Is Gay Marriage Already Void? &/Or Is Polygamy Already Legal?

[Skylar]

I'm still waiting for that quote of the Obergefell ruling saying “If you are oriented sexually to two or more people then all three or more of you can already marry according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment.”

Smiling.....I won't hold my breath.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll do one better, I'll link the entire opinion and let readers see how many paragraphs the Court intertwined the words "same sex intimacy" "homosexuals" "same sex" and "gays and lesbians" as one legal entity. Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

If sexual orientation was what Obergefell decided on (see the quote above and follow the link) then all sexual orientation is allowed to marry. The 14th cannot disparage one subsection of a thing and deny it privileges that other subsections enjoy. You know this. Pretending you don't is dishonest.

 

[Skylar]

I'll do one better, I'll link the entire opinion and let readers see how many paragraphs the Court intertwined the words "same sex intimacy" "homosexuals" "same sex" and "gays and lesbians" as one legal entity. Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

If sexual orientation was what Obergefell decided on (see the quote above and follow the link) then all sexual orientation is allowed to marry. The 14th cannot disparage one subsection of a thing and deny it privileges that other subsections enjoy. You know this. Pretending you don't is dishonest.

And no where in that decision does the court equate same sex couples with same sex intimacy.

That's just you...citing your imagination.

Show us the quote of the Obergefell ruling saying “If you are oriented sexually to two or more people then all three or more of you can already marry according to Obergefell + the 14th Amendment.”

Smiling......you're stuck, Sil. As we both know that no such quote exists.

 

[Skylar]

Its been 3 years.....and this is really it, Sil? You've made zero progress. You're still going with the same 'Ignore the Supreme Court and replace it with my imagination' shtick that has failed you so consistently in the past.

Remember when you told us how the Courts were going to rule in Obergefell? You had an elaborate, pseudo-legal justification where you ignored the Supreme Court and imagined that you knew what they 'really meant'. And we told you how the ruling was going to go and on what basis? We even told you the cases that the court would cite.

And we were right. You were completely wrong. On every point. Nothing you predicted would happen did. And the court never used any of your pseudo-legal nonsense.

Yet here we are years later with you ignoring any portion of the Obergefell ruling you don't like (just like you did with Windsor) and replacing it with your imagination.

So, um.....how's that working out for you?

 

[Silhouette]

If you feel so confident on how "completely wrong" you allege I am, then why do you need bold print?

"Your honor, my argument was submitted in bold print. Need I say more?"

 

[Skylar]

If you feel so confident on how "completely wrong" you allege I am, then why do you need bold print?

To draw your attention to the fact.

Smiling.....like I just did.

 

[Silhouette]

"your honor, I smiled and submitted in bold print, need I say more?"

 

[Skylar]

"your honor, I smiled and submitted in bold print, need I say more?"

Notice you don't disagree on how badly your imaginary pseudo-legal gibberish served you in predicting the outcome of the Obergefell decision.

You ignored any part of the Windsor decision you didn't like. And then pretended that because you ignored it.....the Supreme Court had to as well. Just like you're doing with the Obergefell decision and its explicit findings that banning same sex marriage harms and humiliates children.

You're stuck, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

"your honor, I smiled and submitted in bold print & repeatedly have said my opponent is "stuck"...need I say more?"

 

[Skylar]

"your honor, I smiled and submitted in bold print & repeatedly have said my opponent is "stuck"...need I say more?"

So you've abandoned all mention of the 'infancy doctrine'? No more bizarre claims about how children are married to their parents?

Smiling...if even you are going to ignore your pseudo-legal babble, surely you can understand why every court does as well.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I'm serious: I'll be curious to see the next perversion that Democrats will try to get government to sanction. Adult-pubescent minor marriage? Man-animal marriage? Lowering the age of consent to 12?

 

[Skylar]

I'm serious: I'll be curious to see the next perversion that Democrats will try to get government to sanction. Adult-pubescent minor marriage? Man-animal marriage? Lowering the age of consent to 12?

None of those involve two consenting adults. Same sex marriage does.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll do one better, I'll link the entire opinion and let readers see how

You will let the readers see how you don't have a clue what Obergefell says.

Because as you know- Obergefell never mentions polygamy.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm serious: I'll be curious to see the next perversion that Democrats will try to get government to sanction. Adult-pubescent minor marriage? Man-animal marriage? Lowering the age of consent to 12?

Why would Democrats embrace the Republican agenda?

 

[Syriusly]

"your honor, I smiled and submitted in bold print & repeatedly have said my opponent is "stuck"...need I say more?"

Silly still talking to herself

 

[Syriusly]

I'll do one better, I'll link the entire opinion and let readers see how many paragraphs the Court intertwined the words "same sex intimacy" "homosexuals" "same sex" and "gays and lesbians" as one legal entity. Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

If sexual orientation was what Obergefell decided on (see the quote above and follow the link) then all sexual orientation is allowed to marry. .

People can marry- not sexual orientations.

And yes people of all sexual orientations can marry each other.

 

[Silhouette]

People can marry- not sexual orientations.

And yes people of all sexual orientations can marry each other.

Can you give me a link to a state law where polyamorists can marry their love objects of two or more?

 

[Syriusly]

People can marry- not sexual orientations.

And yes people of all sexual orientations can marry each other.

Can you give me a link to a state law where polyamorists can marry their love objects of two or more?

Check out any state law- any couple can marry each other now- despite your efforts to prevent same gender and opposite race couples from being able to legally marry.

 

[Silhouette]

People can marry- not sexual orientations.

And yes people of all sexual orientations can marry each other.

Can you give me a link to a state law where polyamorists can marry their love objects of two or more?

Check out any state law- any couple can marry each other now- despite your efforts to prevent same gender and opposite race couples from being able to legally marry.

As you are aware, polyamorists are more than two. Please give a link to a state law where polyamory-orientation allows for 3 or more to marry.

 

[Skylar]

People can marry- not sexual orientations.

And yes people of all sexual orientations can marry each other.

Can you give me a link to a state law where polyamorists can marry their love objects of two or more?

A polyamorist can marry a polyamorist. You're confused.

Now, show us where the Obergefell ruling even mentions polygamy. You can't.

You're just making this pseudo-legal nonsense up as you go along. And you're stuck, having made no progress in your arguments since your laughably inaccurate 'predictions' that the Obergefell ruling were going to uphold bans on same sex marriage.