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

[Silhouette]

I'm not imagining that a habitual arousal pattern in anyone of any type is a sexual orientation. You're mincing words isn't going to win estranging certain children left out of the benefits of marriage Monty. You're fucked, like I told you. Kennedy's words are in black and white.

Let me ask you a question. Perhaps, if you actually answer it and answer it honestly, you will see the problem with your arguments...If a man is attracted to women, and is not attracted to men, is that man a heterosexual?..Is heterosexuality a sexual orientation?..If a heterosexual man is only aroused by women in stockings, is he no longer a heterosexual man? What is his sexual orientation if not?

If a man is attracted to a woman wearing a lumberjack outfit, using a deep falsetto, wearing a strapon and that woman is drilling him in the ass on a regular basis, is that man a closeted homosexual? If you answer "no because he's doing it with a woman", I'll laugh you into next week bro. And if a lesbian is using a dildo on a regular basis with another woman who dresses like, walks like and talks like a man, is that woman a lesbian? Or does she have closeted hetero issues?

My point being that if your cult can have gray areas in "sexual orientation" then they can't insist on a rigid definition of the phrase. Certainly not to the extent that it alienates children of other gray-area sexually oriented parents from the benefits of marriage. *waves at Justice Kennedy again*

I'll answer your question about hetero being an orientation from a livestock keeper's perspective: Hetero is not just an orientation, it is THE orientation from which all others spring. The drive to mate and procreate is what is the first impetus we use to train up animals to all types of artificial dummies, positions and equipment to collect semen. Bulls are trained up on steers (castrated males) by first bringing an estrus cow near him and the steer. When he goes to mount the cow she is pulled away and he moves over to the steer naturally because he is "in the mode". Once he associates orgasm with the smells and sounds of the steer as a substitute, he is then grafted over to mounting steers.

I've postulated in the past that I believe homosexuals were frustrated at an early age or raped by other men at that age, and sought release with what was near at hand (other boys) or what was forced/imprinted upon them (sex with men). Any other kink from there is just a matter of grafting or associative-conditioning from THE sexual orientation. I mean, what else but frustration could explain orientations like necrophilia? Brother you'd have to be in a "sexual emergency" to borrow the phrase from a Musliim who recently used that excuse for raping a woman, in order to "go there".. And yet, it too in the truest sense of the phrase is also a "sexual orientation" if it's where someone gravitates to regularly to get off.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not imagining that a habitual arousal pattern in anyone of any type is a sexual orientation. You're mincing words isn't going to win estranging certain children left out of the benefits of marriage Monty. You're fucked, like I told you. Kennedy's words are in black and white.

Let me ask you a question. Perhaps, if you actually answer it and answer it honestly, you will see the problem with your arguments...If a man is attracted to women, and is not attracted to men, is that man a heterosexual?..Is heterosexuality a sexual orientation?..If a heterosexual man is only aroused by women in stockings, is he no longer a heterosexual man? What is his sexual orientation if not?

If a man is attracted to a woman wearing a lumberjack outfit, using a deep falsetto, wearing a strapon and that woman is drilling him in the ass on a regular basis, is that man a closeted homosexual? If you answer "no because he's doing it with a woman", I'll laugh you into next week bro. And if a lesbian is using a dildo on a regular basis with another woman who dresses like, walks like and talks like a man, is that woman a lesbian? Or does she have closeted hetero issues?

My point being that if your cult can have gray areas in "sexual orientation" then they can't insist on a rigid definition of the phrase. Certainly not to the extent that it alienates children of other gray-area sexually oriented parents from the benefits of marriage. *waves at Justice Kennedy again*

I'll answer your question about hetero being an orientation from a livestock keeper's perspective: Hetero is not just an orientation, it is THE orientation from which all others spring. The drive to mate and procreate is what is the first impetus we use to train up animals to all types of artificial dummies, positions and equipment to collect semen. Bulls are trained up on steers (castrated males) by first bringing an estrus cow near him and the steer. When he goes to mount the cow she is pulled away and he moves over to the steer naturally because he is "in the mode". Once he associates orgasm with the smells and sounds of the steer as a substitute, he is then grafted over to mounting steers.

