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

[Silhouette]

Its a State issue.......subject to constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision outlines. When a state law violates constitutional guaratees, the courts have the duty to place the constitution above the piece of legislation.

Which is exactly what Obergefell did.

And...the Constitution says "equality". So, where states cannot discriminate against one sexual orientation the majority objected to including in marriage, they may not discriminate against ANY sexual orientation the majority objected to including in marriage.

I'm glad I'm not the one of the Fascist-Five Justices. They're going to have a hellof a time saying "NO" to polyamorist-Americans..

 

[Skylar]

Its a State issue.......subject to constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision outlines. When a state law violates constitutional guaratees, the courts have the duty to place the constitution above the piece of legislation.

Which is exactly what Obergefell did.

And...the Constitution says "equality". So, where states cannot discriminate against one sexual orientation the majority objected to including in marriage, they may not discriminate against ANY sexual orientation the majority objected to including in marriage.

I'm glad I'm not the one of the Fascist-Five Justices. They're going to have a hellof a time saying "NO" to polyamorist-Americans..

No court, case or ruling recognizes polyamory as a 'sexual orientation'. You made that up, citing yourself.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

See how that works?

 

[mdk]

Its a State issue.......subject to constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision outlines. When a state law violates constitutional guaratees, the courts have the duty to place the constitution above the piece of legislation.

Which is exactly what Obergefell did.

And...the Constitution says "equality". So, where states cannot discriminate against one sexual orientation the majority objected to including in marriage, they may not discriminate against ANY sexual orientation the majority objected to including in marriage.

I'm glad I'm not the one of the Fascist-Five Justices. They're going to have a hellof a time saying "NO" to polyamorist-Americans..

Where is all your concern about equality when it comes to the religious freedoms of the Brown family? You have to support their religious freedoms just like you've supported Kim Davis and The Kleins' religious freedoms. Equality demands it! lol. If not, you're being quite hypocritical.

Funny how you are always exempt from your own standards.

 

[Silhouette]

"Religious...religious..religious....Nice try mdk. It's about more than religion here.

No court, case or ruling recognizes polyamory as a 'sexual orientation'. You made that up, citing yourself.

All that matters is that men sexually attracted to more than one woman, who have made that a lifestyle call themselves a sexual orientation. Just like transgenders, self-described. The court case and ruling that could cement that is the Brown case. If you define a sexual orientation as being sexually attracted in a certain type of way, how is it you, the hypocrite, get to say which way that can or cannot be?

Good luck!

 

[Skylar]

All that matters is that men sexually attracted to more than one woman, who have made that a lifestyle call themselves a sexual orientation. Just like transgenders, self-described.

Again, your imagination of what sexual orientation is is irrelevant. As no court gives a shit what silly nonsense and comforting lies you tell yourself.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. No court, law, nor case recognize it as such.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

The court case and ruling that could cement that is the Brown case. If you define a sexual orientation as being sexually attracted in a certain type of way, how is it you, the hypocrite, get to say which way that can or cannot be?

Good luck!

Laughing.....you do realize that Brown is arguing *none* of your delusional pseudo-legal gibberish, right?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

Correct. Apparently states can still discriminate against Polyamorist-Americans and their sexual orientation/lifestyle, but another sexual orientation they can't. Don't worry, the Brown case weighed against Obegefell will clear all that muddy legal status up one way or the other.

Its a State issue.......subject to constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision outlines. When a state law violates constitutional guaratees, the courts have the duty to place the constitution above the piece of legislation.

Which is exactly what Obergefell did.

The legal status of Obergefell is clear as the spring water. Its your understanding of the case is as clouded as mud silt. As you still refuse to read it.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

So I can only presume that all cases decided by the USSC you agree with, and never consider that judicial activism, at least at the USSC is concerned, exist. I am curious what your position would have been if one of the 5 in favor would have been opposed, and thus maintained the definition of marriage as it has always been.

 

[mdk]

"Religious...religious..religious....Nice try mdk. It's about more than religion here.

Yes, the Browns' are also basing their claim on their right to privacy as well as their religious freedoms. They are not arguing their case based on polygamy being sexual orientation.

