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

[Silhouette]

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

OK Montrovant, tell us how, in your own words, the Court would deny someone asking for legal marriage because he said he is sexually attracted to more than one woman, it's the only way he can feel sexually satisfied...and that he has made a lifestyle out of this intimate choice...and all the women he's into are into it too? For them we could make up a word that describes titillation from imagining their husband with another wife. Probably already a word for that. Who are you to draw clear red lines on people's kinks? Once you put your dick in some guys artificial vagina (anus), do you really have room to judge another's sexual compulsions or desires & lifestyles?

C'mon. Pretend you're Kennedy and you're writing up the Opinion that denies the Browns the right to marry in all 50 states. How are you going to word it so that it doesn't conflict with Obergefell...particularly pages 7-12. Read them well, and then craft your Opinion "Justice Kennedy". I'll wait.

 

[mdk]

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

OK Montrovant, tell us how, in your own words, the Court would deny someone asking for legal marriage because he said he is sexually attracted to more than one woman, it's the only way he can feel sexually satisfied...and that he has made a lifestyle out of this intimate choice...and all the women he's into are into it too? For them we could make up a word that describes titillation from imagining their husband with another wife. Probably already a word for that. Who are you to draw clear red lines on people's kinks? Once you put your dick in some guys artificial vagina (anus), do you really have room to judge another's sexual compulsions or desires & lifestyles?

C'mon. Pretend you're Kennedy and you're writing up the Opinion that denies the Browns the right to marry in all 50 states. How are you going to word it so that it doesn't conflict with Obergefell...particularly pages 7-12. Read them well, and then craft your Opinion "Justice Kennedy". I'll wait.

The Brown family doesn't even need to sue. Polygamous marriage is already legal according to you.

Who are you draw clear red lines when it comes to someone's religious freedoms?

 

[mdk]

Should've said that ^^ before Obergefell loud and clear. Weren't you one of the choir who said people talking about the slippery legal slope were "bigots"? etc. etc....

No, you're a bigot b/c you invent wild ass fantasies just so you can smear queers.

 

[Montrovant]

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

OK Montrovant, tell us how, in your own words, the Court would deny someone asking for legal marriage because he said he is sexually attracted to more than one woman, it's the only way he can feel sexually satisfied...and that he has made a lifestyle out of this intimate choice...and all the women he's into are into it too? For them we could make up a word that describes titillation from imagining their husband with another wife. Probably already a word for that. Who are you to draw clear red lines on people's kinks? Once you put your dick in some guys artificial vagina (anus), do you really have room to judge another's sexual compulsions or desires & lifestyles?

C'mon. Pretend you're Kennedy and you're writing up the Opinion that denies the Browns the right to marry in all 50 states. How are you going to word it so that it doesn't conflict with Obergefell...particularly pages 7-12. Read them well, and then craft your Opinion "Justice Kennedy". I'll wait.

Obergefell was not about being sexually satisfied. A married couple does not have to have sex or be sexually satisfied. That you think Obergefell was about sexual satisfaction is an example of why very few people put any stock in your legal interpretations.

Polygamous relationships do not fit within the current legal framework of marriage.

I actually don't have any particular objection to polygamous marriages, so long as all of the details are worked out and it involves consenting adults.

Who said I was judging someone else's sexual desires? I don't give a rat's ass what someone's sexual desires might be in regards to legal marriage. Marriage is not about sex. Sex is usually a part of marriage, but it is not a requirement. Nor is any particular type of sex required in marriage; people are able to engage in whatever legal sexual activities they want whether married or single, although there may be a need for particular wording in a marriage contract if outside parties are to be involved.

I feel no need to try to craft an opinion, pretending to be a Supreme Court judge, based on your hilarious obsession with gays and ridiculous interpretations of various rulings and laws. You'll just have to keep waiting.

 

[Syriusly]

Should've said that ^^ before Obergefell loud and clear. Weren't you one of the choir who said people talking about the slippery legal slope were "bigots"? etc. etc....

Why is Silhouette talking to herself again?

Does she do this out loud at home too?

 

[Syriusly]

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

OK Montrovant, tell us how, in your own words, the Court would deny someone asking for legal marriage because he said he is sexually attracted to more than one woman,.

OK Silhouette- tell us in your own words- why you think that polygamous- or poyamorous marriages should be illegal.

You think that they should be illegal- GO.

 

[hazlnut]

 

[Skylar]

Should've said that ^^ before Obergefell loud and clear. Weren't you one of the choir who said people talking about the slippery legal slope were "bigots"? etc. etc....

Since Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy, what 'slippery slope' are you referring to?

 

[hazlnut]

 

[Silhouette]

Some animals eat their own shit too. A habit they adapted to under strange circumstances...

 

[Silhouette]

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

OK Montrovant, tell us how, in your own words, the Court would deny someone asking for legal marriage because he said he is sexually attracted to more than one woman, it's the only way he can feel sexually satisfied...and that he has made a lifestyle out of this intimate choice...and all the women he's into are into it too? For them we could make up a word that describes titillation from imagining their husband with another wife. Probably already a word for that. Who are you to draw clear red lines on people's kinks? Once you put your dick in some guys artificial vagina (anus), do you really have room to judge another's sexual compulsions or desires & lifestyles?

