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

[Syriusly]

according to your definition- every straight male in high school is a 'polyamorist'

Is that supposed to negate polyamory as a sexual orientation, if a lot of people are polyamorous? So numbers of people with a given sexual orientation affect whether the orientation is legitimate or not? I don't see your point here.

Well to be fair- no one sees your point in this entire thread.

Nor of your invented sexual orientation of polyamory

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Exactly- if the court ever rules in favor of polygamous marriage, it will not be because of Obergefell- it will certainly reference Loving, Zablocki, and Obergefell- but it will not be because of any of them.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Exactly- if the court ever rules in favor of polygamous marriage, it will not be because of Obergefell- it will certainly reference Loving, Zablocki, and Obergefell- but it will not be because of any of them.

To be fair, some that argue against Obergefell also think Loving, Zablocki and Turner v Safely were all "bad" rulings too. They're wrong, but consistent.

 

[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."

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.

In what fucking way does gay marriage fit the framework of marriage which up until last Summer ALWAYS provided BOTH a mother and father???????????????????????????????????????????????! You have enshrined "two" as sacred and pulled your pants down and took a shit on children needing the assurance in marriage (remember the reason it was invented?) of BOTH a female and male role model in it. Mother and father was the essence of marriage, the nucleus, it's very framework. And suddenly two guys with no mother in sight or two women with no father in sight are "within the framework of...marriage?

You're either mentally deranged or willfully deceitful. Which is it?

And speaking of deceit. Remember the "there's NO slippery slope!!" chants from LGBT?

Exactly- if the court ever rules in favor of polygamous marriage, it will not be because of Obergefell- it will certainly reference Loving, Zablocki, and Obergefell- but it will not be because of any of them.

And in just over one calendar year from gay marriage getting passed, we have a gay person saying "gee, I guess this means we might have polygamy marriage soon".

I wish I'd thought of that and brought it up before Obergefell. Oh, that's right, tons of people thought of that and brought it up before Obergefell. And it's not going to end there. Because a "broad interpretation" of "individual choices" and an open-ended "come one, come all" invitation by 5 unelected Justices in DC means the states no longer have one single ounce of say in who can or cannot be married in their sovereign regions.

 

[Montrovant]

Again, if polygamy bans are ruled unconstitutional, it will not be, "Because Obergefell!".

Yes, same sex marriage fits within the framework of marriage that had already existed. As I've said, multiple times, the only change really necessary to marriage contracts would be substituting a different gender where required. No new laws needed to be created, no additions to the already established marriage contracts needed to be made. Polygamy, on the other hand, does not fit within that already existing framework. There is no set of rules for more than two people in a marriage. Custody, alimony, division of property, taxes, all of that would need to be adjusted or created to have legal polygamy. That doesn't mean it can't happen, just that the argument of having equal access to existing law does not apply as it did in Obergefell.

The justices didn't decree that marriage was theirs to define solely. They ruled on the constitutionality of the case brought before them, as is their mandate. You happen to disagree with their decision, but that doesn't invalidate their job.

When you call someone mentally deranged or willfully deceitful, it is the height of irony.

Oh, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Syriusly has said he is a married heterosexual.

 

[Silhouette]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

 

[Montrovant]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

That is irrelevant to my point. I can't say I really expect you to understand that.

 

[Dragonlady]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

That is irrelevant to my point. I can't say I really expect you to understand that.

Silhouette is absolutely unhinged on the topic of gay marriage and gay adoption.

 

[Silhouette]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

That is irrelevant to my point. I can't say I really expect you to understand that.

Your point was that eliminating the number "two" from marriage was 'way out there' and not part of the foundation of marriage. I pointed out that eliminating either a mother or father from marriage was way out there and not part of the foundation of marriage. Historically and practically, which one of us is more right? Which was more of the foundation of marriage? The number two? Or a mother and father for children?

 

[Montrovant]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

That is irrelevant to my point. I can't say I really expect you to understand that.

Your point was that eliminating the number "two" from marriage was 'way out there' and not part of the foundation of marriage. I pointed out that eliminating either a mother or father from marriage was way out there and not part of the foundation of marriage. Historically and practically, which one of us is more right? Which was more of the foundation of marriage? The number two? Or a mother and father for children?

No, that was your straw man.

My point was that two person same sex marriage was easily integrated into the existing two person opposite sex marriage laws. All that was needed was to change the gender words in some places.