I've postulated in the past that I believe homosexuals were frustrated at an early age or raped by other men at that age, and sought release with what was near at hand (other boys) or what was forced upon them (sex with men). Any other kink from there is just a matter of grafting from THE sexual orientation.

Thanks for not actually answering the questions.

Why do you assume that if sexual orientation goes on a sliding scale from heterosexual to homosexual, it must mean that any sexual peccadillo a person may have is a sexual orientation? A gray area doesn't mean the definition of sexual orientation is suddenly invalid.

Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to, specifically the gender of who you are attracted to. If a man has a woman dress like a lumberjack, maybe he has some homosexual tendencies. Perhaps he's not all the way on the heterosexual side of that scale. That doesn't make being attracted to women in lumberjack outfits a sexual orientation.

Why would you think that human sexuality is the same as that of livestock?

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks for not actually answering the questions.

Why do you assume that if sexual orientation goes on a sliding scale from heterosexual to homosexual, it must mean that any sexual peccadillo a person may have is a sexual orientation? A gray area doesn't mean the definition of sexual orientation is suddenly invalid.

Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to, specifically the gender of who you are attracted to.

Bullshit. You choose to narrowly confined it that way so it suits polyamorists and others not getting access to Obergefell. A sexual orientation can be to ANYTHING. It is the direction your sex drive habitually seeks to find release. Period. If one sex or the other is involved, it's just a coincidence. The gray areas in "homosexual" illustrate that there is nothing hard or defined in their "orientation". Indeed, they seem to be all over the map. They claim that privilege while denying it to others rigidly. And you know how the USSC feels about arbitrarily denying others privileges and immunities...

 

[Montrovant]

Thanks for not actually answering the questions.

Why do you assume that if sexual orientation goes on a sliding scale from heterosexual to homosexual, it must mean that any sexual peccadillo a person may have is a sexual orientation? A gray area doesn't mean the definition of sexual orientation is suddenly invalid.

Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to, specifically the gender of who you are attracted to.

Bullshit. You choose to narrowly confined it that way so it suits polyamorists and others not getting access to Obergefell. A sexual orientation can be to ANYTHING. It is the direction your sex drive habitually seeks to find release. Period. If one sex or the other is involved, it's just a coincidence. The gray areas in "homosexual" illustrate that there is nothing hard or defined in their "orientation". Indeed, they seem to be all over the map. They claim that privilege while denying it to others rigidly. And you know how the USSC feels about arbitrarily denying others privileges and immunities...

I choose to 'narrowly confined' [sic] it that way because that is how it is defined. I have provided you with multiple sources for the definition of the term. You have provided your imagination.

It doesn't matter if there can be a gray area in heterosexuality or homosexuality. That doesn't mean the definition of sexual orientation changes.

As usual, you are just making things up.

 

[Silhouette]

I choose to 'narrowly confined' [sic] it that way because that is how it is defined.

By whom? A small group of lawyers for the cult of LGBT, keen on keeping the nature of the legal slippery slope under the radar until after the election?

What panel of experts met and set the definition in stone? What court wrote an opinion that defined it that way? None! I could just as legitimately define that homosexuals cannot call themselves that if they experience any attraction whatsoever to the trappings of the opposite gender. If no panel is required to weigh in; no court opinion is necessary and all definitions are subjective on a whim, then I could declare that as truth as emphatically as you declare that polyamorists or incest cannot call theirs a sexual orientation.

 

[Montrovant]

I choose to 'narrowly confined' [sic] it that way because that is how it is defined.

By whom? A small group of lawyers for the cult of LGBT, keen on keeping the nature of the legal slippery slope under the radar until after the election?

What panel of experts met and set the definition in stone? What court wrote an opinion that defined it that way? None! I could just as legitimately define that homosexuals cannot call themselves that if they experience any attraction whatsoever to the trappings of the opposite gender. If no panel is required to weigh in; no court opinion is necessary and all definitions are subjective on a whim, then I could declare that as truth as emphatically as you declare that polyamorists or incest cannot call theirs a sexual orientation.

By whom? Whoever puts definitions in the various dictionaries.

Panel of experts? Well, I suppose the people who create and update the various dictionaries may use panels of experts to determine definitions. Courts? I don't know if the US legal system has made any sort of statement on the definition of sexual orientation.

If society is willing to go by whatever definitions you create, sure, you could declare something as truth and have it mean something. I'm going to say that's extremely unlikely.

