? Why isn't Hillary not under arrest for violating our national security laws governing the handling, transmission, and possession of classified documents including Top Secret of which every rank-and-file federal civil servant is held accountable? It depends on who is breaking the law doesn't it. Really. Straw Dog.

Where are the charges against President Obama for "all his Constitutional violations"? Again, you show that you have no clue about how our government runs. For the President to be arrested, he must first be removed from office via impeachment and conviction. You've just been schooled again.

Don't know how I made it 72 years without you but it sure was a pleasure.

 

[bodecea]

And she's cherrypicking which sin to not support.
Has she refused her seal to 'no fault' divorce, or to new marriage licenses to those that have had a 'no fault' divorce?
Is she not issuing licenses to thieves or is homosexuality the only sin she's against?

How would she know if a divorced person has repented or asked for forgiveness? No way she would know. She knows gayper marriage is a violation of God's law

Has nothing to do with repentance.
Not supposed to remarry until the divorced spouse is deceased. Unless there's no sex involved. Then it wouldn't be adultery.

How does she know the gay couple is having sex? It's the sexual act that is the sin, not the marriage

That's not true. God forgives all sins but one if the person is fully and truly sorry

When someone keeps doing something 4 times, are they fully and truly sorry?

It's my understanding she became a Christian after the divorces. Onnly God knows her heart and there is only one unforgivable sin.

So she wasn't christian before then? What was she? Catholic? Are you asserting that a county in the middle of the bible belt would elect someone who was not a christian? Good one.

 

[the_human_being]

You claim. I submit she fulfilled her sworn duty as pertaining to the law she swore to uphold when she took office. The law in effect in Kentucky at the time she took office was the law she took an oath to uphold. The law was changed dummox.

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

The decision was the worst in history. Worse than Plessy v Ferguson. Worse than Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court threw out:
1) 2000 years of Western tradition, which holds marriage is one man, one woman
2) 200 years of American Jurisprudence, which holds judges interpret laws
3) the 10th Amendment, which holds powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states
4) 200 years of tradition that holds states primarily define marriage and similar laws within their borders
5) Over 200 years of tradition that holds the Will of the People is the ultimate arbiter of standards
6) The principle of one man, one vote
7) The principle of limited government

Now the Supreme Court can invent anything, call it a right, and declare that it is protected under the 14th A. There is no limiting principle to it.

Exactly. Next will come polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages. The floodgates are wide open. I'd simply allow Walmart to sell the licenses just as they sell hunting and fishing licenses now. The license means nothing except as a vehicle to clam tax status and other perceived benefits and even the tax status often results in a penalty.

Why didn't polygamous marriages come after legal heterosexual marriages? Why hasn't incestuous marriages come after legal heterosexual marriages? Why is it that you think legal same sex marriage is so gosh darn powerful?

They are on the horizon fool. A man has already filed suit to marry his two live-in wives.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How would she know if a divorced person has repented or asked for forgiveness? No way she would know. She knows gayper marriage is a violation of God's law

Has nothing to do with repentance.
Not supposed to remarry until the divorced spouse is deceased. Unless there's no sex involved. Then it wouldn't be adultery.

How does she know the gay couple is having sex? It's the sexual act that is the sin, not the marriage

That's not true. God forgives all sins but one if the person is fully and truly sorry

When someone keeps doing something 4 times, are they fully and truly sorry?

It's my understanding she became a Christian after the divorces. Onnly God knows her heart and there is only one unforgivable sin.

So she wasn't christian before then? What was she? Catholic? Are you asserting that a county in the middle of the bible belt would elect someone who was not a christian? Good one.

She was a sinner. You don't understand what you're blabbering about and are a waste of time

 

[the_human_being]

You claim. I submit she fulfilled her sworn duty as pertaining to the law she swore to uphold when she took office. The law in effect in Kentucky at the time she took office was the law she took an oath to uphold. The law was changed dummox.

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

The decision was the worst in history. Worse than Plessy v Ferguson. Worse than Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court threw out:
1) 2000 years of Western tradition, which holds marriage is one man, one woman
2) 200 years of American Jurisprudence, which holds judges interpret laws
3) the 10th Amendment, which holds powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states
4) 200 years of tradition that holds states primarily define marriage and similar laws within their borders
5) Over 200 years of tradition that holds the Will of the People is the ultimate arbiter of standards
6) The principle of one man, one vote
7) The principle of limited government

Now the Supreme Court can invent anything, call it a right, and declare that it is protected under the 14th A. There is no limiting principle to it.

Exactly. Next will come polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages. The floodgates are wide open. I'd simply allow Walmart to sell the licenses just as they sell hunting and fishing licenses now. The license means nothing except as a vehicle to clam tax status and other perceived benefits and even the tax status often results in a penalty.

ROFL what a lying bigoted piece of shit you are.

At least I can speak without resorting to a speel of profanity. You are a vulgar uncouth brute beast and an insult to humanity in general.

