Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[Redfish]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

ancient rome and greece.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I tried to explain this situation with the USSC to a friend of mine. And she came up with a startling little conspiracy theory;

What if the conservative justices won't take up the issue because they know they'd lose. So they're leaving the issue without binding precedent waiting for one of their fellow justices to die and be replaced. With a different court mix, they might be able to institute support for a gay marriage ban affirmation ruling.

I think its far fetched. But its definitely interesting.

Interesting concept, it opens up more questions though. If Ginsburg retires after the mid-terms so that it will be a Democrat President making the appointment, that means that Obama will be the appointing President.
Now, could the Senate filibuster a Supreme Court nomination for 2-years hoping a Republican President steps into the office in 2017? If we Republicans tried that, that wouldn't play well in the media during the entire Presidential primary and run-off season leading up to the election. It would divert from the message of job growth and fiscal responsibility and make Marriage Equality one of the defining issues of the campaign. That worked for Bush in 2004 when there wasn't majority support. However that would backfire in 2016, costing us (Republicans) the White House, preventing the very thing that is hoped for.

*************************

Then there are the legal questions as a result of such a decision by the Court on some hypothetical case that would be heard after a Republican President shifts the balance of the court from 4 Liberal - 1 Moderate - 4 Conservative to possibly 3 Liberal - 1 Moderate - 5 Conservative. Considering that the new President wouldn't nominate a new Justice until at least January of 2017 with confirmation that spring that means this hypothetical conservative court wouldn't be hearing a case until the October 2017 term with a ruling probably in the spring of 2018 (or even at the end of the term - June 2018). **IF** there were a case in the pipeline from the Summer. Barring that it could be the 2018 or 2019 before a case reaches the court, meaning that some states (not those who have SSCM through legislative or ballot initiatives) will have had SSCM for up to 5-years (Using Prop 8 as a time reference).

1. How would the court deal with the 10's or even 100's of thousands of same-sex couples that were legally married during that time that it was legal?

2. Since the original Constitutional bans were found in the final ruling on the matter to have been unconstitutional what would be the status of those states? Would the old bans be back in place and new SSCM's simply halted (Question #1 addresses already married couples) permanently? Would new SSCM's be halted, via a "stay" type of action pending further action to by the State to either re-implement a new ban or allow SSCM to continue? Would new SSCM's be allowed to continue, via a "stay" type of action pending further action to by the State to either re-implement a new ban or allow SSCM to continue?

>>>>

Of course your scenario is based upon a conservative POTUS and Senate elected in 2016. What if the Senate were to go back under the control of the Dems? Then the replacement of a liberal justice by a conservative would be filibustered given that the Republicans would have already set the precedent for doing so.

As far as cases reaching the SCOTUS go I do believe that we are going to see a few where SSCM's legally married in one state move to another state where it is not recognized. If they are denied benefits they will file suit and this will bring into play the question of states recognizing each other's laws. How can a state recognize the marriage of straight couples but not gay couples who were married in another state? Once that case reaches the SCOTUS they will have no option but to make a ruling and given the current make up of the court it will go in favor of equal protection under the law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

ancient rome and greece.

Utter nonsense!

Prove it!

 

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. ?

No- just showing your ignorance of the law again.

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

Polygamy and incest is not.

If you would like to pursue legalizing either, then go ahead and file your own lawsuit in order to marry your brother, or to have 6 wives.

what you don't get is that group marriage is the next step. If two gays are allowed to marry using discrimination as a legal justification, then that exact same legal justification can and will be made for group marriage. It will be brought to SCOTUS and once they validate man/man and womand/woman marriage, they will not legally be able to deny marriage to groups of all kinds.

This is not homophobia, its reality.

No- that is just homophobic hysteria.

Discrimination is not the legal justification- the justification is that States cannot legally discriminate without a compelling state interest- and no state's have been able to come up with any justification that would discriminate against homosexuals- but not discriminate against infertile heterosexual couples.