Why don't you support the religious freedoms of the Brown family? You are all for religious freedoms when they can be used aganist gay people. Suddenly you're quite mum. Why is that? You can't truly support religious freedoms unless you also support the religious freedoms of this family.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

Well that's false, Same-Sex Civil Marriage existed in this country in some States through legislative action and passing on a ballot vote prior to the Obergefel SCOTUS decision making is national in all jurisdictions.



>>>>

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

It is a state issue- unless the state law violate the Constitution.

Which is why the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and ending with Obergefell.

And that is what the Supreme Court does- it overturns unconstitutional state laws- whether they are gun laws or marriage laws or any other law.

So the USSC is infaliabe in your judgement?

 

[Skylar]

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

Correct. Apparently states can still discriminate against Polyamorist-Americans and their sexual orientation/lifestyle, but another sexual orientation they can't. Don't worry, the Brown case weighed against Obegefell will clear all that muddy legal status up one way or the other.

Its a State issue.......subject to constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision outlines. When a state law violates constitutional guaratees, the courts have the duty to place the constitution above the piece of legislation.

Which is exactly what Obergefell did.

The legal status of Obergefell is clear as the spring water. Its your understanding of the case is as clouded as mud silt. As you still refuse to read it.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

So I can only presume that all cases decided by the USSC you agree with, and never consider that judicial activism, at least at the USSC is concerned, exist. I am curious what your position would have been if one of the 5 in favor would have been opposed, and thus maintained the definition of marriage as it has always been.

I don't always agree with the court. But when I disagree, I do so with legal evidence. Not imagination, as Sil does. In this case the weight of legal evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the Obergefell ruling. And we have about 50 years of legal precedent that the Feds can overturn marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

And as a general rule, ignoring legal precedent isn't much of a legal argument.

 

[Skylar]

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

Well that's false, Same-Sex Civil Marriage existed in this country in some States through legislative action and passing on a ballot vote prior to the Obergefel SCOTUS decision making is national in all jurisdictions.



>>>>

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

It is a state issue- unless the state law violate the Constitution.

Which is why the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and ending with Obergefell.

And that is what the Supreme Court does- it overturns unconstitutional state laws- whether they are gun laws or marriage laws or any other law.

So the USSC is infaliabe in your judgement?

I trust the USSC's legal judgment way more than I do yours.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So in your brilliant legal analysis, if the USSC rules 5-4, 5 justices are right and 4 are wrong? I guess the term judicial activism doesn't exist in your cozy little world. Did you find it interesting when Roberts decide Obama Care was constitutional because he deemed it a tax, even though the authors of that mess insisted it wasn't a tax? Curious- who are you voting for?

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.

Your personal legal interpretations are based on no legal authority. Mine, on the constitutionally delegated judicial power of the federal judiciary.

A judiciary that has repeatedly reocgnized the right to marriage.

The Bill of Rights defines the constitutional rights of US citizens.

Says who? Not the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th amendment and then tell us why you're so laughably wrong.

Or I can just tell you. Which ever you'd prefer.

So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism).

With 'judicial activism' being any case you disagree with. Watch, I'll demonstrate how even you don't buy your incoherent horseshit:

Was Heller v. DC 'judcial activism'? It was a 5 to 4 ruling. There was definitely dissenting opinions. And there's no mention anywhere in the constitution of 'the right to self defense with a fire arm'.

It meets ever criteria of your working definition of 'judicial activism'.

So......start wiping your ass with your own standards. And demonstrate even you don't believe you.

With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism.

If Marriage is a right....why wouldn't it be a right for same sex couples? They're protected under the constitution too. They have the right to equal protection in the law and Due process under the 14th amendment as well. As the Supreme Court held repeatedly.

And are you making some distinction between 'rights' and 'constitutional rights'? If so, what is it? As I define a constitutional right as any right protected by the constitution.

You...you read the 9th amendment, didn't you? Did you learn the difference between rights and powers? Did you figure out that the Constitution is NOT an exhaustive list of rights?

