Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Syriusly]

Pops can kill two birds with one stone and get his polygamy and incest fix by adding his brother to his existing marriage.

Incest is illegal. And I am happily married to all the people I want.

Thanks, I think maybe skylar wants me to marry it?

Skyler, you naughty lil it.

I'm not the one demanding folks advocate incest, incest marriage or polygamy. That's your personal obsession.

Its all you speak of. In any thread. And yet none of your predictions regarding the 'implications' of the legalization of same sex marriage has actually happened.

There's apparently a disconnect between what you *imagine* the law to be. And what it actually is. As your record of failure is perfect.

Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal

It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

 

[Pop23]

Are you arguing that the State must demonstrate its interest?

You don't understand what happens when the argument is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, in which the STATE MUST SHOW A COMPELLING ARGUEMENT TO DENY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

what you are arguing is the exact argument made by Virginia to keep races from marrying and the exact same argument made to stop same sex marriage.

Are you saying that NOW you are a racist and a bigot?

It's very sad, yet amusing that you apparently have no clue what you are talking about. You can conflate the race based laws and the same sex based laws, with the incest based laws all you want. But doing so does not make for a compelling argument or a rational one.

The state has already demonstrated it's interest. That is why there are anti-incest marriage laws on the books, but...

Incest, which is sexual relations between (non-spouse) family members, is outlawed in most countries, including the United States. Incest laws aim to promote security and unity with the family, and to prevent the genetic problems that often occur in babies whose parents are related.

In the U.S., incest is regulated by state, not federal law, and every state has one or more laws banning this problematic behavior. And while states sometimes vary in defining ..

What is “Family?”
For the purposes of incest laws, “family” can mean several things...

Prosecution and Defenses
Often, a situation involving incest also implicates other criminal laws. For example...

Consent not a defense
A defendant may be convicted of engaging in incest if he knowingly engaged in a sexual encounter with a family member (if no encounter actually took place, the prosecutor may charge the defendant with attempted incest). Because of this...

Who is charged?
Although the ages of the parties are not relevant in proving that incest took place (and are not a defense to such charges), the age of the parties may be relevant as far as who is prosecuted for the crime. For example...

Old cases and the statute of limitations
All states set time periods in which a crime may be prosecuted, such as five or ten years after the incident. Such laws are intended to ensure that cases are handled relatively quickly, and recognize the danger in prosecuting old cases where the facts may be difficult to discern. In some states... -
Incest Laws and Criminal Charges | Nolo.com
​

and this case...

Generally, in cases like this involving “consensual activity within the home,” it comes down to the question of whether the government has “a compelling state interest” in regulating the activity. “Some courts recognize that the government does have an interest in regulating incestuous conduct because of the risk of pregnancy and the heightened risk of genetic defect,” he says. Other courts will convict even without such a risk: In Ohio, a sexual battery statute states that a stepparent should never have sexual contact with a stepchild (and that is regardless of age). Most courts are concerned about parents preying on their children, he said. “Regardless of the age of the child, there’s still a theory that a parent is always a parent, a child is always a child and, as a result, there truly can’t be a consensual sexual act.” That explains why the daughter isn’t charged in this case. “The idea is the perpetrator is the parent and the victim is the child. We don’t normally prosecute a person falling within the protected class, and you remain a member of the protected class even above age of consent.” -
The law on “consensual” incest
​

The burdon of proof is now on the state to prove it has a compelling state interest TO DENY this fundimental right.

Silly Pops.

There is no burden of proof on the state now.

Perhaps there would be if you filed suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- but now?

The State has no burden of proving anything.

I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.

You would think he would be rushing out there to file just to show us all how horrible gay marriage is.

But maybe he is Texan- all hat- no cattle.

There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus

 

[Pop23]

Incest is illegal. And I am happily married to all the people I want.

Thanks, I think maybe skylar wants me to marry it?

Skyler, you naughty lil it.

I'm not the one demanding folks advocate incest, incest marriage or polygamy. That's your personal obsession.