 

[bodecea]

And.....................there you have it folks. The Bill of Rights and civil rights means nothing to this poster.

You feel better now? Good. The rights of the majority mean nothing to you - just so you have your way. You're just another "victim", right?

The majority most certainly has rights, exercised through their votes...but this is not a Democracy like you seem to think it is...we are a Constitutional Republic....the rule of law applies. You can get 99% of the voting public vote for something, but if it goes against the Constitution and it's amendments, it is unConstitutional and cannot become enforceable law. That's how things are in this country. Welcome to U.S. Government 101.

Then why isn't Obama not under arrest for all his Constitutional violations and for not enforcing our immigration laws and laws against civil disobedience? Why isn't Hillary not under arrest for violating our national security laws governing the handling, transmission, and possession of classified documents including Top Secret of which every rank-and-file federal civil servant is held accountable? It depends on who is breaking the law doesn't it. Really. Straw Dog.

Where are the charges against President Obama for "all his Constitutional violations"? Again, you show that you have no clue about how our government runs. For the President to be arrested, he must first be removed from office via impeachment and conviction. You've just been schooled again.

Don't know how I made it 72 years without you but it sure was a pleasure.

And our Republic has done just fine for over 230 years as a Republic...not the pure democracy you seem to think it is. If you are indeed 72 years old, you've seen Jim Crow, segregation, civil rights, Brown v. Board of Ed, women's rights, a few amendments, an impeachment, a Presidential resignation, and a few other things. How have you isolated yourself so well from reality?

 

[bodecea]

Has nothing to do with repentance.
Not supposed to remarry until the divorced spouse is deceased. Unless there's no sex involved. Then it wouldn't be adultery.

How does she know the gay couple is having sex? It's the sexual act that is the sin, not the marriage

That's not true. God forgives all sins but one if the person is fully and truly sorry

When someone keeps doing something 4 times, are they fully and truly sorry?

It's my understanding she became a Christian after the divorces. Onnly God knows her heart and there is only one unforgivable sin.

So she wasn't christian before then? What was she? Catholic? Are you asserting that a county in the middle of the bible belt would elect someone who was not a christian? Good one.

She was a sinner. You don't understand what you're blabbering about and are a waste of time

So she's not a sinner now? You making that assertion, are you? Hubris isn't a sin? Gluttony isn't a sin? Religious tyranny over her workers isn't a sin?

 

[bodecea]

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

The decision was the worst in history. Worse than Plessy v Ferguson. Worse than Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court threw out:
1) 2000 years of Western tradition, which holds marriage is one man, one woman
2) 200 years of American Jurisprudence, which holds judges interpret laws
3) the 10th Amendment, which holds powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states
4) 200 years of tradition that holds states primarily define marriage and similar laws within their borders
5) Over 200 years of tradition that holds the Will of the People is the ultimate arbiter of standards
6) The principle of one man, one vote
7) The principle of limited government

Now the Supreme Court can invent anything, call it a right, and declare that it is protected under the 14th A. There is no limiting principle to it.

Exactly. Next will come polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages. The floodgates are wide open. I'd simply allow Walmart to sell the licenses just as they sell hunting and fishing licenses now. The license means nothing except as a vehicle to clam tax status and other perceived benefits and even the tax status often results in a penalty.

ROFL what a lying bigoted piece of shit you are.

At least I can speak without resorting to a speel of profanity. You are a vulgar uncouth brute beast and an insult to humanity in general.

I too don't resort to profanity....but I also am aware of how our government works.

 

[the_human_being]

I still say it would have been much more accepted had the Kentucky Attorney General, the highest ranking law official in the state, sent out a communication to all county clerks instructing them that Kentucky agreed with the Supreme Court's decision and that they should issue the licenses.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That's not true. God forgives all sins but one if the person is fully and truly sorry

When someone keeps doing something 4 times, are they fully and truly sorry?

It's my understanding she became a Christian after the divorces. Onnly God knows her heart and there is only one unforgivable sin.

So she wasn't christian before then? What was she? Catholic? Are you asserting that a county in the middle of the bible belt would elect someone who was not a christian? Good one.

She was a sinner. You don't understand what you're blabbering about and are a waste of time

So she's not a sinner now? You making that assertion, are you? Hubris isn't a sin? Gluttony isn't a sin? Religious tyranny over her workers isn't a sin?

Everyone sins...some repent and ask God to forgive them, others continue to sin. You're spinning your wheels here

 

[bodecea]

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

The decision was the worst in history. Worse than Plessy v Ferguson. Worse than Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court threw out:
1) 2000 years of Western tradition, which holds marriage is one man, one woman
2) 200 years of American Jurisprudence, which holds judges interpret laws
3) the 10th Amendment, which holds powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states
4) 200 years of tradition that holds states primarily define marriage and similar laws within their borders
5) Over 200 years of tradition that holds the Will of the People is the ultimate arbiter of standards
6) The principle of one man, one vote
7) The principle of limited government

Now the Supreme Court can invent anything, call it a right, and declare that it is protected under the 14th A. There is no limiting principle to it.