If no, I'll be happy to walk you through it again.

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

The 'definition' according to who? We invented marriage. It is what we say it is. And its meaning has adapted to service us.

Marriage used to mean a subordinate relationship where a woman served a man. We changed that, making it a relationship of equals.

Marriage used to be only a white man with a white woman, or a black man with a black woman. We changed that, eliminating any racial boundaries.

And marriage used to be only a man and a woman. We changed that, so it can be a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

The definition of marriage is what we say it is, as marriage is a social and legal construct that we invented, maintain and enforce. For a previous incarnation to maintain exclusivity, there has to be a valid reason.

And there is none in excluding same sex couples.

Nope, reject your entire premise. It has always been defined throughout history and all cultures as a union between a man and a woman. Laws forbidding interracial marriage were unjust per our constitution, because marriage was not defined as a union of two people of the opposite sex but the same race. Silliness!

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

Personally, I have no concern either way what the definition of marriage is and how the Supremes decide to alter it. I do have a concern when they step beyond the constitution though to legislate. There was no discrimination within the widely and commonly recognized definition of marriage. I also would have no issue with a union between 2 people of the same sex. I would have preferred that an alternative word or phrase be employed to describe it.

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

I agree, there is much more of a historical argument for polygamy going back before biblical times extending to today where it is still practiced by many cultures and religions around the world now.


>>>>

Excellent point. Polygamy has much more of a historical standing as a form of marriage than does same sex marriage.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

Well that's false, Same-Sex Civil Marriage existed in this country in some States through legislative action and passing on a ballot vote prior to the Obergefel SCOTUS decision making is national in all jurisdictions.



>>>>

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

It is a state issue- unless the state law violate the Constitution.

Which is why the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- starting with Loving v. Virginia and ending with Obergefell.

And that is what the Supreme Court does- it overturns unconstitutional state laws- whether they are gun laws or marriage laws or any other law.

So the USSC is infaliabe in your judgement?

I trust the USSC's legal judgment way more than I do yours.

Never disagreed with any USSC decision? Or are you hedging?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

Correct. Apparently states can still discriminate against Polyamorist-Americans and their sexual orientation/lifestyle, but another sexual orientation they can't. Don't worry, the Brown case weighed against Obegefell will clear all that muddy legal status up one way or the other.

Its a State issue.......subject to constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision outlines. When a state law violates constitutional guaratees, the courts have the duty to place the constitution above the piece of legislation.

Which is exactly what Obergefell did.

The legal status of Obergefell is clear as the spring water. Its your understanding of the case is as clouded as mud silt. As you still refuse to read it.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

So I can only presume that all cases decided by the USSC you agree with, and never consider that judicial activism, at least at the USSC is concerned, exist. I am curious what your position would have been if one of the 5 in favor would have been opposed, and thus maintained the definition of marriage as it has always been.

I don't always agree with the court. But when I disagree, I do so with legal evidence. Not imagination, as Sil does. In this case the weight of legal evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the Obergefell ruling. And we have about 50 years of legal precedent that the Feds can overturn marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

And as a general rule, ignoring legal precedent isn't much of a legal argument.

I agree legal precedent weighs heavy and should, we want a deliberate court system. But I don't see the jump to redefining marriage supported by legal precedents with respect to interracial marriages.

Frankly, I think we have beat this to death. I ain't changing my mind and I am sure you won't either. Good talk.

How do you feel about the 17th Amendment?

 

[Skylar]

In my 'legal analysis' the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution is delegated to the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head. And the authority of the Supreme Court follows the majority opinion. And no authority follows the dissenting opinion.

Your personal legal interpretations are based on no legal authority. Mine, on the constitutionally delegated judicial power of the federal judiciary.

A judiciary that has repeatedly reocgnized the right to marriage.

Says who? Not the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th amendment and then tell us why you're so laughably wrong.

Or I can just tell you. Which ever you'd prefer.

So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism).

With 'judicial activism' being any case you disagree with. Watch, I'll demonstrate how even you don't buy your incoherent horseshit:

Was Heller v. DC 'judcial activism'? It was a 5 to 4 ruling. There was definitely dissenting opinions. And there's no mention anywhere in the constitution of 'the right to self defense with a fire arm'.