Its all you speak of. In any thread. And yet none of your predictions regarding the 'implications' of the legalization of same sex marriage has actually happened.

There's apparently a disconnect between what you *imagine* the law to be. And what it actually is. As your record of failure is perfect.

Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal

It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

^^^^ pervert thinks all heterosexual only want to jump their relatives.

 

[Skylar]

Pops can kill two birds with one stone and get his polygamy and incest fix by adding his brother to his existing marriage.

Incest is illegal. And I am happily married to all the people I want.

Thanks, I think maybe skylar wants me to marry it?

Skyler, you naughty lil it.

I'm not the one demanding folks advocate incest, incest marriage or polygamy. That's your personal obsession.

Its all you speak of. In any thread. And yet none of your predictions regarding the 'implications' of the legalization of same sex marriage has actually happened.

There's apparently a disconnect between what you *imagine* the law to be. And what it actually is. As your record of failure is perfect.

Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal

It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Baker v. Nelson's 'implications' legalized gay marriage then? Because that's the only way your imaginary time line works.

And same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. Please show us all the Massachusetts courts that have found that incest marriage and polygamy are now legal.

Laughing....or has history once again demonstrated that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

 

[Skylar]

Incest is illegal. And I am happily married to all the people I want.

Thanks, I think maybe skylar wants me to marry it?

Skyler, you naughty lil it.

I'm not the one demanding folks advocate incest, incest marriage or polygamy. That's your personal obsession.

Its all you speak of. In any thread. And yet none of your predictions regarding the 'implications' of the legalization of same sex marriage has actually happened.

There's apparently a disconnect between what you *imagine* the law to be. And what it actually is. As your record of failure is perfect.

Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal

It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

 

[Pop23]

Incest is illegal. And I am happily married to all the people I want.

Thanks, I think maybe skylar wants me to marry it?

Skyler, you naughty lil it.

I'm not the one demanding folks advocate incest, incest marriage or polygamy. That's your personal obsession.

Its all you speak of. In any thread. And yet none of your predictions regarding the 'implications' of the legalization of same sex marriage has actually happened.

There's apparently a disconnect between what you *imagine* the law to be. And what it actually is. As your record of failure is perfect.

Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal

It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Baker v. Nelson's 'implications' legalized gay marriage then? Because that's the only way your imaginary time line works.

And same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. Please show us all the Massachusetts courts that have found that incest marriage and polygamy are now legal.

Laughing....or has history once again demonstrated that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

It'll take half as long dude. Only half.

 

[Pop23]

I'm not the one demanding folks advocate incest, incest marriage or polygamy. That's your personal obsession.

Its all you speak of. In any thread. And yet none of your predictions regarding the 'implications' of the legalization of same sex marriage has actually happened.

There's apparently a disconnect between what you *imagine* the law to be. And what it actually is. As your record of failure is perfect.

Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal

It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

You got those lottery numbers yet?

 

[Skylar]

It's very sad, yet amusing that you apparently have no clue what you are talking about. You can conflate the race based laws and the same sex based laws, with the incest based laws all you want. But doing so does not make for a compelling argument or a rational one.

The state has already demonstrated it's interest. That is why there are anti-incest marriage laws on the books, but...

Incest, which is sexual relations between (non-spouse) family members, is outlawed in most countries, including the United States. Incest laws aim to promote security and unity with the family, and to prevent the genetic problems that often occur in babies whose parents are related.

In the U.S., incest is regulated by state, not federal law, and every state has one or more laws banning this problematic behavior. And while states sometimes vary in defining ..

What is “Family?”
For the purposes of incest laws, “family” can mean several things...

Prosecution and Defenses
Often, a situation involving incest also implicates other criminal laws. For example...

Consent not a defense
A defendant may be convicted of engaging in incest if he knowingly engaged in a sexual encounter with a family member (if no encounter actually took place, the prosecutor may charge the defendant with attempted incest). Because of this...

Who is charged?
Although the ages of the parties are not relevant in proving that incest took place (and are not a defense to such charges), the age of the parties may be relevant as far as who is prosecuted for the crime. For example...