 

[Silhouette]

By whom? Whoever puts definitions in the various dictionaries.

Panel of experts? Well, I suppose the people who create and update the various dictionaries may use panels of experts to determine definitions. Courts? I don't know if the US legal system has made any sort of statement on the definition of sexual orientation.

Well I guess that's what the Brown family aims to find out...

 

[WorldWatcher]

By whom? Whoever puts definitions in the various dictionaries.

Panel of experts? Well, I suppose the people who create and update the various dictionaries may use panels of experts to determine definitions. Courts? I don't know if the US legal system has made any sort of statement on the definition of sexual orientation.

Well I guess that's what the Brown family aims to find out...

Nope, the Brown family hasn't asked the United States Supreme Court anything about sexual orientation.


>>>>

 

[mdk]

By whom? Whoever puts definitions in the various dictionaries.

Panel of experts? Well, I suppose the people who create and update the various dictionaries may use panels of experts to determine definitions. Courts? I don't know if the US legal system has made any sort of statement on the definition of sexual orientation.

Well I guess that's what the Brown family aims to find out...

They are asking about their right to privacy and religious freedoms. Something you're all for when it comes to Davis/Klein's, but you refuse to support for the Brown family. Perhaps they should invent some anti-gay angle to get your support. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Nope, the Brown family hasn't asked the United States Supreme Court anything about sexual orientation.


>>>>

Yet...

Their attorney would be remiss if he didn't bring it up.

 

[Montrovant]

Nope, the Brown family hasn't asked the United States Supreme Court anything about sexual orientation.


>>>>

Yet...

Their attorney would be remiss if he didn't bring it up.

Of course, because of the laws and precedent behind polygamy being a sexual orientation.....

Oh, wait, that's just in your head.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course, because of the laws and precedent behind polygamy being a sexual orientation.....

Oh, wait, that's just in your head.

https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/sisters-wives-petition.pdf


There is the petition to the SCOTUS "Sexual Orientation" isn't even mentioned.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Are "intimate lifestyle choices" also not mentioned?

Nope, the Brown family hasn't asked the United States Supreme Court anything about sexual orientation.


>>>>

Yet...

Their attorney would be remiss if he didn't bring it up.

Of course, because of the laws and precedent behind polygamy being a sexual orientation.....

Oh, wait, that's just in your head.

You think that the Brown's attorney, whose goal it is to win his client's case, will neglect to read Obergefell pages 12-13 here and utilize this in arguments to forward his clients' case? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

At first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under Due Process Clause. See 388 U.s., at 12; see also Zablocki, supra, at 384 (observing Loving held "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"). Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. Indeed, the Court has noted it would be contradictory "to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society." Zablocki, supra, at 386.

The Court alternates the words "same-sex" with "intimate lifestyles" and "sexual orientation" so much in Obergefell that it's hard to keep up with what they're talking about at times. By their very choice to do this, it seems clear that the Court meant for the widest possible interpretation to be had of Obergefell; instead of narrow like you keep insisting on.

I can tell you that if Mr. Turley quotes that passage and says that Kody Brown only feels sexually and emotionally satisfied with more than one wife; that's it, case closed. And if Kennedy hears Mr. Turley talk about how the Brown children, many of them, are not experiencing the benefits of marriage by their parents being unmarried, that will be the cherry on top.

Getting back to Judge Moore of Alabama, a great defense would be "can Alabama still deny polygamy marriage? If his accusers say "yes, of course", then he can ask his accusers why it is that Alabama can define marriage to exclude some people? Whereupon his accusers will stammer, hem and haw. They then will have to say that states CAN pass SOME laws to exclude SOME people from marriage based on intimate lifestyle choices, but NOT GAY lifestyle choices. Then Moore would ask his accusers "who decides that the number "two", or that homosexual behaviors and lifestyles are more acceptable than polyamorist or polygamy? Moore's accusers of course would have to say "the states".

And Moore will have won his case. Because if states can still define marriage as an exclusive privilege in the case of the Brown family, disqualifying them from marrying based on statewide sentiments (and not Obergefell), then Alabama can still disqualify gay marriage based on statewide sentiments (and not Obergefell). The word "ALL" underlined in the Obergefell quote above is the key.