It meets ever criteria of your working definition of 'judicial activism'.

So......start wiping your ass with your own standards. And demonstrate even you don't believe you.

With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism.

If Marriage is a right....why wouldn't it be a right for same sex couples? They're protected under the constitution too. They have the right to equal protection in the law and Due process under the 14th amendment as well. As the Supreme Court held repeatedly.

And are you making some distinction between 'rights' and 'constitutional rights'? If so, what is it? As I define a constitutional right as any right protected by the constitution.

You...you read the 9th amendment, didn't you? Did you learn the difference between rights and powers? Did you figure out that the Constitution is NOT an exhaustive list of rights?

If no, I'll be happy to walk you through it again.

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

The 'definition' according to who? We invented marriage. It is what we say it is. And its meaning has adapted to service us.

Marriage used to mean a subordinate relationship where a woman served a man. We changed that, making it a relationship of equals.

Marriage used to be only a white man with a white woman, or a black man with a black woman. We changed that, eliminating any racial boundaries.

And marriage used to be only a man and a woman. We changed that, so it can be a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

The definition of marriage is what we say it is, as marriage is a social and legal construct that we invented, maintain and enforce. For a previous incarnation to maintain exclusivity, there has to be a valid reason.

And there is none in excluding same sex couples.

Nope, reject your entire premise.

Oh, I get that. But what you lack in your rejection is a rational or legal basis. Which tends to undercut the validty of your argument in any context.

It has always been defined throughout history and all cultures as a union between a man and a woman. Laws forbidding interracial marriage were unjust per our constitution, because marriage was not defined as a union of two people of the opposite sex but the same race. Silliness!

Except that it hasn't. Sometimes its between one man and many women. Sometimes its between children. Sometimes its between only white women and white men. Sometimes it involved the consent of those being married. Sometimes people were forced into arranged marriages.

Marriage isn't this unchanging absolute you imagine it is. But adapted to the needs of society. As society defines it. Exactly as we do now.

You're picking your personal favorite. And then insisting that it can be the only 'true' definition of marriage. Apparently because you say so. As you've provided no rational reason why it must exclude same sex couples.

That's just a plain old appeal to authority fallacy. And a begging the question fallacy....as your justification for your definitions existence is that your definition exists.

That's an argument with no corners. You need a rational reason *why* same sex couples must be excluded. Not simply a history of pointless discrimination.

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

No more so then when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

Marriage is a social construct that we define to service us. We don't serve it. And when laws are created that that run contrary to constitutional guarantees, the judiciary has an obligation to put the constitution above the law.

Which is what Obergefell was all about.

 

[Skylar]

Actually if you read my post, you will see I am referring to the historical definition by many different cultures, not a handful of states in our country most recently. However you highlight my original stance- it is a state issue and should not be decided by the USSC (see post #60) THank you for that.

Correct. Apparently states can still discriminate against Polyamorist-Americans and their sexual orientation/lifestyle, but another sexual orientation they can't. Don't worry, the Brown case weighed against Obegefell will clear all that muddy legal status up one way or the other.

Its a State issue.......subject to constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision outlines. When a state law violates constitutional guaratees, the courts have the duty to place the constitution above the piece of legislation.

Which is exactly what Obergefell did.

The legal status of Obergefell is clear as the spring water. Its your understanding of the case is as clouded as mud silt. As you still refuse to read it.

You make shit up. Its irrelevant to the law. Nothing happens.

So I can only presume that all cases decided by the USSC you agree with, and never consider that judicial activism, at least at the USSC is concerned, exist. I am curious what your position would have been if one of the 5 in favor would have been opposed, and thus maintained the definition of marriage as it has always been.

I don't always agree with the court. But when I disagree, I do so with legal evidence. Not imagination, as Sil does. In this case the weight of legal evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the Obergefell ruling. And we have about 50 years of legal precedent that the Feds can overturn marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

And as a general rule, ignoring legal precedent isn't much of a legal argument.

