Marriage Equality Does Not Exist In Any State

[Luddly Neddite]

"Marriage Equality" defined: the ability of adults to marry whom they wish.

Polygamists and incest adults cannot be married to the ones they want to be and consent to be with. Ergo, there is no marriage equality in any state.

What there is, is a quasi-legal status of JUST gay marriage where the Court's Five decided that JUST this majority-repugnant sexual lifestyle gets special class protections. Using the 14th Amendment, ironically. The 14th Amendment says "no discrimination". So, either gay marriage in Obergefell was not and cannot be legal using the 14th rationale, or ALL adults may marry whomever they want of any lifestyle arrangement.

The arguments cast out for consumption by the LGBT blogger machine is "polygamists etc. can fight for their own rights to marry. Gay is a separate issue".

My rebuttal: According to the 14th there can be no adults left out of lifestyle rights (even when repugnant) when it comes to equality.

Discuss.

"Marriage Equality" defined: the ability of adults to marry whom they wish.

Says who?

 

[Fueri]

The ship has sailed on this issue.

I propose we trade gay marriage for gun rights and both sides just call it a day.....

 

[Silhouette]

"Marriage Equality" defined: the ability of adults to marry whom they wish.

Says who?

What part of EQUALITY don't you understand? Gays argued that because they "love" each other and want to be together as consenting adults, they should be allowed to marry. You can't pick and choose which lifestyles consenting adults who want to marry each other can or cannot marry. If one lifestyle can marry, they all can...or else there is no "marriage equality".

You know this. To claim you don't is utterly dishonest. Gay marriage exclusively (cutting other lifestyle's out of the picture) is in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

"Marriage Equality" defined: the ability of adults to marry whom they wish.

Says who?

What part of EQUALITY don't you understand? Gays argued that because they "love" each other and want to be together as consenting adults, they should be allowed to marry. You can't pick and choose which lifestyles consenting adults who want to marry each other can or cannot marry. If one lifestyle can marry, they all can...or else there is no "marriage equality".

You know this. To claim you don't is utterly dishonest. Gay marriage exclusively (cutting other lifestyle's out of the picture) is in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The state had no vested interest in deciding which type of marriage they endorse. How can the state justify recognizing your relationship as valid and a gay relationship not valid

 

[the_human_being]

There has never existed any equality in marriage. The woman has always received the preferential treatment under the Law. She always got the gold mine while her husband got the shaft.

 

[Skylar]

"Marriage Equality" defined: the ability of adults to marry whom they wish.

Says who?

What part of EQUALITY don't you understand? Gays argued that because they "love" each other and want to be together as consenting adults, they should be allowed to marry. You can't pick and choose which lifestyles consenting adults who want to marry each other can or cannot marry. If one lifestyle can marry, they all can...or else there is no "marriage equality".

Says who?

Again, you're characterization of the 'argument of gays' is you citing yourself. What the courts are 'allowed to do' is you citing yourself. Your conclusion is you citing yourself.

Where does the law actually come into this? Because so far your only source is you. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

There has never existed any equality in marriage. The woman has always received the preferential treatment under the Law. She always got the gold mine while her husband got the shaft.

'Always', huh? You may want to look at the history of marriage.

 

[the_human_being]

There has never existed any equality in marriage. The woman has always received the preferential treatment under the Law. She always got the gold mine while her husband got the shaft.

'Always', huh? You may want to look at the history of marriage.

Calm down now. That was meant as a joke. My wife is in control of everything we have though. It's HER car but it's OUR truck.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Of course there is equality. Any man can marry the woman of his choice; Any woman can marry the man of her choice. That other stuff is known as "perversion".

And a woman can marry a woman. Or a man can marry a man.

In 50 of 50 States.

Evil permeates the land.

 

[Skylar]

Of course there is equality. Any man can marry the woman of his choice; Any woman can marry the man of her choice. That other stuff is known as "perversion".

And a woman can marry a woman. Or a man can marry a man.

In 50 of 50 States.

Evil permeates the land.

Unless it isn't.

 

[Silhouette]

The state had no vested interest in deciding which type of marriage they endorse. How can the state justify recognizing your relationship as valid and a gay relationship not valid

Are you serious? States ALWAYS had a vested interest in incentivizing marriage: to keep a mother and father for children together! States knew and have known for thousands of years that sons without fathers and daughters without mothers suffer. This is why they dangled out tax breaks for marrieds. What does a state get out of two (or more) adults shacking up merely for the sake of shacking up? Nada.