Polygamy, on the other hand, would require additions to existing law or entirely new law. There is no law to deal with how taxes are filed with multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with how property is distributed between multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with who has the power to make medical decisions amongst multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with custody amongst multiple spouses.

As usual you have ignored (or been unable to grasp) the actual point and have instead created your own to argue against.

 

[Silhouette]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

That is irrelevant to my point. I can't say I really expect you to understand that.

Your point was that eliminating the number "two" from marriage was 'way out there' and not part of the foundation of marriage. I pointed out that eliminating either a mother or father from marriage was way out there and not part of the foundation of marriage. Historically and practically, which one of us is more right? Which was more of the foundation of marriage? The number two? Or a mother and father for children?

No, that was your straw man....My point was that two person same sex marriage was easily integrated into the existing two person opposite sex marriage laws. All that was needed was to change the gender words in some places....Polygamy, on the other hand, would require additions to existing law or entirely new law. There is no law to deal with how taxes are filed with multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with how property is distributed between multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with who has the power to make medical decisions amongst multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with custody amongst multiple spouses. ...As usual you have ignored (or been unable to grasp) the actual point and have instead created your own to argue against.

So now civil rights are dependent upon 'ease of assimilation'?? I thought civil rights were dependent upon disenfranchised people (like the children of polygamists) getting the same privileges and immunities of everyone else? Have I mentioned before how deceitful you are? You're hypocrisy is so all over the map it's hard to keep up. Perhaps that's by design, speaking of strawmen..

 

[Syriusly]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. .

But Polygamous marriage does provide a mother and a father- if that family has children.

Your arguments against 'gay marriage' are arguments for polygamous marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

That is irrelevant to my point. I can't say I really expect you to understand that.

Your point was that eliminating the number "two" from marriage was 'way out there' and not part of the foundation of marriage. I pointed out that eliminating either a mother or father from marriage was way out there and not part of the foundation of marriage. Historically and practically, which one of us is more right? Which was more of the foundation of marriage? The number two? Or a mother and father for children?

No, that was your straw man....My point was that two person same sex marriage was easily integrated into the existing two person opposite sex marriage laws. All that was needed was to change the gender words in some places....Polygamy, on the other hand, would require additions to existing law or entirely new law. There is no law to deal with how taxes are filed with multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with how property is distributed between multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with who has the power to make medical decisions amongst multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with custody amongst multiple spouses. ...As usual you have ignored (or been unable to grasp) the actual point and have instead created your own to argue against.

So now civil rights are dependent upon 'ease of assimilation'?? I thought civil rights were dependent upon disenfranchised people (like the children of polygamists) getting the same privileges and immunities of everyone else? Have I mentioned before how deceitful you are? You're hypocrisy is so all over the map it's hard to keep up. Perhaps that's by design, speaking of strawmen..

LOL- how ironic from the poster who repeatedly calls for actions for 'the children's sake' actions which would specifically harm the children of gay parents.

 

[Montrovant]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

That is irrelevant to my point. I can't say I really expect you to understand that.

Your point was that eliminating the number "two" from marriage was 'way out there' and not part of the foundation of marriage. I pointed out that eliminating either a mother or father from marriage was way out there and not part of the foundation of marriage. Historically and practically, which one of us is more right? Which was more of the foundation of marriage? The number two? Or a mother and father for children?

No, that was your straw man....My point was that two person same sex marriage was easily integrated into the existing two person opposite sex marriage laws. All that was needed was to change the gender words in some places....Polygamy, on the other hand, would require additions to existing law or entirely new law. There is no law to deal with how taxes are filed with multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with how property is distributed between multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with who has the power to make medical decisions amongst multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with custody amongst multiple spouses. ...As usual you have ignored (or been unable to grasp) the actual point and have instead created your own to argue against.

So now civil rights are dependent upon 'ease of assimilation'?? I thought civil rights were dependent upon disenfranchised people (like the children of polygamists) getting the same privileges and immunities of everyone else? Have I mentioned before how deceitful you are? You're hypocrisy is so all over the map it's hard to keep up. Perhaps that's by design, speaking of strawmen..

What hypocrisy? I made a point that same sex marriage was easily integrated into existing marriage law. That fits with the argument that same sex couples should not be denied equal access to marriage laws, because you don't really have to change those laws. With polygamy, it would not be simply equal access as new law would need to be created. I have pointed out examples of where current marriage law does not cover a polygamous relationship.

Do you know what a strawman is? I did not create or change an argument to refute.

