If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??

[Lakhota]

"If homos have a constitutional right to marry, why don't siblings.??"

Do you have someone in mind...?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Any two unmarried adults should able to marry should be able to marry. Better now?

So where are all of the human rights activists who are seeking to secure the rights of siblings and polygamists?

That's right, they don't give a damn.

The whole notion that a secular state should give a thumbs up or down regarding sexual unions is beyond absurd.

If people really want government out of the bedroom, they would kick them out of the marriage business altogether. But like with anything else, they like the entitlements for themselves while not caring about those who don't get them.

But that's politics. Those who throw billions at political leaders, like the gay lobby, will obtain perks that other citizens will be denied.

In short, pay up or shut up.

I see... So it's not about equal rights, being part of a minority group, making good laws, or even doing what's right; but the ability to buy off people (namely Congressmen) so someone can get perks.

I'm so glad we cleared that up.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Votto]

The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Any two unmarried adults should able to marry should be able to marry. Better now?

So where are all of the human rights activists who are seeking to secure the rights of siblings and polygamists?

That's right, they don't give a damn.

The whole notion that a secular state should give a thumbs up or down regarding sexual unions is beyond absurd.

If people really want government out of the bedroom, they would kick them out of the marriage business altogether. But like with anything else, they like the entitlements for themselves while not caring about those who don't get them.

But that's politics. Those who throw billions at political leaders, like the gay lobby, will obtain perks that other citizens will be denied.

In short, pay up or shut up.

I see... So it's not about equal rights, being part of a minority group, making good laws, or even doing what's right; but the ability to buy off people (namely Congressmen) so someone can get perks.

I'm so glad we cleared that up.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Yep.

Hell, Obama even had to bribe members of his own party to vote for Obamacare.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Show me where gays were considered a racial minority prior to the ruling that they were to be considered a minority. Since they fought for the right to marry on the platform of consenting adults then it stands to reason that the ruling applies to all mature willing companions. And by the very ruling you are using no mature willing companions should have to go to court to form the union of their choice. As his opening statement says...

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family......"

So quit attempting to deny other mature willing companions their rights by demanding they appear in court and admit they have the same rights as other mature willing companions who have been granted them.

It was in Loving v Virginia that the SCOTUS first declared marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival", a fundamental right. Race isn't mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

It does ensure equal protection of all people under the law.

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Any two unmarried adults should able to marry should be able to marry. Better now?

So where are all of the human rights activists who are seeking to secure the rights of siblings and polygamists?

That's right, they don't give a damn.

The whole notion that a secular state should give a thumbs up or down regarding sexual unions is beyond absurd.

If people really want government out of the bedroom, they would kick them out of the marriage business altogether. But like with anything else, they like the entitlements for themselves while not caring about those who don't get them.

But that's politics. Those who throw billions at political leaders, like the gay lobby, will obtain perks that other citizens will be denied.

In short, pay up or shut up.

I see... So it's not about equal rights, being part of a minority group, making good laws, or even doing what's right; but the ability to buy off people (namely Congressmen) so someone can get perks.

I'm so glad we cleared that up.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Yep.

Hell, Obama even had to bribe members of his own party to vote for Obamacare.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Perhaps owning a gun should be resticted to those in the military? I mean, if you want to start imposing restrictions on rights, why limit it to marriage?

We already have many restrictions on the right to marriage. Siblings can't marry and we have age minimums. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Because marriage law isn't written to accommodate three or more persons, or those related to each other.

Marriage law is written to accommodate two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a union recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

And marriage is left to the states, nothing has changed that – provided the states allow all those eligible to marry to access their marriage laws; again, same- or opposite-sex.

In fact, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the states same-sex couples are eligible to participate in, as required by the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

Try it. Go down to the court house and ask for a marriage licence for you and your sister. If refused then start through the process. There is absolutely nothing I see in the law, now, the would bar you from marring your sister. So go for it..

Well I don't know what state you live in- but in every state I know of, it is still illegal for Shootie to marry his sister.

But- if he really thinks he should be able to- or if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can try- and then when refused you have the right to sue- and come up with your argument as to why you should be able to marry your sister.

Let us know how that turns out.

So you're saying that the courts violated the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act by granting special privileges to a specific minority group over others and that you're fine with it?

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Did the Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups have to go to court after the blacks won their rights in a court of law?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

 

[Syriusly]

Wouldn't the OP be better served filing lawsuits and pushing his representatives to make this come to pass? That takes work though and whining on the web is so much easier.

Shouldn't have too.

The argument the SSM crowd used before the courts was for mature willing companions to marry.

Therefore all mature willing companions should be allowed the same rights to form marriage groups as they choose too as per the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

You never actually read any of the courts arguments- did you?

Because that was never the argument before the courts.

As a matter of fact I read all the ones here in Iowa and came to the conclusion that the courts have no right to place any restrictions on who can marry who or how they form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Do you really want me to go through the more recent ones?

I would be thrilled for you to actually do anything more than pull crap out of your ass.

So far, based upon your posts, it is very obvious you either
a) never read any of the actual court decisions- specifically not the Supreme Courts decision or
b) you just aren't capable of understanding the words that were written.

 

[Syriusly]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Really- after all of these months- you still haven't read any of the courts decisions- and you still don't know?

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- this is just the most recent case- and it is clear you don't understand how or why the Supreme Court ever protects anyone's Constitutional rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyway, as far as the question in the OP is concerned, I don't have a problem with two siblings getting married as long as they are consenting adults.

Then you agree that until all mature willing companions are allowed to marry as they choose that the court decision favoring SSM was discriminating and bigoted.

