Marriage Equality Does Not Exist In Any State

[Skylar]

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.

Show us the Obergefell ruling saying this. You'll find you made it up.

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..

Says you, citing whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you want to imagine.

Back in reality, your imagination has no legal relevance. Nor effects the outcome of any case.

Get used to the idea.

 

[AceRothstein]

How many times is the OP going to be allowed to create the same thread?

 

[Skylar]

How many times is the OP going to be allowed to create the same thread?

So far, 45 times.

Quite literally.

The OP is what mental illness looks like.

 

[Silhouette]

yes, the topic scares you. However, the 14th Amendment being all-inclusive as to sexual lifestyles is a new topic. Tell me how the 14th allows discrimination based on any consenting adult(s)' right to marry?

 

[Skylar]

yes, the topic scares you. However, the 14th Amendment being all-inclusive as to sexual lifestyles is a new topic. Tell me how the 14th allows discrimination based on any consenting adult(s)' right to marry?

Nope. Its the same topic we've debunked dozens of times before.

The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy. Let alone authorizes it. You're quite insane.

 

[jillian]

"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.

Thread 45 on your object of hopeless obsession.

Sigh......Obergefell doesn't find that 'any life style arrangement' is marriage. That's you citing whatever voices you hear. And we can't.

he should really just come out of the closet already.

 

[Syriusly]

yes, the topic scares you. However, the 14th Amendment being all-inclusive as to sexual lifestyles is a new topic. Tell me how the 14th allows discrimination based on any consenting adult(s)' right to marry?

Nope. Its the same topic we've debunked dozens of times before.

The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy. Let alone authorizes it. You're quite insane.

Obergefell accomplished one thing- and one thing only: It established that same gender couples have the equal legal right to marry as opposite gender couples- and that state laws prohibiting such marriages are unconstitutional- nothing more- nothing less.

The 14th Amendment was not changed- not altered- nor was this the first time the Supreme Court has determined that a State marriage law was unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell accomplished one thing- and one thing only: It established that same gender couples have the equal legal right to marry as opposite gender couples- and that state laws prohibiting such marriages are unconstitutional- nothing more- nothing less.

The 14th Amendment was not changed- not altered- nor was this the first time the Supreme Court has determined that a State marriage law was unconstitutional.

Which simultaneously cannot stand when "gay marriage" functionally-strips children of the hope of a father or mother for life. (See: New York vs Ferber 1982; where it was found an adult constitutional right cannot be to a child's physical or psychological detriment..)

The 14th Amendment indeed was not changed. It was added to though in such a way as making only "gay" (one of several sexual lifestyles) a "legal marriage". But the Legislature did not do that adding. So, there's a problem. Another problem is that the 14th can't tell other sexual lifestyles "no, not you, just gays". And you know that.

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell accomplished one thing- and one thing only: It established that same gender couples have the equal legal right to marry as opposite gender couples- and that state laws prohibiting such marriages are unconstitutional- nothing more- nothing less.

The 14th Amendment was not changed- not altered- nor was this the first time the Supreme Court has determined that a State marriage law was unconstitutional.

Which simultaneously cannot stand when "gay marriage" functionally-strips children of the hope of a father or mother for life. (See: New York vs Ferber 1982; where it was found an adult constitutional right cannot be to a child's physical or psychological detriment..)

Says you. And you saying that a supreme court ruling 'cannot stand' is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. You're the same hapless soul that told us that unless 'all children' had a representative a supreme court hearing it was a 'mistrial'.

Which is just a layer cake of confused ignorance.

Remember, Ferber never so much as mentions marriage. Let alone finds that same sex marriage harms children. That's you citing you.

And you're nobody. See how that works?

 

[Syriusly]

The 14th Amendment indeed was not changed. It was added to thought.

.

The 14th Amendment was not changed nor added to.

Same gender couples have the same right to marriage in the United States as opposite marriage couples.

That is what Obergefell found- that is why in all 50 states there is marriage equality for couples

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell accomplished one thing- and one thing only: It established that same gender couples have the equal legal right to marry as opposite gender couples- and that state laws prohibiting such marriages are unconstitutional- nothing more- nothing less.

