"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[KNB]

Abe Lincoln's riddle: If I call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four. Just because I call a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

If marriage means "anything anyone wants it to mean," then, sure man&man or woman&woman is a marriage. But that's just pretending that the word doesn't mean what it has always meant.

So when the Bible talks about this man or that man having 5 wives or a 100 wives, which definition of marriage was that?

Was that one of the definitions of marriage that cannot be changed, lest we commit some sort of grievous crime of 'redefining' marriage?

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

 

[Steinlight]

So when the Bible talks about this man or that man having 5 wives or a 100 wives, which definition of marriage was that?

Was that one of the definitions of marriage that cannot be changed, lest we commit some sort of grievous crime of 'redefining' marriage?

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

It is an issue to me, you ******* bigot. Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who they can and cannot love?

I want my harem codified into law through marriage licenses.

 

[Silhouette]

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

The US Supreme Court is in the business of anticipating setting unwieldy future precedents in the current decisions it is pondering today. Polygamy between more than two consenting adults is off the table why exactly? Because more than two people consenting to marriage is "weird" or "icky" to the majority? More weird and icky than two men using the anus as an artificial vagina?

If sex has nothing to do with it then gays will be happy to know they can already legally marry...the opposite gender. And if love is the issue, then why can't a sister and brother both adults who love each other get married?

Because it's "icky"? You clearly don't understand the true meaning of marriage equality if you object to any of these adult-consenting arrangements.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it shouldn't be in the courts at all. Equal protection does not apply as marriage between opposite sex and same sex couples is not equal. This is an issue for the state legislatures to figure out, as the constitution is neutral on the topic.

Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.

The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?

The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause

So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage,multi partner marrage,brother sister marrage, child marrage,marrage to animals?????????

The state cannot prohibit same-sex couples to access marriage law, which is why such laws are being invalidated by the courts.

As for multi-partner marriage, brother/sister marriage, child marriage, marriage to animals, and the like, laws prohibiting such unions are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone (or everything) equally; there’s no particular class of persons being singled-out for exclusion, and consequently no equal protection rights violation exists in those situations.

And more importantly, marriage law is currently capable of accommodating same-sex couples, where that’s not the case for multi-partner marriage, brother/sister marriage, child marriage, or marriage to animals. Because no marriage law exists for any of those configurations, there is no violation of the right to due process.

Disallowing same-sex couples to enter into marriage law they’re eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and to single-out same-sex couples for exclusion to marry absent a rational basis and proper legislative end violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Pop23]

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

The US Supreme Court is in the business of anticipating setting unwieldy future precedents in the current decisions it is pondering today. Polygamy between more than two consenting adults is off the table why exactly? Because more than two people consenting to marriage is "weird" or "icky" to the majority? More weird and icky than two men using the anus as an artificial vagina?

If sex has nothing to do with it then gays will be happy to know they can already legally marry...the opposite gender. And if love is the issue, then why can't a sister and brother both adults who love each other get married?

Because it's "icky"? You clearly don't understand the true meaning of marriage equality if you object to any of these adult-consenting arrangements.

The dynamics of Polygamy is far closer to the dynamics of the "Loving" decision. So clearly it should become law first.

 

[Silhouette]

The dynamics of Polygamy is far closer to the dynamics of the "Loving" decision. So clearly it should become law first.

If that's true, you just admitted that polygamy is a done deal the moment the ink is dry on gay marriage if the Court agrees to set the precedent of majority-rejected behaviors as having equal protection to race, religion and country of origin in the 14th.

So yes, the Court will most absolutely be considering polygamy and other consenting-adult arrangments for marriage when they are weighing forcing gay marriage on the 50 separate states against their majority-rule on behaviors. Think that will fly in Utah? Legalized polygamy with this Court?

I think even Kennedy is going to have serious issues with that.

 

[Pop23]

How many states still had interracial marriage laws on the books when Loving was ruled on?

Don't know, don't care. "Loving" allowing any male to marry any female (incest etc. excluded) is what's important. You have that right as well

Now how is that got anything to do with men marrying men.