Exactly. Next will come polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages. The floodgates are wide open. I'd simply allow Walmart to sell the licenses just as they sell hunting and fishing licenses now. The license means nothing except as a vehicle to clam tax status and other perceived benefits and even the tax status often results in a penalty.

Why didn't polygamous marriages come after legal heterosexual marriages? Why hasn't incestuous marriages come after legal heterosexual marriages? Why is it that you think legal same sex marriage is so gosh darn powerful?

They are on the horizon fool. A man has already filed suit to marry his two live-in wives.

They've been on the horizon since the Mormon church was created.....yet, you want to blame something that's been hovering for over 160 years on this year's decision on legal gay marriage? How successful has 160 years of wanting polygamy worked so far? Could you point out what it is about the gay marriage decision that makes it easier for those wanting legal polygamy? http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[the_human_being]

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

The decision was the worst in history. Worse than Plessy v Ferguson. Worse than Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court threw out:
1) 2000 years of Western tradition, which holds marriage is one man, one woman
2) 200 years of American Jurisprudence, which holds judges interpret laws
3) the 10th Amendment, which holds powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states
4) 200 years of tradition that holds states primarily define marriage and similar laws within their borders
5) Over 200 years of tradition that holds the Will of the People is the ultimate arbiter of standards
6) The principle of one man, one vote
7) The principle of limited government

Now the Supreme Court can invent anything, call it a right, and declare that it is protected under the 14th A. There is no limiting principle to it.

Exactly. Next will come polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages. The floodgates are wide open. I'd simply allow Walmart to sell the licenses just as they sell hunting and fishing licenses now. The license means nothing except as a vehicle to clam tax status and other perceived benefits and even the tax status often results in a penalty.

ROFL what a lying bigoted piece of shit you are.

At least I can speak without resorting to a speel of profanity. You are a vulgar uncouth brute beast and an insult to humanity in general.

I too don't resort to profanity....but I also am aware of how our government works.

Are you aware of how it's supposed to work or are you aware of how it actually works?

 

[bodecea]

I still say it would have been much more accepted had the Kentucky Attorney General, the highest ranking law official in the state, sent out a communication to all county clerks instructing them that Kentucky agreed with the Supreme Court's decision and that they should issue the licenses.

Isn't it odd how no other county clerk in Kentucky were as dense as Kim Davis?

 

[bodecea]

When someone keeps doing something 4 times, are they fully and truly sorry?

It's my understanding she became a Christian after the divorces. Onnly God knows her heart and there is only one unforgivable sin.

So she wasn't christian before then? What was she? Catholic? Are you asserting that a county in the middle of the bible belt would elect someone who was not a christian? Good one.

She was a sinner. You don't understand what you're blabbering about and are a waste of time

So she's not a sinner now? You making that assertion, are you? Hubris isn't a sin? Gluttony isn't a sin? Religious tyranny over her workers isn't a sin?

Everyone sins...some repent and ask God to forgive them, others continue to sin. You're spinning your wheels here

So...what's different about her sinning as a Baptist (or whatever else she was before) and sinning as this new-and-improved brand of christianity?

 

[the_human_being]

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

The decision was the worst in history. Worse than Plessy v Ferguson. Worse than Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court threw out:
1) 2000 years of Western tradition, which holds marriage is one man, one woman
2) 200 years of American Jurisprudence, which holds judges interpret laws
3) the 10th Amendment, which holds powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states
4) 200 years of tradition that holds states primarily define marriage and similar laws within their borders
5) Over 200 years of tradition that holds the Will of the People is the ultimate arbiter of standards
6) The principle of one man, one vote
7) The principle of limited government

Now the Supreme Court can invent anything, call it a right, and declare that it is protected under the 14th A. There is no limiting principle to it.

Exactly. Next will come polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages. The floodgates are wide open. I'd simply allow Walmart to sell the licenses just as they sell hunting and fishing licenses now. The license means nothing except as a vehicle to clam tax status and other perceived benefits and even the tax status often results in a penalty.

Why didn't polygamous marriages come after legal heterosexual marriages? Why hasn't incestuous marriages come after legal heterosexual marriages? Why is it that you think legal same sex marriage is so gosh darn powerful?

They are on the horizon fool. A man has already filed suit to marry his two live-in wives.

They've been on the horizon since the Mormon church was created.....yet, you want to blame something that's been hovering for over 160 years on this year's decision on legal gay marriage? How successful has 160 years of wanting polygamy worked so far? Could you point out what it is about the gay marriage decision that makes it easier for those wanting legal polygamy? http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Simple fool. The Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as only between ONE man and ONE woman. The Supreme Court does not make any such distinctions and excludes no one.