Old cases and the statute of limitations
All states set time periods in which a crime may be prosecuted, such as five or ten years after the incident. Such laws are intended to ensure that cases are handled relatively quickly, and recognize the danger in prosecuting old cases where the facts may be difficult to discern. In some states... -
Incest Laws and Criminal Charges | Nolo.com
​

and this case...

Generally, in cases like this involving “consensual activity within the home,” it comes down to the question of whether the government has “a compelling state interest” in regulating the activity. “Some courts recognize that the government does have an interest in regulating incestuous conduct because of the risk of pregnancy and the heightened risk of genetic defect,” he says. Other courts will convict even without such a risk: In Ohio, a sexual battery statute states that a stepparent should never have sexual contact with a stepchild (and that is regardless of age). Most courts are concerned about parents preying on their children, he said. “Regardless of the age of the child, there’s still a theory that a parent is always a parent, a child is always a child and, as a result, there truly can’t be a consensual sexual act.” That explains why the daughter isn’t charged in this case. “The idea is the perpetrator is the parent and the victim is the child. We don’t normally prosecute a person falling within the protected class, and you remain a member of the protected class even above age of consent.” -
The law on “consensual” incest
​

The burdon of proof is now on the state to prove it has a compelling state interest TO DENY this fundimental right.

Silly Pops.

There is no burden of proof on the state now.

Perhaps there would be if you filed suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- but now?

The State has no burden of proving anything.

I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.

Pop recognizes his own babble is pseudo-legal gibberish. Which is why he won't put his money where his mouth is.

As no court has ever found any of what Pop insists they must find. Nor has any state every legalized incest or polygamy. Nor has any country that has legalized same sex marriage.

Now its either a vast international conspiracy spanning at least a decade. Or Pop doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Occam's Razor to the rescue!

^^^^ rectum abrasions acting up

Nah, just giggling at how worthless your record of accuracy has been.

I believe 'perfect failure' sums it up beautifully. As nothing you've predicted regarding gay marriage...has ever happened.

 

[Pop23]

The burdon of proof is now on the state to prove it has a compelling state interest TO DENY this fundimental right.

Silly Pops.

There is no burden of proof on the state now.

Perhaps there would be if you filed suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- but now?

The State has no burden of proving anything.

I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.

Pop recognizes his own babble is pseudo-legal gibberish. Which is why he won't put his money where his mouth is.

As no court has ever found any of what Pop insists they must find. Nor has any state every legalized incest or polygamy. Nor has any country that has legalized same sex marriage.

Now its either a vast international conspiracy spanning at least a decade. Or Pop doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Occam's Razor to the rescue!

^^^^ rectum abrasions acting up

Nah, just giggling at how worthless your record of accuracy has been.

I believe 'perfect failure' sums it up beautifully. As nothing you've predicted regarding gay marriage...has ever happened.

Still relying on that old bluff.

So Skylar, explain why you think all siblings just want to jump each other?

 

[Skylar]

Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal

It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

You got those lottery numbers yet?

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

 

[Skylar]

Silly Pops.

There is no burden of proof on the state now.

Perhaps there would be if you filed suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- but now?

The State has no burden of proving anything.

I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.

Pop recognizes his own babble is pseudo-legal gibberish. Which is why he won't put his money where his mouth is.

As no court has ever found any of what Pop insists they must find. Nor has any state every legalized incest or polygamy. Nor has any country that has legalized same sex marriage.

Now its either a vast international conspiracy spanning at least a decade. Or Pop doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Occam's Razor to the rescue!

^^^^ rectum abrasions acting up

Nah, just giggling at how worthless your record of accuracy has been.

I believe 'perfect failure' sums it up beautifully. As nothing you've predicted regarding gay marriage...has ever happened.

Still relying on that old bluff.

And by 'old bluff', you mean comparing what you insisted had to happen...with what actually did?

Its been a decade. And nothing you've claimed has ever happened. How do you explain this laughably failure of your predictions?