If you or someone else sues arguing that the Right of Marriage includes you marrying 3 women, that will be a different argument- and the Supreme Court would not be under any legal obligation to treat it the same way as marriage between two people of the same gender.

Your argument has no basis in reality.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I tried to explain this situation with the USSC to a friend of mine. And she came up with a startling little conspiracy theory;

What if the conservative justices won't take up the issue because they know they'd lose. So they're leaving the issue without binding precedent waiting for one of their fellow justices to die and be replaced. With a different court mix, they might be able to institute support for a gay marriage ban affirmation ruling.

I think its far fetched. But its definitely interesting.

Interesting concept, it opens up more questions though. If Ginsburg retires after the mid-terms so that it will be a Democrat President making the appointment, that means that Obama will be the appointing President.
Now, could the Senate filibuster a Supreme Court nomination for 2-years hoping a Republican President steps into the office in 2017? If we Republicans tried that, that wouldn't play well in the media during the entire Presidential primary and run-off season leading up to the election. It would divert from the message of job growth and fiscal responsibility and make Marriage Equality one of the defining issues of the campaign. That worked for Bush in 2004 when there wasn't majority support. However that would backfire in 2016, costing us (Republicans) the White House, preventing the very thing that is hoped for.

*************************

Then there are the legal questions as a result of such a decision by the Court on some hypothetical case that would be heard after a Republican President shifts the balance of the court from 4 Liberal - 1 Moderate - 4 Conservative to possibly 3 Liberal - 1 Moderate - 5 Conservative. Considering that the new President wouldn't nominate a new Justice until at least January of 2017 with confirmation that spring that means this hypothetical conservative court wouldn't be hearing a case until the October 2017 term with a ruling probably in the spring of 2018 (or even at the end of the term - June 2018). **IF** there were a case in the pipeline from the Summer. Barring that it could be the 2018 or 2019 before a case reaches the court, meaning that some states (not those who have SSCM through legislative or ballot initiatives) will have had SSCM for up to 5-years (Using Prop 8 as a time reference).

1. How would the court deal with the 10's or even 100's of thousands of same-sex couples that were legally married during that time that it was legal?

2. Since the original Constitutional bans were found in the final ruling on the matter to have been unconstitutional what would be the status of those states? Would the old bans be back in place and new SSCM's simply halted (Question #1 addresses already married couples) permanently? Would new SSCM's be halted, via a "stay" type of action pending further action to by the State to either re-implement a new ban or allow SSCM to continue? Would new SSCM's be allowed to continue, via a "stay" type of action pending further action to by the State to either re-implement a new ban or allow SSCM to continue?

>>>>

Of course your scenario is based upon a conservative POTUS and Senate elected in 2016. What if the Senate were to go back under the control of the Dems? Then the replacement of a liberal justice by a conservative would be filibustered given that the Republicans would have already set the precedent for doing so.

I was just proposing a scenario that I've seen some social conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) mention on the various boards I'm on. Which basically boils down to "your victory is temporary, as soon as we have a Republican Senate and a Republican POTUS - all will be reversed".

Speaking as a Republican I don't see that scenario - a reversal of SSCM rulings - as viable. And any real effort at doing so being having a detrimental overall impact on Republican electability.

As far as cases reaching the SCOTUS go I do believe that we are going to see a few where SSCM's legally married in one state move to another state where it is not recognized. If they are denied benefits they will file suit and this will bring into play the question of states recognizing each other's laws. How can a state recognize the marriage of straight couples but not gay couples who were married in another state? Once that case reaches the SCOTUS they will have no option but to make a ruling and given the current make up of the court it will go in favor of equal protection under the law.

That was part of the 7-cases which were already passed on by the SCOTUS. For example, in Bostic v. Schaefer and in Harris v. Rainey (the two Virginia cases) the couples was married in Connecticut and The District of Columbia respectively.