Then you agree that until all human beings are allowed to vote as they choose- regardless of their age or state of incarceration that our current voting laws are discriminating and bigoted?

 

[dblack]

That's the question the queers can't answer. The law says a man can live with his sister but cannot marry her and that's the same way it always has been with queers.

Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about marriage which means it''s entirely a state issue and the federal courts need to stay out of it.

It shouldn't be a government issue at all. State, or federal. We don't need government to tell us how to live

 

[Syriusly]

The SSM argument presented to the courts was consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Which means that any law that forbids consenting adults to marry as they choose is now in question because it denies equal protection under the law.

Yes indeed. How can polygamy or sibling marriage be banned now.??? The SCOTUS should have left marriage to the states - which is where the constitution says it belongs anyway.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for around 11 years now.

Still now polygamy or sibling marriage allowed in Massachusetts.

Why?

Well because they aren't the same things.

But if you want to go to court to sue for your right to marry your sister- that is your right.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Try it. Go down to the court house and ask for a marriage licence for you and your sister. If refused then start through the process. There is absolutely nothing I see in the law, now, the would bar you from marring your sister. So go for it..

Well I don't know what state you live in- but in every state I know of, it is still illegal for Shootie to marry his sister.

But- if he really thinks he should be able to- or if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can try- and then when refused you have the right to sue- and come up with your argument as to why you should be able to marry your sister.

Let us know how that turns out.

So you're saying that the courts violated the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act by granting special privileges to a specific minority group over others and that you're fine with it?

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Did the Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups have to go to court after the blacks won their rights in a court of law?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Why are you attempting to deny other mature willing companions equal protection under the law? That has been your argument so far and it violates the...

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you are granting marriage under the condition that all mature willing companions should be allowed to marry, then ALL mature willing companions are protected by the 14th Amendment which supersedes any law that might forbid such because that law would deny EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Syriusly]

Well I don't know what state you live in- but in every state I know of, it is still illegal for Shootie to marry his sister.

But- if he really thinks he should be able to- or if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can try- and then when refused you have the right to sue- and come up with your argument as to why you should be able to marry your sister.

Let us know how that turns out.

So you're saying that the courts violated the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act by granting special privileges to a specific minority group over others and that you're fine with it?

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Did the Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups have to go to court after the blacks won their rights in a court of law?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Why are you attempting to deny other mature willing companions equal protection under the law? That has been your argument so far and it violates the...

When did I attempt to deny anyone anything?

Still waiting for you to EVER manage to actually quote me saying any of the things you keep saying I am saying.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Wouldn't the OP be better served filing lawsuits and pushing his representatives to make this come to pass? That takes work though and whining on the web is so much easier.

Shouldn't have too.

The argument the SSM crowd used before the courts was for mature willing companions to marry.

Therefore all mature willing companions should be allowed the same rights to form marriage groups as they choose too as per the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

You never actually read any of the courts arguments- did you?

Because that was never the argument before the courts.

As a matter of fact I read all the ones here in Iowa and came to the conclusion that the courts have no right to place any restrictions on who can marry who or how they form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Do you really want me to go through the more recent ones?

I would be thrilled for you to actually do anything more than pull crap out of your ass.

So far, based upon your posts, it is very obvious you either
a) never read any of the actual court decisions- specifically not the Supreme Courts decision or
b) you just aren't capable of understanding the words that were written.

I see... When all is lost use the standard progressive tactic of maligning the character of the person.

How's that been working for the progressives lately?

Too bad you can't call me discriminating or a bigot since you're the one on that side of the fence.

Guess you'll just have to tell me to go to hell...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Deleted member 53821]

At least it would be one man and one woman.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So you're saying that the courts violated the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act by granting special privileges to a specific minority group over others and that you're fine with it?

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Did the Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and other minority groups have to go to court after the blacks won their rights in a court of law?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No- I didn't say that.

Perhaps you could provide the quote that made you think that?

Why are you attempting to deny other mature willing companions equal protection under the law? That has been your argument so far and it violates the...

When did I attempt to deny anyone anything?

Still waiting for you to EVER manage to actually quote me saying any of the things you keep saying I am saying.

Perhaps you should reread what you stated in the first post quoted in this on-going post of quotes.

There should be no need for any mature willing companions to have to form a marriage of their choosing due to the 14th Amendment since it would deny Equal Protection Under The Law.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Syriusly]

Wouldn't the OP be better served filing lawsuits and pushing his representatives to make this come to pass? That takes work though and whining on the web is so much easier.

Shouldn't have too.

The argument the SSM crowd used before the courts was for mature willing companions to marry.

Therefore all mature willing companions should be allowed the same rights to form marriage groups as they choose too as per the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

You never actually read any of the courts arguments- did you?

Because that was never the argument before the courts.

As a matter of fact I read all the ones here in Iowa and came to the conclusion that the courts have no right to place any restrictions on who can marry who or how they form a marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Do you really want me to go through the more recent ones?

I would be thrilled for you to actually do anything more than pull crap out of your ass.

So far, based upon your posts, it is very obvious you either
a) never read any of the actual court decisions- specifically not the Supreme Courts decision or
b) you just aren't capable of understanding the words that were written.

View attachment 50263

I see... When all is lost use the standard progressive tactic of maligning the character of the person.

How's that been working for the progressives lately?

What is lost?

So far you have yet to do more than pull claims out of your ass- why is it you just make unsubstantiated claims rather than anything based upon you know- actual facts?

And gay couples who are in love are getting married.

That is a win for Americans.