 

[Silhouette]

And here it is. From the Browns' lawsuit about technicalities on appeal, the meat and potatoes of their eventual USSC challenge peeks out from underneath. I hope Moore is watching..

Here Turley indicates "constitutionality" of his clients' relationship with each other is where he's heading with this. https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/sisters-wives-petition.pdf
(page ii )

2. When the government publicly threatens a party with prosecution under a statute, to what extent, if at all, can it later moot by voluntary cessation a subsequently filed lawsuit challenging its constitutionality?

I think Mr. Turley has read Obergefell pages 12-13. Next you will hear Monty or Worldy claim that Turley in a later appeal (which nobody can argue is coming since Kody Brown and wives have made it publicly clear that their goal is marriage for ALL of them), "won't be citing Obergefell"...

Where this is all going of course is the eventual question "Can states say no to ANYONE wanting to marry? And if so, how do they tease out which ones if Obergefell is so broad, including "all" who make the intimate choice to marry? Which lifestyles are "in" and which ones are "out" and who gets to choose that???"

And of course as everyone knows, it's the states. So Obergefell says "you cannot be arbitrary!" while at the same time it sweeps away ALL the powers of states to determine who may marry, in FULL VIOLATION of the 56 times it just said in US v Windsor that "the power to determine marriage is up to the states".!!!! THAT is the fatal flaw of Obergefell. It essentially overturned Windsor, and took 100% of the power away from the states to determine who may marry.

 

[Montrovant]

^^ Are "intimate lifestyle choices" also not mentioned?

Nope, the Brown family hasn't asked the United States Supreme Court anything about sexual orientation.


>>>>

Yet...

Their attorney would be remiss if he didn't bring it up.

Of course, because of the laws and precedent behind polygamy being a sexual orientation.....

Oh, wait, that's just in your head.

You think that the Brown's attorney, whose goal it is to win his client's case, will neglect to read Obergefell pages 12-13 here and utilize this in arguments to forward his clients' case? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

At first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under Due Process Clause. See 388 U.s., at 12; see also Zablocki, supra, at 384 (observing Loving held "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"). Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. Indeed, the Court has noted it would be contradictory "to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society." Zablocki, supra, at 386.

The Court alternates the words "same-sex" with "intimate lifestyles" and "sexual orientation" so much in Obergefell that it's hard to keep up with what they're talking about at times. By their very choice to do this, it seems clear that the Court meant for the widest possible interpretation to be had of Obergefell; instead of narrow like you keep insisting on.

I can tell you that if Mr. Turley quotes that passage and says that Kody Brown only feels sexually and emotionally satisfied with more than one wife; that's it, case closed. And if Kennedy hears Mr. Turley talk about how the Brown children, many of them, are not experiencing the benefits of marriage by their parents being unmarried, that will be the cherry on top.

Getting back to Judge Moore of Alabama, a great defense would be "can Alabama still deny polygamy marriage? If his accusers say "yes, of course", then he can ask his accusers why it is that Alabama can define marriage to exclude some people? Whereupon his accusers will stammer, hem and haw. They then will have to say that states CAN pass SOME laws to exclude SOME people from marriage based on intimate lifestyle choices, but NOT GAY lifestyle choices. Then Moore would ask his accusers "who decides that the number "two", or that homosexual behaviors and lifestyles are more acceptable than polyamorist or polygamy? Moore's accusers of course would have to say "the states".

And Moore will have won his case. Because if states can still define marriage as an exclusive privilege in the case of the Brown family, disqualifying them from marrying based on statewide sentiments (and not Obergefell), then Alabama can still disqualify gay marriage based on statewide sentiments (and not Obergefell). The word "ALL" underlined in the Obergefell quote above is the key.

Based on every one of your previous predictions, Turley will not quote the passage.

Obergefell was about equal protection. Marriage involved two people, it was determined that discriminating based on the gender of the participants violated constitutional protection. Polygamy does not involve two people, so the courts must be convinced that an arrangement which does not fit into current marriage law and which would require new law be created is the same as simply replacing the gender words in two person marriage law. The courts must be convinced that equal access to marriage law includes marriage law that does not exist, unlike in Obergefell where the same sex participants could use the already existing law with simple changes of gender.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be more or less acceptable than polygamy. They are not the same category of thing. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Polygamy is a type of marriage arrangement. Polyamory is a type of relationship arrangement.