>>>>

 

[Derideo_Te]

I tried to explain this situation with the USSC to a friend of mine. And she came up with a startling little conspiracy theory;

What if the conservative justices won't take up the issue because they know they'd lose. So they're leaving the issue without binding precedent waiting for one of their fellow justices to die and be replaced. With a different court mix, they might be able to institute support for a gay marriage ban affirmation ruling.

I think its far fetched. But its definitely interesting.

Interesting concept, it opens up more questions though. If Ginsburg retires after the mid-terms so that it will be a Democrat President making the appointment, that means that Obama will be the appointing President.
Now, could the Senate filibuster a Supreme Court nomination for 2-years hoping a Republican President steps into the office in 2017? If we Republicans tried that, that wouldn't play well in the media during the entire Presidential primary and run-off season leading up to the election. It would divert from the message of job growth and fiscal responsibility and make Marriage Equality one of the defining issues of the campaign. That worked for Bush in 2004 when there wasn't majority support. However that would backfire in 2016, costing us (Republicans) the White House, preventing the very thing that is hoped for.

*************************

Then there are the legal questions as a result of such a decision by the Court on some hypothetical case that would be heard after a Republican President shifts the balance of the court from 4 Liberal - 1 Moderate - 4 Conservative to possibly 3 Liberal - 1 Moderate - 5 Conservative. Considering that the new President wouldn't nominate a new Justice until at least January of 2017 with confirmation that spring that means this hypothetical conservative court wouldn't be hearing a case until the October 2017 term with a ruling probably in the spring of 2018 (or even at the end of the term - June 2018). **IF** there were a case in the pipeline from the Summer. Barring that it could be the 2018 or 2019 before a case reaches the court, meaning that some states (not those who have SSCM through legislative or ballot initiatives) will have had SSCM for up to 5-years (Using Prop 8 as a time reference).

1. How would the court deal with the 10's or even 100's of thousands of same-sex couples that were legally married during that time that it was legal?

2. Since the original Constitutional bans were found in the final ruling on the matter to have been unconstitutional what would be the status of those states? Would the old bans be back in place and new SSCM's simply halted (Question #1 addresses already married couples) permanently? Would new SSCM's be halted, via a "stay" type of action pending further action to by the State to either re-implement a new ban or allow SSCM to continue? Would new SSCM's be allowed to continue, via a "stay" type of action pending further action to by the State to either re-implement a new ban or allow SSCM to continue?

>>>>

Of course your scenario is based upon a conservative POTUS and Senate elected in 2016. What if the Senate were to go back under the control of the Dems? Then the replacement of a liberal justice by a conservative would be filibustered given that the Republicans would have already set the precedent for doing so.

I was just proposing a scenario that I've seen some social conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) mention on the various boards I'm on. Which basically boils down to "your victory is temporary, as soon as we have a Republican Senate and a Republican POTUS - all will be reversed".

Speaking as a Republican I don't see that scenario - a reversal of SSCM rulings - as viable. And any real effort at doing so being having a detrimental overall impact on Republican electability.

As far as cases reaching the SCOTUS go I do believe that we are going to see a few where SSCM's legally married in one state move to another state where it is not recognized. If they are denied benefits they will file suit and this will bring into play the question of states recognizing each other's laws. How can a state recognize the marriage of straight couples but not gay couples who were married in another state? Once that case reaches the SCOTUS they will have no option but to make a ruling and given the current make up of the court it will go in favor of equal protection under the law.

That was part of the 7-cases which were already passed on by the SCOTUS. For example, in Bostic v. Schaefer and in Harris v. Rainey (the two Virginia cases) the couples was married in Connecticut and The District of Columbia respectively.


>>>>

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Skylar]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

ancient rome and greece.

Sigh. You didn't read what you're responding to. Lets try this again. For your comments to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us.

 

[Silhouette]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

ancient rome and greece.