Nice strawman by the way. Either all adults can marry whomever they want or states may regulate who may and who may not for reasons of their own. So, polygamy is already legal according to Obergefell. Interestingly, whenever gays chimed in about polygamy before they snuck Obergefell across the plate with their pocket Justices, their main complaint was how polygamy would affect the children involved. Yet they don't care a whit that gay marriage strips a child of either a mother or father for life. That's cool with them.

 

[Syriusly]

"Marriage Equality" defined: the ability of adults to marry whom they wish.

Polygamists and incest adults cannot be married to the ones they want to be

You have every right to go argue your case to marry your son, or have three husbands in court if you believe your rights are being violated.

Meanwhile, in all 50 states, same gender couples now have equal rights with opposite gender couples- no matter how much you hate the idea of equal rights.

 

[Syriusly]

"Marriage Equality" defined: the ability of adults to marry whom they wish.

Polygamists and incest adults cannot be married to the ones they want to be and consent to be with. Ergo, there is no marriage equality in any state.

What there is, is a quasi-legal status of JUST gay marriage where the Court's Five decided that JUST this majority-repugnant sexual lifestyle gets special class protections. Using the 14th Amendment, ironically. The 14th Amendment says "no discrimination". So, either gay marriage in Obergefell was not and cannot be legal using the 14th rationale, or ALL adults may marry whomever they want of any lifestyle arrangement.

The arguments cast out for consumption by the LGBT blogger machine is "polygamists etc. can fight for their own rights to marry. Gay is a separate issue".

My rebuttal: According to the 14th there can be no adults left out of lifestyle rights (even when repugnant) when it comes to equality.

Discuss.

On a related note: Italians not keen on legalizing gay unions. They had an enormous rally in Rome a week ago that was against gay unions, but the press more or less chose not to cover it.

Oh, the gay union proposal will still likely pass according to various sources, but the “righteous” (imo) opposition is fervent in their beliefs as well. I really like how one of the organizers put it so succinctly. Funny, but poignant.

“A man and a woman form a marriage,” Gandolfini said. “The others are alchemy.”


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thousands protest Italy plan to permit same-sex unions

By Associated Press January 30, 2016

ROME — Tens of thousands of people opposed to gay rights rallied Saturday in Rome’s Circus Maximus against legislation that would permit civil unions for same-sex couples and grant them legal recognition as families. (EDIT: Tens of thousands? The estimates are 300,000 minimum to well over one million.)

Massimo Gandolfini, organizer of Saturday’s “Family Day” protest, told the crowd that the legislation now in the Senate needs to be defeated.

“A man and a woman form a marriage,” Gandolfini said. “The others are alchemy.”

The coalition government of Premier Matteo Renzi is pushing for the legislation granting civil unions, including the right of inheritance, to receive the pension of a deceased partner, or to make medical decisions about a partner in hospital. But the provision to permit homosexuals to adopt the biological children of their partner is the most hotly contested, even within the coalition.

Cabinet ministers expressed dissent during the rally.

Interior Minister Angelino Alfano sent his support to the protesters via a Twitter message. Environment Minister Gian Luca Galletti attended the protest, saying he supported the civil unions but not the so-called “step-child adoption” clause…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/thousands-protest-italy-plan-to-permit-gay-unions-adoptions/2016/01/30/78f97864-c75c-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html

Those crazy Italians....meanwhile- their Catholic brethren in Ireland voted in favor of marriage equality

Ireland legalizes gay marriage in historic vote

 

[Syriusly]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

The sun still rises, people are not marrying sheep and the OP is still pissed

Yes, but polygamists aren't able to legally marry: which is now a violation.

LOL- but you also say that Obergefell is void for gay marriage- and now you say it is valid for Polygamy?

Neither Obergefell or Loving changed the 14th Amendment- and neither miraculously made other marriages suddenly legal.

 

[Syriusly]

The state had no vested interest in deciding which type of marriage they endorse. How can the state justify recognizing your relationship as valid and a gay relationship not valid

Are you serious? States ALWAYS had a vested interest in incentivizing marriage: to keep a mother and father for children together! States knew and have known for thousands of years that sons without fathers and daughters without mothers suffer. This is why they dangled out tax breaks for marrieds. What does a state get out of two (or more) adults shacking up merely for the sake of shacking up? Nada.
.

'states' have only existed in our country for a little over 200 years. As a married person, believe me, the state doesn't actually incentivize marriage with tax breaks- if I married my wife the day before I died, she would get most of what 'tax breaks' a married couple gets- a shared estate.

It is obvious that you have never been married, never had any children, and have no clue what marriage is- and what the benefits to society marriage provides.
For anyone who has actually been married, and has actually had kids, it is obvious that the tax benefits regarding kids are allocated as they should be- to parents who are raising kids- while married couples have minimal tax benefits- most of the benefits of being married are the legal protections provided by marriage- legal protections for your spouse.