Wait....let me guess? All new worthless predictions based on nothing? And this time you mean it, huh?

 

[Pop23]

Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?

You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?

But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

You got those lottery numbers yet?

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

Why do you argue so hard to deny people their fundimental constitutional rights?

 

[Skylar]

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

You got those lottery numbers yet?

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

Why do you argue so hard to deny people their fundimental constitutional rights?

I'm arguing that your record of predictions...is one of perfect failure. And that nothing you've insisted must happen ever has.

Or more simply, you don't know what you're talking about. But tell us again about the future. It makes me giggle.

 

[Pop23]

I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.

Pop recognizes his own babble is pseudo-legal gibberish. Which is why he won't put his money where his mouth is.

As no court has ever found any of what Pop insists they must find. Nor has any state every legalized incest or polygamy. Nor has any country that has legalized same sex marriage.

Now its either a vast international conspiracy spanning at least a decade. Or Pop doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Occam's Razor to the rescue!

^^^^ rectum abrasions acting up

Nah, just giggling at how worthless your record of accuracy has been.

I believe 'perfect failure' sums it up beautifully. As nothing you've predicted regarding gay marriage...has ever happened.

Still relying on that old bluff.

And by 'old bluff', you mean comparing what you insisted had to happen...with what actually did?

Its been a decade. And nothing you've claimed has ever happened. How do you explain this laughably failure of your predictions?

Wait....let me guess? All new worthless predictions based on nothing? And this time you mean it, huh?

And it took 40 plus years for your reality to come true.

It will take some time because bigots like you would deny fundimental rights to all, just like those southerners who wanted to keep the blacks "in their place"

 

[Pop23]

Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

You got those lottery numbers yet?

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

Why do you argue so hard to deny people their fundimental constitutional rights?

I'm arguing that your record of predictions...is one of perfect failure. And that nothing you've insisted must happen ever has.

Or more simply, you don't know what you're talking about. But tell us again about the future. It makes me giggle.

I predicted Ohio State would win the College Football championship, and Obama would flip flop on SSM.

Looks like I'm batting a thousand.

 

[Skylar]

Maybe 20 years to run out of excuses?

You got those lottery numbers yet?

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

Why do you argue so hard to deny people their fundimental constitutional rights?

I'm arguing that your record of predictions...is one of perfect failure. And that nothing you've insisted must happen ever has.

Or more simply, you don't know what you're talking about. But tell us again about the future. It makes me giggle.

I predicted Ohio State would win the College Football championship, and Obama would flip flop on SSM.

Looks like I'm batting a thousand.

Yeah, but not a single state in which same sex marriage is legal has ever legalized incest, incest marriage or polygamy. Despite your prediction that the latter would follow the former. Not in the decade since same sex marriage first became legal in the US.

Looks like your record of accuracy is one of perfect, incompetent failure.

But this time your baseless predictions of the future are accurate, huh? I've got a better explanation: You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Seawytch]

The 'implications' of Baker v. Nelson legalized same sex marriage? If no, then you're clearly not following what's being discussed.

And same sex marriage has been legal in the US for 10 years. Yet nothing you've claimed must happen....did happen.

How do you explain your perfect record of failure?

And in other countries much longer. Which countries allow gays to marry each other and ALSO perform polygamist marriages?

None? You don't say. Such a slippery slope!

How many of those have a 14th amendment like ours?

How many have folks such as yourself that don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about?

Remember, we've had the 14th amendement for the decade since we first started legalizing same sex marriage. And yet no where, in no court, has the law recognized your claims. No court has. And none of what you predicted would happen......actually happened.

How do you explain the vast chasm between what you *assumed* was going to happen. And what actually did?

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

That's one looooong friggin decade!

Same sex marriage was first legalized in 1868? You seem confused.

Same sex marriage was first legalized in the US in 2004....in Massechusettes. Yet since that time, nothing you predicted would occur actually happened. Despite the fact that we've had the 14th amendment the entire time.

So again, how do you explain the utter and comic failure of your *every* prediction, with absolutely nothing you insisted must happen actually happening or being recognized as valid by any court?