Here's one that is more current:

Sambia Tribe, New Guinea: "When the male child is seven years old he is taken away from his mother and taken to a place called the small village...
he stays in the men's village and takes part in oral sex with all the men, sometimes performing oral sex as much as 20 or 30 times per day.
When the child matures to the point that he is producing his own semen he must now give back some of the life force he has taken from the old men and also give some to new young boys who are too young to produce there own.
The men remain isolated from women for their entire lives and are taught to fear women because a woman will take away life force without giving any back since women don't produce semen." strange initiation rituals

That is an example of a society teaching sexual orientation in their young. The men return to a female picked as a wife and coached/taught harshly that he should be disgusted with her as he has sex, returning back, to the "small villiage" for "normal sex" soon thereafter. At this very young age, the older gay men pierce his nostrils with a sharp stick until they bleed. They do this so he will not smell the females and start being sexually oriented towards them instead.

This is pretty much exactly how Ancient Greece functioned too, minus the sharp stick. They took the boys young, almost exactly the same age and made damned sure their first sexual experiences were with men. There after the "graft" would take and be permanent. The men met briefly with their "wives" only as a solemn duty to procreate, like jury duty or something. Then back they went to the gay sex fest.

There is ancient art showing the practice of sodomizing a young boy-initiate as the boy appears in pain and is struggling to get away. The man clutching him is smiling a smile very simliar to the Harvey Milk Postage stamp. Harvey Milk, LGBT icon liked them young as well. Though unlike Milk taking his own minor adopted ward to sodomize [Jack McKinley] the Greeks used take other men's sons. Men who didn't care because they hoped their own sons would be inducted into this lifestyle

From Ancient Greece to the Sambia Tribe....from an advanced "modern" [for then] civilization thru the spectrum to a backwater hill tribe; this is the destiny we are inviting right through the front door by "calculated inaction of conservative values". If this is where you want your country to be in a couple generations, keep up the "good non-work"..

All those boys were "born that way", right?

Now is a great time to introduce this link again:

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

 

[Derideo_Te]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

ancient rome and greece.

Here's one that is more current:

Sambia Tribe, New Guinea: "When the male child is seven years old he is taken away from his mother and taken to a place called the small village...
he stays in the men's village and takes part in oral sex with all the men, sometimes performing oral sex as much as 20 or 30 times per day.
When the child matures to the point that he is producing his own semen he must now give back some of the life force he has taken from the old men and also give some to new young boys who are too young to produce there own.
The men remain isolated from women for their entire lives and are taught to fear women because a woman will take away life force without giving any back since women don't produce semen." strange initiation rituals

That is an example of a society teaching sexual orientation in their young. The men return to a female picked as a wife and coached/taught harshly that he should be disgusted with her as he has sex, returning back, to the "small villiage" for "normal sex" soon thereafter. At this very young age, the older gay men pierce his nostrils with a sharp stick until they bleed. They do this so he will not smell the females and start being sexually oriented towards them instead.

This is pretty much exactly how Ancient Greece functioned too, minus the sharp stick. They took the boys young, almost exactly the same age and made damned sure their first sexual experiences were with men. There after the "graft" would take and be permanent. The men met briefly with their "wives" only as a solemn duty to procreate, like jury duty or something. Then back they went to the gay sex fest.

There is ancient art showing the practice of sodomizing a young boy-initiate as the boy appears in pain and is struggling to get away. The man clutching him is smiling a smile very simliar to the Harvey Milk Postage stamp. Harvey Milk, LGBT icon liked them young as well. Though unlike Milk taking his own minor adopted ward to sodomize [Jack McKinley] the Greeks used take other men's sons. Men who didn't care because they hoped their own sons would be inducted into this lifestyle

From Ancient Greece to the Sambia Tribe....from an advanced "modern" [for then] civilization thru the spectrum to a backwater hill tribe; this is the destiny we are inviting right through the front door by "calculated inaction of conservative values". If this is where you want your country to be in a couple generations, keep up the "good non-work"..

All those boys were "born that way", right?

Now is a great time to introduce this link again:

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf

Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

All of the "sources" for this "Sambia tribe" are self referencing.

There is no credible 3rd party to confirm that any of that is true.