 

[Silhouette]

No, two men do not provide a mother and father. Two women do not provide a mother and father. The deepest cut to the definition of marriage has already been made. A cut to the number two is a laughable nick compared to the torpedo gay marriage was to the word and institution of marriage itself which literally meant "a steady mother and father for children" up until just a year or so ago.

That is irrelevant to my point. I can't say I really expect you to understand that.

Your point was that eliminating the number "two" from marriage was 'way out there' and not part of the foundation of marriage. I pointed out that eliminating either a mother or father from marriage was way out there and not part of the foundation of marriage. Historically and practically, which one of us is more right? Which was more of the foundation of marriage? The number two? Or a mother and father for children?

No, that was your straw man....My point was that two person same sex marriage was easily integrated into the existing two person opposite sex marriage laws. All that was needed was to change the gender words in some places....Polygamy, on the other hand, would require additions to existing law or entirely new law. There is no law to deal with how taxes are filed with multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with how property is distributed between multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with who has the power to make medical decisions amongst multiple spouses. There is no law to deal with custody amongst multiple spouses. ...As usual you have ignored (or been unable to grasp) the actual point and have instead created your own to argue against.

So now civil rights are dependent upon 'ease of assimilation'?? I thought civil rights were dependent upon disenfranchised people (like the children of polygamists) getting the same privileges and immunities of everyone else? Have I mentioned before how deceitful you are? You're hypocrisy is so all over the map it's hard to keep up. Perhaps that's by design, speaking of strawmen..

What hypocrisy? I made a point that same sex marriage was easily integrated into existing marriage law. That fits with the argument that same sex couples should not be denied equal access to marriage laws, because you don't really have to change those laws. With polygamy, it would not be simply equal access as new law would need to be created. I have pointed out examples of where current marriage law does not cover a polygamous relationship.

Do you know what a strawman is? I did not create or change an argument to refute.

Easily assimilated into exactly what part of marriage law the "two" part? Or the "man and woman" (father/mother) part? Because if it's the latter, it not only did not easily integrate, it usurped, shattered and destroyed existing marriage law to the great and proximate peril of children.

 

[Silhouette]

But Polygamous marriage does provide a mother and a father- if that family has children.

Your arguments against 'gay marriage' are arguments for polygamous marriage.

Yes, polygamy marriage is less damaging to children by far because it still provides a mother and father for them for life in the contract.

 

[Syriusly]

But Polygamous marriage does provide a mother and a father- if that family has children.

Your arguments against 'gay marriage' are arguments for polygamous marriage.

Yes, polygamy marriage is less damaging to children by far because it still provides a mother and father for them for life in the contract.

The only reason you have provided to be against gay marriage is the supposed damage that children receive from not having a mother and father in their lives.

Polygamous marriage provides a mother and a father.

Why are you against polygamous marriage?

A different standard?

Hypocrisy?

 

[Silhouette]

The only reason you have provided to be against gay marriage is the supposed damage that children receive from not having a mother and father in their lives....Polygamous marriage provides a mother and a father...Why are you against polygamous marriage?...A different standard?

Watered down father contact with more children than one man can effectively father-parent by having multiple wives. I've already answered that in another post. You like to spam, don't you? Reduced or no contact with a father (or mother) is unacceptable as a legal institution. Children deserve better in marriage contracts.

 

[Montrovant]

The only reason you have provided to be against gay marriage is the supposed damage that children receive from not having a mother and father in their lives....Polygamous marriage provides a mother and a father...Why are you against polygamous marriage?...A different standard?

Watered down father contact with more children than one man can effectively father-parent by having multiple wives. I've already answered that in another post. You like to spam, don't you? Reduced or no contact with a father (or mother) is unacceptable as a legal institution. Children deserve better in marriage contracts.

Yep, it's other people that need to control their spamming!

 

[Syriusly]

The only reason you have provided to be against gay marriage is the supposed damage that children receive from not having a mother and father in their lives....Polygamous marriage provides a mother and a father...Why are you against polygamous marriage?...A different standard?

Watered down father contact with more children than one man can effectively father-parent by having multiple wives. I've already answered that in another post. You like to spam, don't you? Reduced or no contact with a father (or mother) is unacceptable as a legal institution. Children deserve better in marriage contracts.

But a divorce results in a watered down- reduced contact with the mother or father. And yet divorce is completely legal and acceptable as a legal institution.

How is a polygamous marriage with children- worse for children- than a divorce between two parents with children?