States can define marriage so long as they do not violate constitutional protections. Obergefell ruled that banning same sex marriage violated such protection. If the courts rule that banning polygamy does not violate constitutional protections, states will be free to do so.

 

[Montrovant]

And here it is. From the Browns' lawsuit about technicalities on appeal, the meat and potatoes of their eventual USSC challenge peeks out from underneath. I hope Moore is watching..

Here Turley indicates "constitutionality" of his clients' relationship with each other is where he's heading with this. https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/sisters-wives-petition.pdf
(page ii )

2. When the government publicly threatens a party with prosecution under a statute, to what extent, if at all, can it later moot by voluntary cessation a subsequently filed lawsuit challenging its constitutionality?

I think Mr. Turley has read Obergefell pages 12-13. Next you will hear Monty or Worldy claim that Turley in a later appeal (which nobody can argue is coming since Kody Brown and wives have made it publicly clear that their goal is marriage for ALL of them), "won't be citing Obergefell"...

Where this is all going of course is the eventual question "Can states say no to ANYONE wanting to marry? And if so, how do they tease out which ones if Obergefell is so broad, including "all" who make the intimate choice to marry? Which lifestyles are "in" and which ones are "out" and who gets to choose that???"

And of course as everyone knows, it's the states. So Obergefell says "you cannot be arbitrary!" while at the same time it sweeps away ALL the powers of states to determine who may marry, in FULL VIOLATION of the 56 times it just said in US v Windsor that "the power to determine marriage is up to the states".!!!! THAT is the fatal flaw of Obergefell. It essentially overturned Windsor, and took 100% of the power away from the states to determine who may marry.

Obergefell does not allow anyone who wants to marry, whatever the type of arrangement, to do so. Nor does it remove the power of the states to determine who may marry. It simply prevented states from defining marriage in a way that prevented equal access to marriage laws depending on a person's gender.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell does not allow anyone who wants to marry, whatever the type of arrangement, to do so. Nor does it remove the power of the states to determine who may marry. It simply prevented states from defining marriage in a way that prevented equal access to marriage laws depending on a person's gender.

Well instead of taking the word of some internet warrior for it, let's look at what Obergefell said that conflicts with what you just said, per the Browns guaranteed appeal for polygamy marriage:

(pages 6-7) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

These and other developments in the institution of marriage over the past centuries were not mere superficial changes. Rather, they worked deep transformations in its structure, affecting aspects of marriage long viewed by many as essential. See generally N. Cott, Public Vows; S. Coontz, Marriage; H. Hartog, Man & Wife in America: A History (2000). These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.

Keywords: "deep transformations"...

But in spite of that rationale for approving Obergefell, you think Turley can't use it to find approval for the Brown family's children to get the benefits of marriage? Cling tightly to that unicorn's mane mate or you're going to fall off!

 

[Montrovant]

Obergefell does not allow anyone who wants to marry, whatever the type of arrangement, to do so. Nor does it remove the power of the states to determine who may marry. It simply prevented states from defining marriage in a way that prevented equal access to marriage laws depending on a person's gender.

Well instead of taking the word of some internet warrior for it, let's look at what Obergefell said that conflicts with what you just said, per the Browns guaranteed appeal for polygamy marriage:

(pages 6-7) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

These and other developments in the institution of marriage over the past centuries were not mere superficial changes. Rather, they worked deep transformations in its structure, affecting aspects of marriage long viewed by many as essential. See generally N. Cott, Public Vows; S. Coontz, Marriage; H. Hartog, Man & Wife in America: A History (2000). These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.

Keywords: "deep transformations"...

But in spite of that rationale for approving Obergefell, you think Turley can't use it to find approval for the Brown family's children to get the benefits of marriage? Cling tightly to that unicorn's mane mate or you're going to fall off!

That quote is about changes that have occurred in marriage's history, such as the end of coverture (in which women basically lost all rights to their husbands). How does that in any way contradict anything I have said? I've never claimed that marriage has not undergone significant changes. In fact, I've argued with you because you have implied, if not outright stated, that marriage has remained static since it was first created.

Just because there have been fundamental changes in the structure of marriage in the past, just because Obergefell changes the way US law looks at marriage, does not mean that all forms of marriage suddenly become legal. That is, as usual, your imagination.