I agree legal precedent weighs heavy and should, we want a deliberate court system. But I don't see the jump to redefining marriage supported by legal precedents with respect to interracial marriages.

There were pointless, arbitrary and constitutionally unsupportable restrictions on marriage in Loving. There were pointless, arbitrary and constitutionally unsupported restrictions on marriage in Obergefell.

The Federal Courts intervened to overturn State marriage laws in each case.

You'll need a rational reason WHY you must exclude same sex couples. And your entire argument is we must exclude them because we have excluded them.

That's nonsense. It would justify the continued existence of ANY violation of rights. As your literally arguing that a violation of rights is justified if it merely exists.

Um, no. It isn't.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So you avoided the topic of judicial activism, Roberts use of considering Obamacare a tax (clearly judicial activism).

With 'judicial activism' being any case you disagree with. Watch, I'll demonstrate how even you don't buy your incoherent horseshit:

Was Heller v. DC 'judcial activism'? It was a 5 to 4 ruling. There was definitely dissenting opinions. And there's no mention anywhere in the constitution of 'the right to self defense with a fire arm'.

It meets ever criteria of your working definition of 'judicial activism'.

So......start wiping your ass with your own standards. And demonstrate even you don't believe you.

With respect to marriage- of course marriage is a right, and everybody has always had the right to marry. But they didn't expand the rights of people to marry, they altered the definition of marriage, again judicial activism.

If Marriage is a right....why wouldn't it be a right for same sex couples? They're protected under the constitution too. They have the right to equal protection in the law and Due process under the 14th amendment as well. As the Supreme Court held repeatedly.

And are you making some distinction between 'rights' and 'constitutional rights'? If so, what is it? As I define a constitutional right as any right protected by the constitution.

You...you read the 9th amendment, didn't you? Did you learn the difference between rights and powers? Did you figure out that the Constitution is NOT an exhaustive list of rights?

If no, I'll be happy to walk you through it again.

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

The 'definition' according to who? We invented marriage. It is what we say it is. And its meaning has adapted to service us.

Marriage used to mean a subordinate relationship where a woman served a man. We changed that, making it a relationship of equals.

Marriage used to be only a white man with a white woman, or a black man with a black woman. We changed that, eliminating any racial boundaries.

And marriage used to be only a man and a woman. We changed that, so it can be a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

The definition of marriage is what we say it is, as marriage is a social and legal construct that we invented, maintain and enforce. For a previous incarnation to maintain exclusivity, there has to be a valid reason.

And there is none in excluding same sex couples.

Nope, reject your entire premise.

Oh, I get that. But what you lack in your rejection is a rational or legal basis. Which tends to undercut the validty of your argument in any context.

It has always been defined throughout history and all cultures as a union between a man and a woman. Laws forbidding interracial marriage were unjust per our constitution, because marriage was not defined as a union of two people of the opposite sex but the same race. Silliness!

Except that it hasn't. Sometimes its between one man and many women. Sometimes its between children. Sometimes its between only white women and white men. Sometimes it involved the consent of those being married. Sometimes people were forced into arranged marriages.

Marriage isn't this unchanging absolute you imagine it is. But adapted to the needs of society. As society defines it. Exactly as we do now.

You're picking your personal favorite. And then insisting that it can be the only 'true' definition of marriage. Apparently because you say so. As you've provided no rational reason why it must exclude same sex couples.

That's just a plain old appeal to authority fallacy. And a begging the question fallacy....as your justification for your definitions existence is that your definition exists.

That's an argument with no corners. You need a rational reason *why* same sex couples must be excluded. Not simply a history of pointless discrimination.

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

No more so then when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

Marriage is a social construct that we define to service us. We don't serve it. And when laws are created that that run contrary to constitutional guarantees, the judiciary has an obligation to put the constitution above the law.

Which is what Obergefell was all about.

One common theme in all your examples- members of the opposite sex, be they women, girls, men or boys, multiple men, multiple women, multiple children, they were always the opposite sex. You keep missing the obvious distinction.