It sounds exactly like something a homophobe would invent.

 

[Silhouette]

All of the "sources" for this "Sambia tribe" are self referencing.

There is no credible 3rd party to confirm that any of that is true.

It sounds exactly like something a homophobe would invent.

Not exactly, no. But your protest was invented though.

The Sambia: Ritual, Sexuality, and Change in Papua New Guinea (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology) by Gilbert Herdt This cultural and psychological study of gender identity and sexual development in a New Guinea Highlands society includes rich material on initiation rites and socialization studies, and contrasts the Sambia with other societies, including the United States. For example, Sambia boys experience ritualized homosexuality before puberty and continue this practice until marriage...About the Author
Gilbert Herdt, Ph.D. is Director and Professor of the Human Sexuality Studies Program and Professor of Anthropology at San Francisco State University

 

[Derideo_Te]

All of the "sources" for this "Sambia tribe" are self referencing.

There is no credible 3rd party to confirm that any of that is true.

It sounds exactly like something a homophobe would invent.

Not exactly, no. But your protest was invented though.

The Sambia: Ritual, Sexuality, and Change in Papua New Guinea (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology) by Gilbert Herdt This cultural and psychological study of gender identity and sexual development in a New Guinea Highlands society includes rich material on initiation rites and socialization studies, and contrasts the Sambia with other societies, including the United States. For example, Sambia boys experience ritualized homosexuality before puberty and continue this practice until marriage...About the Author
Gilbert Herdt, Ph.D. is Director and Professor of the Human Sexuality Studies Program and Professor of Anthropology at San Francisco State University

Thank you for proving my point. Herdt is the only source for this "Sambia Tribe". There are no other published papers, no peer reveiws or other sources of information on this mythical "Sambia Tribe".

 

[Silhouette]

Thank you for proving my point. Herdt is the only source for this "Sambia Tribe". There are no other published papers, no peer reveiws or other sources of information on this mythical "Sambia Tribe".

He is a PhD in anthropology and human sexuality studies at San Francisco State University. He also promotes your gay causes too. He just honesty reported what his field research led him to. Or are y'all going to spit on him like you spit on accredited and respected gay journalist Randy Shilts when he reported openly and honestly how gay bath houses should be closed because they were spreading HIV/AIDS?

Cults can be very unforgiving when one of the fold steps out of line. I get it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you for proving my point. Herdt is the only source for this "Sambia Tribe". There are no other published papers, no peer reveiws or other sources of information on this mythical "Sambia Tribe".

He is a PhD in anthropology and human sexuality studies at San Francisco State University. He also promotes your gay causes too. He just honesty reported what his field research led him to. Or are y'all going to spit on him like you spit on accredited and respected gay journalist Randy Shilts when he reported openly and honestly how gay bath houses should be closed because they were spreading HIV/AIDS?

Cults can be very unforgiving when one of the fold steps out of line. I get it.

Without independent corroboration there is room for doubt in all scientific disciplines. If you had bothered to do any of your own research you would know that the term "Sambia Tribe" is a pseudonym. That he teaches human sexuality makes me wonder if he didn't invent this tribe as a means to expose homophobes like yourself.

And yes, your homophobia is a cult.

 

[Redfish]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

ancient rome and greece.

Sigh. You didn't read what you're responding to. Lets try this again. For your comments to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us.

did ancient rome and greece survive or fall?

 

[Redfish]

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

And in the interest of "marriage equality", so then is polygamy and incest marriage. ?

No- just showing your ignorance of the law again.

Gay marriage is now legal in Utah.

Polygamy and incest is not.

If you would like to pursue legalizing either, then go ahead and file your own lawsuit in order to marry your brother, or to have 6 wives.

what you don't get is that group marriage is the next step. If two gays are allowed to marry using discrimination as a legal justification, then that exact same legal justification can and will be made for group marriage. It will be brought to SCOTUS and once they validate man/man and womand/woman marriage, they will not legally be able to deny marriage to groups of all kinds.