Of course States could offer more 'incentives' for marriage- considering the declining marriage rate, and increasing divorce rate- perhaps they should- but those incentives are not linked to having kids- and certainly could be- IF that is what the State was trying to do.

But as the courts have noted- the States not only don't care whether married couples have children or not- they will give those benefits to those married couples that they require not to have any children.

Your argument failed repeatedly in the courts- now you are just lying.

 

[Silhouette]

LOL- but you also say that Obergefell is void for gay marriage- and now you say it is valid for Polygamy?

Neither Obergefell or Loving changed the 14th Amendment- and neither miraculously made other marriages suddenly legal.

Obergefell cannot compel states to incentivize the systematic deprivation to children of either a mother or father for life. Correct. But if YOU claim it is valid and binding law, then polygamy is also immediately legal. Because the 14th cannot play favorites when the judicial changes the Constitution.

In what I just wrote are a host of reasons Obergefell can be undone. Take your pick.

 

[Skylar]

The state had no vested interest in deciding which type of marriage they endorse. How can the state justify recognizing your relationship as valid and a gay relationship not valid

Are you serious? States ALWAYS had a vested interest in incentivizing marriage: to keep a mother and father for children together! States knew and have known for thousands of years that sons without fathers and daughters without mothers suffer. This is why they dangled out tax breaks for marrieds. What does a state get out of two (or more) adults shacking up merely for the sake of shacking up? Nada.

Nice strawman by the way. Either all adults can marry whomever they want or states may regulate who may and who may not for reasons of their own. So, polygamy is already legal according to Obergefell. Interestingly, whenever gays chimed in about polygamy before they snuck Obergefell across the plate with their pocket Justices, their main complaint was how polygamy would affect the children involved. Yet they don't care a whit that gay marriage strips a child of either a mother or father for life. That's cool with them.

Nope. The strawman is yours. As the argument isn't 'all adults can marry whomever they want'. That's your strawman.

The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. That's your strawman.

And of course, same sex marriage doesn't 'strip a child of either a mother or a father'. That's your strawman. Denying same sex parents marriage doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents.

Which hurts those children. And you know it hurts those children. You've already admitted it.

 

[Skylar]

LOL- but you also say that Obergefell is void for gay marriage- and now you say it is valid for Polygamy?

Neither Obergefell or Loving changed the 14th Amendment- and neither miraculously made other marriages suddenly legal.

Obergefell cannot compel states to incentivize the systematic deprivation to children of either a mother or father for life. Correct. But if YOU claim it is valid and binding law, then polygamy is also immediately legal. Because the 14th cannot play favorites when the judicial changes the Constitution.

Obergefell can however, compel states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. And to recognize marriage certificates issued in other states for same sex couples.

All your 'polygamy' babble is just you citing your typical pseudo-legal gibberish. As the Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone authorizes it.

In what I just wrote are a host of reasons Obergefell can be undone. Take your pick.

You just wrote a host of your imagination. Which is gloriously irrelevant to the law.

Remember, you saying what the court can and can't do is meaningless. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

You have every right to go argue your case to marry your son, or have three husbands in court if you believe your rights are being violated.

Meanwhile, in all 50 states, same gender couples now have equal rights with opposite gender couples- no matter how much you hate the idea of equal rights.

I wouldn't need to, because your group citing the 14th as the reason for "marriage equality" based on a sexual lifestyle, means that ANY sexual lifestyle may now legally marry. There is no petition needed. I could walk right up to a clerk's office as a polygamist and demand the right to marry several people and there is NOTHING they could do to constitutionally block me. In fact, I've often wondered why the GOP hasn't encouraged some polygamists to do just that...and right away too... Wonder what the population of voters would think if a polygamy case was on its way up and plastered all over the news using your 14th citations as a platform to declare that polygamy is already legal?

Seems that type of exposure would do the dems just a wee bit of damage right about 2016..

 

[Syriusly]

You have every right to go argue your case to marry your son, or have three husbands in court if you believe your rights are being violated.

Meanwhile, in all 50 states, same gender couples now have equal rights with opposite gender couples- no matter how much you hate the idea of equal rights.

I wouldn't need to, because your group citing the 14th as the reason for "marriage equality" based on a sexual lifestyle, means that ANY sexual lifestyle ..

Obergefell never mentions a 'sexual lifestyle'- it is about marriage, and equal protection.

If you want to go to court to argue you can marry your father- you have the right to do so- but until you get a court to agree with you- you still cannot legally marry your father.