 

[Skylar]

With 'judicial activism' being any case you disagree with. Watch, I'll demonstrate how even you don't buy your incoherent horseshit:

Was Heller v. DC 'judcial activism'? It was a 5 to 4 ruling. There was definitely dissenting opinions. And there's no mention anywhere in the constitution of 'the right to self defense with a fire arm'.

It meets ever criteria of your working definition of 'judicial activism'.

So......start wiping your ass with your own standards. And demonstrate even you don't believe you.

If Marriage is a right....why wouldn't it be a right for same sex couples? They're protected under the constitution too. They have the right to equal protection in the law and Due process under the 14th amendment as well. As the Supreme Court held repeatedly.

And are you making some distinction between 'rights' and 'constitutional rights'? If so, what is it? As I define a constitutional right as any right protected by the constitution.

You...you read the 9th amendment, didn't you? Did you learn the difference between rights and powers? Did you figure out that the Constitution is NOT an exhaustive list of rights?

If no, I'll be happy to walk you through it again.

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

The 'definition' according to who? We invented marriage. It is what we say it is. And its meaning has adapted to service us.

Marriage used to mean a subordinate relationship where a woman served a man. We changed that, making it a relationship of equals.

Marriage used to be only a white man with a white woman, or a black man with a black woman. We changed that, eliminating any racial boundaries.

And marriage used to be only a man and a woman. We changed that, so it can be a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

The definition of marriage is what we say it is, as marriage is a social and legal construct that we invented, maintain and enforce. For a previous incarnation to maintain exclusivity, there has to be a valid reason.

And there is none in excluding same sex couples.

Nope, reject your entire premise.

Oh, I get that. But what you lack in your rejection is a rational or legal basis. Which tends to undercut the validty of your argument in any context.

It has always been defined throughout history and all cultures as a union between a man and a woman. Laws forbidding interracial marriage were unjust per our constitution, because marriage was not defined as a union of two people of the opposite sex but the same race. Silliness!

Except that it hasn't. Sometimes its between one man and many women. Sometimes its between children. Sometimes its between only white women and white men. Sometimes it involved the consent of those being married. Sometimes people were forced into arranged marriages.

Marriage isn't this unchanging absolute you imagine it is. But adapted to the needs of society. As society defines it. Exactly as we do now.

You're picking your personal favorite. And then insisting that it can be the only 'true' definition of marriage. Apparently because you say so. As you've provided no rational reason why it must exclude same sex couples.

That's just a plain old appeal to authority fallacy. And a begging the question fallacy....as your justification for your definitions existence is that your definition exists.

That's an argument with no corners. You need a rational reason *why* same sex couples must be excluded. Not simply a history of pointless discrimination.

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

No more so then when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

Marriage is a social construct that we define to service us. We don't serve it. And when laws are created that that run contrary to constitutional guarantees, the judiciary has an obligation to put the constitution above the law.

Which is what Obergefell was all about.

One common theme in all your examples- members of the opposite sex, be they women, girls, men or boys, multiple men, multiple women, multiple children, they were always the opposite sex. You keep missing the obvious distinction.

And I'm also citing numerous hugely significant differences. The premise of your argument is that the definition of marriage doesn't change.

I've demonstrated that it obviously does change. Simply destroying your argument.

Worse for you, you can provide no rational justification for why same sex couples should be excluded from marriage. As your sole justification for unconstitutional discrimination.....is that the unconstitutional discrimination merely exists.

Which could be used to justify the continuance of *any* violation of rights.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

With respect to marriage- you are failing to either recognize or acknowledge the definition of the word, which was a union between a man and a woman. It had always been defined that way by virtually all societies throughout history. The court used judicial activism to change the definition to suit their political agenda. Should be clear to even the most emotional liberals, but I guess you are a special case.

The 'definition' according to who? We invented marriage. It is what we say it is. And its meaning has adapted to service us.

Marriage used to mean a subordinate relationship where a woman served a man. We changed that, making it a relationship of equals.

Marriage used to be only a white man with a white woman, or a black man with a black woman. We changed that, eliminating any racial boundaries.