Let's not forget that the same prediction was made when interracial marriage was legalized...that it would lead to Polygamy and incest. It didn't.

 

[Pop23]

You got those lottery numbers yet?

Says the gun who just claimed to predict the future?

It took your side 40+ years.

Mine prediction will occur in half that time.

And yet no prediction you've ever made regarding same sex marriage has ever amounted to anything. Despite same sex marriage being legal in the US for over a decade.

So its only your LAST round of useless predictions that were meaningless garbage? Is that it?

Why do you argue so hard to deny people their fundimental constitutional rights?

I'm arguing that your record of predictions...is one of perfect failure. And that nothing you've insisted must happen ever has.

Or more simply, you don't know what you're talking about. But tell us again about the future. It makes me giggle.

I predicted Ohio State would win the College Football championship, and Obama would flip flop on SSM.

Looks like I'm batting a thousand.

Yeah, but not a single state in which same sex marriage is legal has ever legalized incest, incest marriage or polygamy. Despite your prediction that the latter would follow the former. Not in the decade since same sex marriage first became legal in the US.

Looks like your record of accuracy is one of perfect, incompetent failure.

But this time your baseless predictions of the future are accurate, huh? I've got a better explanation: You don't know what you're talking about.

Incest is illegal dimwit.

I've posted links previously to both the Iowa and Maryland laws. Apparently some forms of same sex family marriage appear legal, unless you can explain how two brothers can have one vagina

 

[Pop23]

And in other countries much longer. Which countries allow gays to marry each other and ALSO perform polygamist marriages?

None? You don't say. Such a slippery slope!

How many of those have a 14th amendment like ours?

How many have folks such as yourself that don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about?

Remember, we've had the 14th amendement for the decade since we first started legalizing same sex marriage. And yet no where, in no court, has the law recognized your claims. No court has. And none of what you predicted would happen......actually happened.

How do you explain the vast chasm between what you *assumed* was going to happen. And what actually did?

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

That's one looooong friggin decade!

Same sex marriage was first legalized in 1868? You seem confused.

Same sex marriage was first legalized in the US in 2004....in Massechusettes. Yet since that time, nothing you predicted would occur actually happened. Despite the fact that we've had the 14th amendment the entire time.

So again, how do you explain the utter and comic failure of your *every* prediction, with absolutely nothing you insisted must happen actually happening or being recognized as valid by any court?

Let's not forget that the same prediction was made when interracial marriage was legalized...that it would lead to Polygamy and incest. It didn't.

Why do you keep bringing up incest? It's illegal.

 

[Skylar]

Pop recognizes his own babble is pseudo-legal gibberish. Which is why he won't put his money where his mouth is.

As no court has ever found any of what Pop insists they must find. Nor has any state every legalized incest or polygamy. Nor has any country that has legalized same sex marriage.

Now its either a vast international conspiracy spanning at least a decade. Or Pop doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Occam's Razor to the rescue!

^^^^ rectum abrasions acting up

Nah, just giggling at how worthless your record of accuracy has been.

I believe 'perfect failure' sums it up beautifully. As nothing you've predicted regarding gay marriage...has ever happened.

Still relying on that old bluff.

And by 'old bluff', you mean comparing what you insisted had to happen...with what actually did?

Its been a decade. And nothing you've claimed has ever happened. How do you explain this laughably failure of your predictions?

Wait....let me guess? All new worthless predictions based on nothing? And this time you mean it, huh?

And it took 40 plus years for your reality to come true.

Unless your claiming that the 'implications' of Baker v. Nelson legalized same sex marriage....your time line is garbage.

But then, you already know you have no idea what you're talking about.

It will take some time because bigots like you would deny fundimental rights to all, just like those southerners who wanted to keep the blacks "in their place"

And yet not one state has done anything you insisted they must. There's not so much as a single court anywhere in the US affirmed any piece of your pseudo-legal gibberish. Despite your claim that the 14th amendment requires that all of them do.

Huh. So much for your 'predictions'.