This is not homophobia, its reality.

No- that is just homophobic hysteria.

Discrimination is not the legal justification- the justification is that States cannot legally discriminate without a compelling state interest- and no state's have been able to come up with any justification that would discriminate against homosexuals- but not discriminate against infertile heterosexual couples.

If you or someone else sues arguing that the Right of Marriage includes you marrying 3 women, that will be a different argument- and the Supreme Court would not be under any legal obligation to treat it the same way as marriage between two people of the same gender.

Your argument has no basis in reality.

your are wrong. every one of the gay rights activists have used discrimination as the basis for their arguments. For your info, the ACLU is already preparing cases on multiple person marriages. It will be brought to a court near you, I guarantee it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No country in all of history has survived the normalization of same sex relationships. It has never been passed on as a positive value to any subsequent civilization.

No country, given a long enough time line, has survived the normalization of anything. For your comment to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us. Don't tell us.

ancient rome and greece.

Sigh. You didn't read what you're responding to. Lets try this again. For your comments to be relevant, there needs to be a causative relationship between the normalization of same sex relationships and the survival of a country.

Show us.

did ancient rome and greece survive or fall?

Onus is on you to prove your allegation.

 

[Silhouette]

your are wrong. every one of the gay rights activists have used discrimination as the basis for their arguments. For your info, the ACLU is already preparing cases on multiple person marriages. It will be brought to a court near you, I guarantee it.

The ACLU needn't work too hard on that one. Polygamy is already legal in every single state where SCOTUS' conservative-four just allowed the marriage laws there to be declared "dead and unenforceable". The choice of the number of partners someone wants to have sex with and marry is a sexual orientation equal to any other. Ergo, polygamy is RIGHT NOW legal. Not at some nebulous point in the future.

Thanks Roberst, Scalia, Alito and Thomas!

 

[Derideo_Te]

your are wrong. every one of the gay rights activists have used discrimination as the basis for their arguments. For your info, the ACLU is already preparing cases on multiple person marriages. It will be brought to a court near you, I guarantee it.

The ACLU needn't work too hard on that one. Polygamy is already legal in every single state where SCOTUS' conservative-four just allowed the marriage laws there to be declared "dead and unenforceable". The choice of the number of partners someone wants to have sex with and marry is a sexual orientation equal to any other. Ergo, polygamy is RIGHT NOW legal. Not at some nebulous point in the future.

Thanks Roberst, Scalia, Alito and Thomas!

Polygamy is already legal in every single state where SCOTUS' conservative-four just allowed the marriage laws there to be declared "dead and unenforceable".

Why do you spout such stupid lies?

 

[Silhouette]

The ACLU needn't work too hard on that one. Polygamy is already legal in every single state where SCOTUS' conservative-four just allowed the marriage laws there to be declared "dead and unenforceable". The choice of the number of partners someone wants to have sex with and marry is a sexual orientation equal to any other. Ergo, polygamy is RIGHT NOW legal. Not at some nebulous point in the future.

Why do you spout such stupid lies?

Is it or is it not legal now in the states affected by the conservative Justices's "Attrition Decision" for gays to marry? If the answer is yes, then other sexual orientations may marry as well. Period. Marriage equality is marriage equality. A county clerk who turns away polygamists right now is in danger of a lawsuit for discrimination.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'I was just proposing a scenario that I've seen some social conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) mention on the various boards I'm on. Which basically boils down to "your victory is temporary, as soon as we have a Republican Senate and a Republican POTUS - all will be reversed".'


The same has been said by the social right about privacy rights for over 40 years.

Moreover, the earliest that might happen would be 2017, by that time same-sex couples may very well be allowed to marry in all 50 states.

And how exactly do conservatives see a republican Congress and HW 'reversing' same-sex couples marrying. True, such a configuration will likely result in more conservative judges being appointed to the Federal courts, and justices to the Supreme Court, but that's no guarantee they'll rule to overturn Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence – again, just as we've seen with privacy rights jurisprudence.