And marriage used to be only a man and a woman. We changed that, so it can be a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

The definition of marriage is what we say it is, as marriage is a social and legal construct that we invented, maintain and enforce. For a previous incarnation to maintain exclusivity, there has to be a valid reason.

And there is none in excluding same sex couples.

Nope, reject your entire premise.

Oh, I get that. But what you lack in your rejection is a rational or legal basis. Which tends to undercut the validty of your argument in any context.

It has always been defined throughout history and all cultures as a union between a man and a woman. Laws forbidding interracial marriage were unjust per our constitution, because marriage was not defined as a union of two people of the opposite sex but the same race. Silliness!

Except that it hasn't. Sometimes its between one man and many women. Sometimes its between children. Sometimes its between only white women and white men. Sometimes it involved the consent of those being married. Sometimes people were forced into arranged marriages.

Marriage isn't this unchanging absolute you imagine it is. But adapted to the needs of society. As society defines it. Exactly as we do now.

You're picking your personal favorite. And then insisting that it can be the only 'true' definition of marriage. Apparently because you say so. As you've provided no rational reason why it must exclude same sex couples.

That's just a plain old appeal to authority fallacy. And a begging the question fallacy....as your justification for your definitions existence is that your definition exists.

That's an argument with no corners. You need a rational reason *why* same sex couples must be excluded. Not simply a history of pointless discrimination.

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

No more so then when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

Marriage is a social construct that we define to service us. We don't serve it. And when laws are created that that run contrary to constitutional guarantees, the judiciary has an obligation to put the constitution above the law.

Which is what Obergefell was all about.

One common theme in all your examples- members of the opposite sex, be they women, girls, men or boys, multiple men, multiple women, multiple children, they were always the opposite sex. You keep missing the obvious distinction.

And I'm also citing numerous hugely significant differences. The premise of your argument is that the definition of marriage doesn't change.

I've demonstrated that it obviously does change. Simply destroying your argument.

Worse for you, you can provide no rational justification for why same sex couples should be excluded from marriage. As your sole justification for unconstitutional discrimination.....is that the unconstitutional discrimination merely exists.

Which could be used to justify the continuance of *any* violation of rights.

Repeat repeat repeat....I'm bored. This is dead. Declare yourself the winner if you like, but there is nothing new to discuss.

 

[Skylar]

The 'definition' according to who? We invented marriage. It is what we say it is. And its meaning has adapted to service us.

Marriage used to mean a subordinate relationship where a woman served a man. We changed that, making it a relationship of equals.

Marriage used to be only a white man with a white woman, or a black man with a black woman. We changed that, eliminating any racial boundaries.

And marriage used to be only a man and a woman. We changed that, so it can be a man and a woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

The definition of marriage is what we say it is, as marriage is a social and legal construct that we invented, maintain and enforce. For a previous incarnation to maintain exclusivity, there has to be a valid reason.

And there is none in excluding same sex couples.

Nope, reject your entire premise.

Oh, I get that. But what you lack in your rejection is a rational or legal basis. Which tends to undercut the validty of your argument in any context.

It has always been defined throughout history and all cultures as a union between a man and a woman. Laws forbidding interracial marriage were unjust per our constitution, because marriage was not defined as a union of two people of the opposite sex but the same race. Silliness!

Except that it hasn't. Sometimes its between one man and many women. Sometimes its between children. Sometimes its between only white women and white men. Sometimes it involved the consent of those being married. Sometimes people were forced into arranged marriages.

Marriage isn't this unchanging absolute you imagine it is. But adapted to the needs of society. As society defines it. Exactly as we do now.

You're picking your personal favorite. And then insisting that it can be the only 'true' definition of marriage. Apparently because you say so. As you've provided no rational reason why it must exclude same sex couples.

That's just a plain old appeal to authority fallacy. And a begging the question fallacy....as your justification for your definitions existence is that your definition exists.

That's an argument with no corners. You need a rational reason *why* same sex couples must be excluded. Not simply a history of pointless discrimination.

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

No more so then when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

Marriage is a social construct that we define to service us. We don't serve it. And when laws are created that that run contrary to constitutional guarantees, the judiciary has an obligation to put the constitution above the law.