The 14th Amendment was not changed- not altered- nor was this the first time the Supreme Court has determined that a State marriage law was unconstitutional.

Which simultaneously cannot stand whent.

But it does stand.

In all 50 states.

You are just delusional.

 

[Silhouette]

But it does stand.

In all 50 states...You are just delusional.

You continually fail to comment on marriage equality, which is the topic of this thread. All you keep saying is "gay marriage stands in all 50 states". That isn't marriage equality while other consenting adults are legally banned from marrying.

Let me know when you're ready to join the conversation..

 

[EverCurious]

I'm not sure what the issue is with polygamy honestly. Is this a religion thing? It's certainly not about kids...

Personally, I've always felt that polygamy should be legal and that what we as a country did to the Mormon's isn't proper - forcing them to change their religion in order to become a state and all. While I think it's an outdated and /wrong/ decision on the part of our founders, I also understand the absolute legal nightmare it would be to modern law...

 

[Skylar]

But it does stand.

In all 50 states...You are just delusional.

You continually fail to comment on marriage equality, which is the topic of this thread. All you keep saying is "gay marriage stands in all 50 states". That isn't marriage equality while other consenting adults are legally banned from marrying.

Says you, citing your imaginary version of the Obergefell ruling.

But when you look at the *actual* ruling, it doesn't say anything that you do.

How do you account for the wild discrepancy for what you attribute to Obergefell...and what it actually says?

 

[Skylar]

I'm not sure what the issue is with polygamy honestly. Is this a religion thing? It's certainly not about kids...

Personally, I've always felt that polygamy should be legal and that what we as a country did to the Mormon's isn't proper - forcing them to change their religion in order to become a state and all. While I think it's an outdated and /wrong/ decision on the part of our founders, I also understand the absolute legal nightmare it would be to modern law...

That right there would likely be a valid reason to avoid legalization. Its uselessly complicated and poses questions that our legal system has no answers for.

Which might explain why Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone authorizes it.

 

[Syriusly]

But it does stand.

In all 50 states...You are just delusional.

You continually fail to comment on marriage equality,..

Same gender couples are now treated equally before the law with opposite gender couples- hence legal marriage equality.

Something you oppose.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not sure what the issue is with polygamy honestly. Is this a religion thing? It's certainly not about kids...

Personally, I've always felt that polygamy should be legal and that what we as a country did to the Mormon's isn't proper - forcing them to change their religion in order to become a state and all. While I think it's an outdated and /wrong/ decision on the part of our founders, I also understand the absolute legal nightmare it would be to modern law...

That right there would likely be a valid reason to avoid legalization. Its uselessly complicated and poses questions that our legal system has no answers for.

Which might explain why Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone authorizes it.

Just a straw man the bigots drag out whenever they get tired of their other straw men.

They have no actual argument against marriage equality.

 

[Skylar]

But it does stand.

In all 50 states...You are just delusional.

You continually fail to comment on marriage equality,..

Same gender couples are now treated equally before the law with opposite gender couples- hence legal marriage equality.

Something you oppose.

Same gender couples are treated the same as opposite gender couples in relation to polygamy as well.

Its still equally illegal for everyone.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm not sure what the issue is with polygamy honestly. Is this a religion thing? It's certainly not about kids...

Personally, I've always felt that polygamy should be legal and that what we as a country did to the Mormon's isn't proper - forcing them to change their religion in order to become a state and all. While I think it's an outdated and /wrong/ decision on the part of our founders, I also understand the absolute legal nightmare it would be to modern law...

That right there would likely be a valid reason to avoid legalization. Its uselessly complicated and poses questions that our legal system has no answers for.

Which might explain why Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone authorizes it.

Yeah, and while I do disagree with the idea of it being illegal, I totally understand that. Plus really there are not a heck of a lot of polygamists wanting this to change so I see no reason to push for legalizing it frankly. Of course... if we're going to be taking in a bunch of Islamic folks, we might just have to revisit "ignoring" the red-tape issue heh

 

[Silhouette]

Nice dance around the point bro. If even one family of polygamists wants to marry but can't (The Browns of Brown v Utah) that's a travesty and violation of the spirit and faith of the 14th Amendment..that you just used to make "gay marriage" "legal"..