Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
Heard this before? Polygamy was quite recently decriminalized in Utah. Like Lawrence v Texas, it's just a matter of time before that applies to all 50 states. If it's legal for a man to use another man's anus as an artificial vagina (closet issues anyone?), then a man simply taking the natural use of women and needing more than one partner to stay sexually satisfied is a legal-no-brainer. It's a shoe-in..
Well..hmmm...the rule of law is done only one way I know of, via legislation. Does he mean "the special interpretations of certain favorable judges" of the "rule of law"? Yes, I think that's more accurate.
When the SCOTUS created "behaviors as race" to add to the Constitution recently, did it ennumerate just gay sex practitioners? Or does it include other kinks like polygamy and incest? And if not, why not? Why just gay sex as the Court's pet favorite?
Who is more important in marriage: 1. Adults or 2. The children that are formed there? And who decides between 1. or 2. ? What part of the Constitution did the Court interpret that children should not be considered in any decision about who may marry? Or, rather, what part of the Constitution says that the majority may not consent on such a vital institution as marriage where such a consent is set to drastically alter the future generations of children/society raised under the notion that "a father isn't vital/important" or "a mother isn't vital/important"? What part of the Constitution allows the Court to remove such a debate from the People, and instead decree what is essentially a royal-mandate on just some (but not all) of their favorite deviant sex behaviors?
Remember: in a contest between gay adults and children, the latter is vastly more oppressed as a group. They cannot vote and they cannot file lawsuits, bribe judges or even drive to a picket line to voice their opposition. They sit, for all intents and purposes, with their hands tied behind their backs and a gag duct taped in their mouths on this issue. All they had were the voices of opposition, those cordially-opposed, whose voices also have now been silenced. Their last chance at a say in this matter was ripped away June 26, 2015.
Where has the authority now been placed to decide polygamy and incest marriage lawsuits? With the Governed or the Court?
Who gets to decide on those who are polyamorously-oriented sexually? The states or SCOTUS? No, really, this is a crucially-important question because it will be coming up within the next two years or less. The Browns have vowed to take their case to the SCOTUS if necessary. Will the states be shut out again; or will the SCOTUS determine that different sexual orientations are to be handled differently as to the 14th Amendment's new addition June 26, 2015?
December 13, 2013
It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clarke Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. The Brown family and counsel have spent years in both the criminal phase of this case and then our challenge to the law itself in federal court. Despite the public statements of professors and experts that we could not prevail in this case, the court has shown that it is the rule of law that governs in this country.. Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy In Utah JONATHAN TURLEY
Well..hmmm...the rule of law is done only one way I know of, via legislation. Does he mean "the special interpretations of certain favorable judges" of the "rule of law"? Yes, I think that's more accurate.
When the SCOTUS created "behaviors as race" to add to the Constitution recently, did it ennumerate just gay sex practitioners? Or does it include other kinks like polygamy and incest? And if not, why not? Why just gay sex as the Court's pet favorite?
Who is more important in marriage: 1. Adults or 2. The children that are formed there? And who decides between 1. or 2. ? What part of the Constitution did the Court interpret that children should not be considered in any decision about who may marry? Or, rather, what part of the Constitution says that the majority may not consent on such a vital institution as marriage where such a consent is set to drastically alter the future generations of children/society raised under the notion that "a father isn't vital/important" or "a mother isn't vital/important"? What part of the Constitution allows the Court to remove such a debate from the People, and instead decree what is essentially a royal-mandate on just some (but not all) of their favorite deviant sex behaviors?
Remember: in a contest between gay adults and children, the latter is vastly more oppressed as a group. They cannot vote and they cannot file lawsuits, bribe judges or even drive to a picket line to voice their opposition. They sit, for all intents and purposes, with their hands tied behind their backs and a gag duct taped in their mouths on this issue. All they had were the voices of opposition, those cordially-opposed, whose voices also have now been silenced. Their last chance at a say in this matter was ripped away June 26, 2015.
Where has the authority now been placed to decide polygamy and incest marriage lawsuits? With the Governed or the Court?
Who gets to decide on those who are polyamorously-oriented sexually? The states or SCOTUS? No, really, this is a crucially-important question because it will be coming up within the next two years or less. The Browns have vowed to take their case to the SCOTUS if necessary. Will the states be shut out again; or will the SCOTUS determine that different sexual orientations are to be handled differently as to the 14th Amendment's new addition June 26, 2015?
Last edited: