Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[Silhouette]

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families. ​

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).

I can guarantee Kennedy that dismantling marriage to strip a child of either a mother or father for life will result in people KNOWING their families are lesser. Less in fact the missing mother or father. That embarrassing and stark void will now have a label on it shoving it even closer in the faces of the stunned and shocked.

He fucked up on this one. And Scalia is dead because of it IMHO. Polygamists and incest groupings also are providing 'loving homes' for children. Why are they left out? Scalia knew. He knew. And it's why he called this one of the most damaging cases he's ever known of or seen in his career. It sent a torpedo right straight to the heart of how we have raised children to value their mothers AND fathers.

 

[mdk]

Scalia would be alive today if fags couldn't marry.

 

[Montrovant]

Windsor also said 56 times that states are who determines the privilege of marriage. Are you aware that other sexual orientations still can't marry at the discretion of the various states?

Mull that one over for a bit...

States make determinations within constitutional bounds. You always leave that part out.

Before you say it again, polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor also said 56 times that states are who determines the privilege of marriage. Are you aware that other sexual orientations still can't marry at the discretion of the various states?

Mull that one over for a bit...

States make determinations within constitutional bounds. You always leave that part out.

Before you say it again, polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

You're hoping against all hopes with your fingers crossed that kinks other than yours where people incline towards a particular sexual penchant "aren't sexual orientations". Because if they are, your premise is blown to shit. It is my firm belief that polygamy and incest between consenting adults as "intimate lifestyle choices" will be found to be covered under Obergefell. And, a natural attraction to one's own blood family members or to multiple women is in fact sexual orientation. Not yours, but still sexual orientations nevertheless. You can't monopolize the word to discriminate against others Monty.

Yes, states make determinations within constitutional bounds. BTW, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "just these sexual orientations but not others". In fact, it doesn't even mention human behaviors outside religion come to think of it. Another problem Scalia had with Obergefell, among many many other problems.

 

[Montrovant]

Windsor also said 56 times that states are who determines the privilege of marriage. Are you aware that other sexual orientations still can't marry at the discretion of the various states?

Mull that one over for a bit...

States make determinations within constitutional bounds. You always leave that part out.

Before you say it again, polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

You're hoping against all hopes with your fingers crossed that kinks other than yours where people incline towards a particular sexual penchant "aren't sexual orientations". Because if they are, your premise is blown to shit. It is my firm belief that polygamy and incest between consenting adults as "intimate lifestyle choices" will be found to be covered under Obergefell. And, a natural attraction to one's own blood family members or to multiple women is in fact sexual orientation. Not yours, but still sexual orientations nevertheless. You can't monopolize the word to discriminate against others Monty.

Yes, states make determinations within constitutional bounds. BTW, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "just these sexual orientations but not others". In fact, it doesn't even mention human behaviors outside religion come to think of it. Another problem Scalia had with Obergefell, among many many other problems.

Actually, I'm just using the definition of polygamy, unlike you. Definition of POLYGAMY

Polygamy is having more than one spouse at the same time. There need be no sex or sexual attraction involved.

Put another way, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, while same sex marriage is not. You could, at best, argue that multiple sexual partners at the same time is a sexual orientation, but even then, polygamy doesn't mean having multiple sexual partners at once, it is about multiple spouses at once. Someone heterosexual can be in a polygamous marriage, as can someone bisexual, as can someone homosexual.

Your firm beliefs about the law have been proven wrong time and time again.

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy is a sexual orientation towards more than one woman. And, if gays are free to call what they do a sexual orientation, they cannot monopolize the phrase "sexual orientation" away from someone else who is regularly sexually attracted to another type of kink.

Now that we've established polyamory as a sexual preference or orientation or intimate choice (call it what you like, Obergefell covers them all), how will you exclude some sexual orientations from marriage when Obergefell just said that it's now illegal for states to deny people marriage based on sexual orientation?

 

[Montrovant]

Polygamy is a sexual orientation towards more than one woman. And, if gays are free to call what they do a sexual orientation, they cannot monopolize the phrase "sexual orientation" away from someone else who is regularly sexually attracted to another type of kink.

Now that we've established polyamory as a sexual preference or orientation or intimate choice (call it what you like, Obergefell covers them all), how will you exclude some sexual orientations from marriage when Obergefell just said that it's now illegal for states to deny people marriage based on sexual orientation?

I posted a link to the definition of polygamy. It is having more than one spouse at once. Here, have some more links to the definition : the definition of polygamy polygamy Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

To explain further, yet again, one can be in a polygamous marriage and be heterosexual, or bisexual, or homosexual. There is no sexual orientation requirement for polygamy.

You've established nothing but your inability to use the correct words when making an argument. Perhaps the problem is that you know the court in Obergefell specified on multiple occasions that marriage is between two persons and you are trying to find a way around that? Whatever your specific reasons here, polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is not about who a person is attracted to but a kind of marriage arrangement.

 

[Silhouette]

I posted a link to the definition of polygamy. It is having more than one spouse at once.

"THE" definition eh? "THE" one you hope is used in court for sure. It's also defined as the sexual orientation towards more than one spouse/life sex mate. Which is.... *drum roll*... a sexual orientation.... *cymbal crash!* And you know what the Court said about states denying marriage based on someone's sexual orientation in Obergefell....

And yet states can still deny some sexual orientations legally despite Obergefell. That sets up a completely opposed legal situation to Obergefell. I wonder how states can pick and choose which sexual orientations have rights and which don't. Do you suppose they'd do that by their own laws on marriage on the books? Why, I suppose they could then, and cite the 56 times in Windsor where the Court affirmed that states define marriage.

I wonder if Judge Moore could weave this double-standard on sexual orientations "having rights" (or not, depending on???) into his defense?

 

[Montrovant]

I posted a link to the definition of polygamy. It is having more than one spouse at once.

"THE" definition eh? "THE" one you hope is used in court for sure. It's also defined as the sexual orientation towards more than one spouse/life sex mate. Which is.... *drum roll*... a sexual orientation.... *cymbal crash!* And you know what the Court said about states denying marriage based on someone's sexual orientation in Obergefell....

And yet states can still deny some sexual orientations legally despite Obergefell. That sets up a completely opposed legal situation to Obergefell. I wonder how states can pick and choose which sexual orientations have rights and which don't. Do you suppose they'd do that by their own laws on marriage on the books? Why, I suppose they could then, and cite the 56 times in Windsor where the Court affirmed that states define marriage.

I wonder if Judge Moore could weave this double-standard on sexual orientations "having rights" (or not, depending on???) into his defense?

Where, other than in your own mind, is polygamy defined as a sexual orientation? I have, at this point, provided links to three separate dictionary sites for the definition of polygamy. In none of those is it defined as a sexual orientation.

And for the umpteenth time, you leave out the fact that states must define marriage without violating constitutional protections.

 

[Silhouette]

Where do we find in the dictionary where "men are actually women trapped in a man's body"?

 

[Silhouette]

I posted a link to the definition of polygamy. It is having more than one spouse at once.

"THE" definition eh? "THE" one you hope is used in court for sure. It's also defined as the sexual orientation towards more than one spouse/life sex mate. Which is.... *drum roll*... a sexual orientation.... *cymbal crash!* And you know what the Court said about states denying marriage based on someone's sexual orientation in Obergefell....

And yet states can still deny some sexual orientations legally despite Obergefell. That sets up a completely opposed legal situation to Obergefell. I wonder how states can pick and choose which sexual orientations have rights and which don't. Do you suppose they'd do that by their own laws on marriage on the books? Why, I suppose they could then, and cite the 56 times in Windsor where the Court affirmed that states define marriage.

I wonder if Judge Moore could weave this double-standard on sexual orientations "having rights" (or not, depending on???) into his defense?

Where, other than in your own mind, is polygamy defined as a sexual orientation? I have, at this point, provided links to three separate dictionary sites for the definition of polygamy. In none of those is it defined as a sexual orientation.

And for the umpteenth time, you leave out the fact that states must define marriage without violating constitutional protections.

I'm pretty sure we could find a legal panel to testify that some men are naturally attracted sexually to more than one woman. Which of course is defining another type of sexual orientation. Some men are sexually oriented towards sex with more than one woman.



Try again..

 

[mdk]

I posted a link to the definition of polygamy. It is having more than one spouse at once.

"THE" definition eh? "THE" one you hope is used in court for sure. It's also defined as the sexual orientation towards more than one spouse/life sex mate. Which is.... *drum roll*... a sexual orientation.... *cymbal crash!* And you know what the Court said about states denying marriage based on someone's sexual orientation in Obergefell....

And yet states can still deny some sexual orientations legally despite Obergefell. That sets up a completely opposed legal situation to Obergefell. I wonder how states can pick and choose which sexual orientations have rights and which don't. Do you suppose they'd do that by their own laws on marriage on the books? Why, I suppose they could then, and cite the 56 times in Windsor where the Court affirmed that states define marriage.

I wonder if Judge Moore could weave this double-standard on sexual orientations "having rights" (or not, depending on???) into his defense?

Where, other than in your own mind, is polygamy defined as a sexual orientation? I have, at this point, provided links to three separate dictionary sites for the definition of polygamy. In none of those is it defined as a sexual orientation.

And for the umpteenth time, you leave out the fact that states must define marriage without violating constitutional protections.

You would have better luck trying to reach a house plant at this point. Sil has shown time and time again that facts do not matter if they do not buttress her mentally ill obsession with gays.

 

[Montrovant]

I posted a link to the definition of polygamy. It is having more than one spouse at once.

"THE" definition eh? "THE" one you hope is used in court for sure. It's also defined as the sexual orientation towards more than one spouse/life sex mate. Which is.... *drum roll*... a sexual orientation.... *cymbal crash!* And you know what the Court said about states denying marriage based on someone's sexual orientation in Obergefell....

And yet states can still deny some sexual orientations legally despite Obergefell. That sets up a completely opposed legal situation to Obergefell. I wonder how states can pick and choose which sexual orientations have rights and which don't. Do you suppose they'd do that by their own laws on marriage on the books? Why, I suppose they could then, and cite the 56 times in Windsor where the Court affirmed that states define marriage.

I wonder if Judge Moore could weave this double-standard on sexual orientations "having rights" (or not, depending on???) into his defense?

Where, other than in your own mind, is polygamy defined as a sexual orientation? I have, at this point, provided links to three separate dictionary sites for the definition of polygamy. In none of those is it defined as a sexual orientation.

And for the umpteenth time, you leave out the fact that states must define marriage without violating constitutional protections.

I'm pretty sure we could find a legal panel to testify that some men are naturally attracted sexually to more than one woman. Which of course is defining another type of sexual orientation. Some men are sexually oriented towards sex with more than one woman.



Try again..

You're pretty sure, are you? You've been wrong about every legal prediction you've ever made here, so you might want to consider the source of your confidence.

Even if you are right, polygamy is not being sexually attracted to more than one person. It is being married to more than one person. Heterosexuals can be in a polygamous marriage. Bisexuals can be in a polygamous marriage. Homosexuals can be in a polygamous marriage. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

You can argue otherwise all you want, but as with everything else you do, you cannot provide any proof of your claim. I, on the other hand, have provided multiple sources to show what polygamy is.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.



You can stop yourself any time you want you know. Save that credibility Monty! Let mdk be the obvious liar. That's his role. You're paid to make sense; don't forget..

 

[Syriusly]

You are the one arguing that same sex marriage removes a mother or father from a child, despite that child not having opposite sex parents even if the same sex couple are unmarried.

The state of "not married" = the state of no contract. The state of "married" = the state of contract. In the first scenario, there is no contract stating a child may never know a mother father. One of the two say lesbians might be Anne Heche. But with a marriage contract, Anne Heche has presumably signed on for life and will aid and abet on stripping any children involved of a father for the duration of that contract.

Unless such language is added in, there is nothing in a marriage contract stating a child may never know a mother or father. Perhaps Anne Heche had a child in an opposite sex relationship prior to her same sex marriage. Nothing in her marriage contract would prevent her child from having that child's father in his or her life.

Once again, you are arguing against same sex parents, not same sex marriage.

The marriage contract exists to provide a home within which children are raised. That was it's purpose at its inception over a thousand years ago, and its purpose up until 201g.

You keep saying that as if that is a fact, and not just what the voices in your head told you.

The marriage contract exists to bind two people together in a partnership.

Remember- preventing a gay couple from marrying doesn't help a single child- not in anyway.
But it does harm any children the gay couple have- or will have.

So by my powerful powers of deduction- your intent is to harm children-not to help children.

 

[mdk]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.



You can stop yourself any time you want you know. Save that credibility Monty! Let mdk be the obvious liar. That's his role. You're paid to make sense; don't forget..

That's as rich as Croesus coming from you. You still blame gay people for Dylan Roof killing all those people in Charleston. lol

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.



You can stop yourself any time you want you know. Save that credibility Monty! Let mdk be the obvious liar. That's his role. You're paid to make sense; don't forget..

Having you tell me I'm a liar can do nothing but improve my credibility with anyone sane.

I notice you didn't provide any evidence other than your own imagination that polygamy is a sexual orientation......

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, because "I'm wrong" that we could find a panel of legal experts to testify that some men are sexually oriented towards sex with multiple women.
..

Is that what the voices in your head told you today?

 

[Syriusly]

I posted a link to the definition of polygamy. It is having more than one spouse at once.

"THE" definition eh? "THE" one you hope is used in court for sure. It's also defined as the sexual orientation towards more than one spouse/life sex mate. Which is.... *drum roll*... a sexual orientation.... *cymbal crash!* And you know what the Court said about states denying marriage based on someone's sexual orientation in Obergefell....

And yet states can still deny some sexual orientations legally despite Obergefell.

The ruling in Obergefell does not address sexual orientations- it addresses same sex/gender couples:

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year, they welcomed another son into their family. The new baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan, however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the children she had not been permitted to adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives.

For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman. See N. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9–17 (2000); S. Coontz, Marriage, A History 15–16 (2005). As the role and status of women changed, the institution further evolved. Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 430 (1765). As women gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society began to understand that women have their own equal dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned.

This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.

 

[Syriusly]

Polygamy is a sexual orientation towards more than one woman.

So traditional marriage is a sexual orientation towards a single partner?

Because looking at the adultery statistics in the United States- there are lots of married men who have sex with more than one woman.

Are they polygamists then?

You do this insane stuff all the time- you equate marriage to parenting- you equate polygamous marriage to a sexual orientation- you just make this crap up.

And then insist is true.

Luckily for our gay couples who wanted to marry, often the State's objections were not much better than your own.