C'mon. Pretend you're Kennedy and you're writing up the Opinion that denies the Browns the right to marry in all 50 states. How are you going to word it so that it doesn't conflict with Obergefell...particularly pages 7-12. Read them well, and then craft your Opinion "Justice Kennedy". I'll wait.

********

Obergefell was not about being sexually satisfied. A married couple does not have to have sex or be sexually satisfied. That you think Obergefell was about sexual satisfaction is an example of why very few people put any stock in your legal interpretations.

Polygamous relationships do not fit within the current legal framework of marriage.

Read pages 7-8 in Obergefell. The Court discusses how not just same-sex, but also "gays and lesbians" and *drum roll* "sexual orientation"...even "intimate choices" and lifestyles accompanying them all find protection from discrimination from the states. Those paragraphs even purposefully weave and interchange all those references alternating about every other sentence. On purpose: to show they meant all of it.

So, unless you can tell us how JUST the lifestyle, intimate choices and sexual orientation of the Brown family is not qualifying under ANY of those wide-ranging qualifiers, you're going to have to write an Opinion in favor of forcing all 50 states to recognize polygamy as well. Or, dismantle Obergefell and return the decision to the states. Either or.

And then there's the matter of at least Ginsburg not being legally able to sit on Obergefell. But I'll let you play around a little longer with the lifestyle argument and see if you can't do a little better next time.

 

[mdk]

Read pages 7-8 in Obergefell. The Court discusses how not just same-sex, but also "gays and lesbians" and *drum roll* "sexual orientation"...even "intimate choices" and lifestyles accompanying them all find protection from discrimination from the states. Those paragraphs even purposefully weave and interchange all those references alternating about every other sentence. On purpose: to show they meant all of it.

So, unless you can tell us how JUST the lifestyle and sexual kinks of the Brown family is not qualifying under ANY of those wide-ranging qualifiers, you're going to have to write an Opinion in favor of forcing all 50 states to recognize polygamy as well

That must be why it is illegal to discriminate against gay people in all 50 states. Oh wait...it many states it is legal completely to do so. Please stop pretending you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. You don't.

 

[Skylar]

As with your predictions, I am comfortable placing no faith in your interpretation of court rulings.

OK Montrovant, tell us how, in your own words, the Court would deny someone asking for legal marriage because he said he is sexually attracted to more than one woman, it's the only way he can feel sexually satisfied...and that he has made a lifestyle out of this intimate choice...and all the women he's into are into it too?

Strawman. The court wouldn't deny them a marriage license because they were sexually attracted to more than one woman.

But because bigamy is illegal.

So, unless you can tell us how JUST the lifestyle, intimate choices and sexual orientation of the Brown family is not qualifying under ANY of those wide-ranging qualifiers, you're going to have to write an Opinion in favor of forcing all 50 states to recognize polygamy as well. Or, dismantle Obergefell and return the decision to the states. Either or.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation anymore than monogamy is.

Ending your entire pseudo-legal rant.

And then there's the matter of at least Ginsburg not being legally able to sit on Obergefell. But I'll let you play around a little longer with the lifestyle argument and see if you can't do a little better next time.

Which, of course, is meaningless nonsense.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Gay marriage is illegal too, in many states. The illegality of a sexual orientation doesn't mean much these days SKylar

That must be why it is illegal to discriminate against gay people in all 50 states. Oh wait...it many states it is legal completely to do so. Please stop pretending you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. You don't.

Specifically when it comes to marriage. Stop creating a diversion for Montrovant. Let him answer post #111.

 

[Skylar]

^^ Gay marriage is illegal too, in many states. The illegality of a sexual orientation doesn't mean much these days SKylar

Nope. It wasn't illegal in a single state. It simply wasn't legally recognized.

Bigamy....is actually a crime. And that would be the basis for denying that second marriage license. Not your imaginary 'sexual orientation'.

Specifically when it comes to marriage. Stop creating a diversion for Montrovant. Let him answer post #111.

Post 111 was already answered: Bigamy is a crime in every State. And polyamory isn't a sexual orientation anymore than monogomy is. You imagined it.

And the USSC isn't bound to your imagination. As the Obergefell decision should have made obvious

 

[Silhouette]

^^ So...Skylar troll, king of defending "civil rights for sexual orientation overcoming laws making it illegal!" is applauding the illegal status of polyamorists. And I'm the one walking both sides of the fence?

 

[Skylar]

^^ So...Skylar troll, king of defending "civil rights for sexual orientation overcoming laws making it illegal!" is applauding the illegal status of polyamorists. And I'm the one walking both sides of the fence?

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation anymore than monogamy is.

Remember....no court is bound to abide what you imagine. No one is.

 

[mdk]

^^ So...Skylar troll, king of defending "civil rights for sexual orientation overcoming laws making it illegal!" is applauding the illegal status of polyamorists. And I'm the one walking both sides of the fence?

The champion of religious freedoms is oddly silent when it comes to the religious freedoms of the Brown family. If you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any.

 

[mdk]

Specifically when it comes to marriage. Stop creating a diversion for Montrovant. Let him answer post #111

How does one refute your imagination? You've shown time and time again to be willfully obtuse. Even when the evidence is incontrovertible you ignore it. Just like everything that doesn't buttress your obsessive anti-gay narrative. Seek professional help.

 

[Syriusly]

Some animals eat their own shit too. A habit they adapted to under strange circumstances...

Silhouette has gotten so delusional she posts to herself.