If you are correct and any form of marriage is now legal under Obergefell, why have people in alternative relationship arrangements not been legally married since the ruling?

 

[Silhouette]

That quote is about changes that have occurred in marriage's history, such as the end of coverture (in which women basically lost all rights to their husbands). How does that in any way contradict anything I have said? I've never claimed that marriage has not undergone significant changes. In fact, I've argued with you because you have implied, if not outright stated, that marriage has remained static since it was first created.

Just because there have been fundamental changes in the structure of marriage in the past, just because Obergefell changes the way US law looks at marriage, does not mean that all forms of marriage suddenly become legal. That is, as usual, your imagination.

If you are correct and any form of marriage is now legal under Obergefell, why have people in alternative relationship arrangements not been legally married since the ruling?

The word was "DEEP" changes, not just changes. I'd argue that changing marriage from two to more than two is a deep change. Also, the Court gave a nod to more "DEEP" changes (what could be deeper than removing either a mother or father?) in the future by saying this:
(pages 10-11)

...guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572.

You think the Court will draw the line at "two" when they just removed a mother or a father from marriage? That's the deepest cut you could make. A shallower one you think wouldn't past the muster? The expansion of marriage to its potential "outer boundaries" is limitless under the 14th Amendment. You're dishonest. Completely and utterly deceitful.

I believe this travesty, this willful deceit on behalf of those five Justices is why Scalia no longer walks the planet. He saw the stark and obvious tyranny right in front of his face and either the stress of it caused his body to cease functioning at his age and condition, or...that pillow was found over his head for a reason. Reports are that it bothered him deeply, to the point of obsession. Those five people simply in one sweep of the pen undid the ROCK SOLID mandates of the constitution about states' sovereignty. They just "ended" it with Obergefell. "We (just 5 unelected Justices) hereby decree that the institution of marriage is ours to define solely, arbitrarily, and alone for the 300 million US Citizens...And in so doing, we remove henceforth the previous expectation and right of children to either a mother or father in the marriage contract, FOR LIFE."

 

[Montrovant]

That quote is about changes that have occurred in marriage's history, such as the end of coverture (in which women basically lost all rights to their husbands). How does that in any way contradict anything I have said? I've never claimed that marriage has not undergone significant changes. In fact, I've argued with you because you have implied, if not outright stated, that marriage has remained static since it was first created.

Just because there have been fundamental changes in the structure of marriage in the past, just because Obergefell changes the way US law looks at marriage, does not mean that all forms of marriage suddenly become legal. That is, as usual, your imagination.

If you are correct and any form of marriage is now legal under Obergefell, why have people in alternative relationship arrangements not been legally married since the ruling?

The word was "DEEP" changes, not just changes. I'd argue that changing marriage from two to more than two is a deep change. Also, the Court gave a nod to more "DEEP" changes (what could be deeper than removing either a mother or father?) in the future by saying this:
(pages 10-11)

...guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572.

You think the Court will draw the line at "two" when they just removed a mother or a father from marriage? That's the deepest cut you could make. A shallower one you think wouldn't past the muster? The expansion of marriage to its potential "outer boundaries" is limitless under the 14th Amendment. You're dishonest. Completely and utterly deceitful.

I believe this travesty, this willful deceit on behalf of those five Justices is why Scalia no longer walks the planet. He saw the stark and obvious tyranny right in front of his face and either the stress of it caused his body to cease functioning at his age and condition, or...that pillow was found over his head for a reason. Reports are that it bothered him deeply, to the point of obsession. Those five people simply in one sweep of the pen undid the ROCK SOLID mandates of the constitution about states' sovereignty. They just "ended" it with Obergefell. "We (just 5 unelected Justices) hereby decree that the institution of marriage is ours to define solely, arbitrarily, and alone for the 300 million US Citizens...And in so doing, we remove henceforth the previous expectation and right of children to either a mother or father in the marriage contract, FOR LIFE."

The courts may well end up ruling that polygamous marriage bans are unconstitutional. However, it won't be the same reasoning as for same sex marriage because polygamous marriage does not fit within the current marriage framework. Same sex marriage does fit within the framework of two person opposite sex marriage. It only requires changing the gender involved. Polygamous marriage would require rewriting or creating new law.