Which is what Obergefell was all about.

One common theme in all your examples- members of the opposite sex, be they women, girls, men or boys, multiple men, multiple women, multiple children, they were always the opposite sex. You keep missing the obvious distinction.

And I'm also citing numerous hugely significant differences. The premise of your argument is that the definition of marriage doesn't change.

I've demonstrated that it obviously does change. Simply destroying your argument.

Worse for you, you can provide no rational justification for why same sex couples should be excluded from marriage. As your sole justification for unconstitutional discrimination.....is that the unconstitutional discrimination merely exists

Which could be used to justify the continuance of *any* violation of rights.

Repeat repeat repeat....I'm bored. This is dead. Declare yourself the winner if you like, but there is nothing new to discuss.

You're still stuck in the exact same place: where you justify unconstitutional discrimination simply because that discrimination exists.

What you lack is a rational reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage. As I've demonstrably proven that your 'marriage never changes' theory is utter nonsense.

Until you can overcome these two huge holes in your argument, you're essentially done. And you won't touch either with a 10 foot pole.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Nope, reject your entire premise.

Oh, I get that. But what you lack in your rejection is a rational or legal basis. Which tends to undercut the validty of your argument in any context.

It has always been defined throughout history and all cultures as a union between a man and a woman. Laws forbidding interracial marriage were unjust per our constitution, because marriage was not defined as a union of two people of the opposite sex but the same race. Silliness!

Except that it hasn't. Sometimes its between one man and many women. Sometimes its between children. Sometimes its between only white women and white men. Sometimes it involved the consent of those being married. Sometimes people were forced into arranged marriages.

Marriage isn't this unchanging absolute you imagine it is. But adapted to the needs of society. As society defines it. Exactly as we do now.

You're picking your personal favorite. And then insisting that it can be the only 'true' definition of marriage. Apparently because you say so. As you've provided no rational reason why it must exclude same sex couples.

That's just a plain old appeal to authority fallacy. And a begging the question fallacy....as your justification for your definitions existence is that your definition exists.

That's an argument with no corners. You need a rational reason *why* same sex couples must be excluded. Not simply a history of pointless discrimination.

Clearly the definition of marriage is what we say it is. Thank you for coming around to the fact that the USSC altered the definition.

No more so then when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

Marriage is a social construct that we define to service us. We don't serve it. And when laws are created that that run contrary to constitutional guarantees, the judiciary has an obligation to put the constitution above the law.

Which is what Obergefell was all about.

One common theme in all your examples- members of the opposite sex, be they women, girls, men or boys, multiple men, multiple women, multiple children, they were always the opposite sex. You keep missing the obvious distinction.

And I'm also citing numerous hugely significant differences. The premise of your argument is that the definition of marriage doesn't change.

I've demonstrated that it obviously does change. Simply destroying your argument.

Worse for you, you can provide no rational justification for why same sex couples should be excluded from marriage. As your sole justification for unconstitutional discrimination.....is that the unconstitutional discrimination merely exists

Which could be used to justify the continuance of *any* violation of rights.

Repeat repeat repeat....I'm bored. This is dead. Declare yourself the winner if you like, but there is nothing new to discuss.

You're still stuck in the exact same place: where you justify unconstitutional discrimination simply because that discrimination exists.

What you lack is a rational reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage. As I've demonstrably proven that your 'marriage never changes' theory is utter nonsense.

Until you can overcome these two huge holes in your argument, you're essentially done. And you won't touch either with a 10 foot pole.

I never said marriage never changes.
There was no discrimination.
And you have given no example where marriage was ever defined as anything other than a union of people or persons of the opposite sex.
My point is, it is not the USSC job to redefine marriage to include members of the same sex, and you failed in presenting any precedent which demonstrates it is. Instead you have ignored this very obvious distinction with peripheral examples of rulings of marriage within its long held definition, that being between members of the opposite sex.

So, I declare you the winner, because you are more willing to repeat the same arguments over and over when we have reached an obvious impasse than I am. Congratulations, I am moving on.