It has everything to do with it, as it’s part of the same 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same as opposite sex couples. To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional, just as it is un-Constitutional to deny an interracial couple access to marriage law they are also eligible to enter into.

Interracial marriage is the same as any other. Simply qualify by having a male and a female. Same applies to all.

I can't wait for the state to send me my license to operate all modes of transportation based on my obtaining an automobile license.

 

[Steinlight]

Although a strong argument can be made for the applicability of the equal protection clause, the due process clause may be the shortest path to legalized gay marriage.

The Supreme Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial classifications,..." So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage?

The Gay Marriage Debate and the Due Process Clause

So if a state can not ban interracial marriage, how can it ban gay marriage,multi partner marrage,brother sister marrage, child marrage,marrage to animals?????????

The state cannot prohibit same-sex couples to access marriage law, which is why such laws are being invalidated by the courts.

As for multi-partner marriage, brother/sister marriage, child marriage, marriage to animals, and the like, laws prohibiting such unions are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone (or everything) equally; there’s no particular class of persons being singled-out for exclusion, and consequently no equal protection rights violation exists in those situations.

And more importantly, marriage law is currently capable of accommodating same-sex couples, where that’s not the case for multi-partner marriage, brother/sister marriage, child marriage, or marriage to animals. Because no marriage law exists for any of those configurations, there is no violation of the right to due process.

Disallowing same-sex couples to enter into marriage law they’re eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and to single-out same-sex couples for exclusion to marry absent a rational basis and proper legislative end violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

So make laws accommodating me. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

 

[Pop23]

The dynamics of Polygamy is far closer to the dynamics of the "Loving" decision. So clearly it should become law first.

If that's true, you just admitted that polygamy is a done deal the moment the ink is dry on gay marriage if the Court agrees to set the precedent of majority-rejected behaviors as having equal protection to race, religion and country of origin in the 14th.

So yes, the Court will most absolutely be considering polygamy and other consenting-adult arrangments for marriage when they are weighing forcing gay marriage on the 50 separate states against their majority-rule on behaviors. Think that will fly in Utah? Legalized polygamy with this Court?

I think even Kennedy is going to have serious issues with that.

How could the courts deny it?

I'm thinking to see if our entire City should just get married. Talk about one big happy family.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abe Lincoln's riddle: If I call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four. Just because I call a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

If marriage means "anything anyone wants it to mean," then, sure man&man or woman&woman is a marriage. But that's just pretending that the word doesn't mean what it has always meant.

So when the Bible talks about this man or that man having 5 wives or a 100 wives, which definition of marriage was that?

Was that one of the definitions of marriage that cannot be changed, lest we commit some sort of grievous crime of 'redefining' marriage?

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Whether one ‘supports’ polygamy or not is irrelevant, as marriage law isn’t written to accommodate three or more partners. Marriage law is written to accommodate two partners – same- or opposite-sex.

 

[Pop23]

So when the Bible talks about this man or that man having 5 wives or a 100 wives, which definition of marriage was that?

Was that one of the definitions of marriage that cannot be changed, lest we commit some sort of grievous crime of 'redefining' marriage?

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Whether one ‘supports’ polygamy or not is irrelevant, as marriage law isn’t written to accommodate three or more partners. Marriage law is written to accommodate two partners – same- or opposite-sex.

You sorta sound like a bigot. Why is a number important?

 

[Steinlight]

So when the Bible talks about this man or that man having 5 wives or a 100 wives, which definition of marriage was that?

Was that one of the definitions of marriage that cannot be changed, lest we commit some sort of grievous crime of 'redefining' marriage?

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Whether one ‘supports’ polygamy or not is irrelevant, as marriage law isn’t written to accommodate three or more partners. Marriage law is written to accommodate two partners – same- or opposite-sex.

The Constitution used to accommodate slavery, state and federal law used to accommodate racial discrimination, so you are making a meaningless statement that covers up your bigotry. You are covering up the fact that you support denying consenting adults who love each other the right to marry.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

It is an issue to me, you ******* bigot. Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who they can and cannot love?

I want my harem codified into law through marriage licenses.

Where is the government telling anyone who they can or cannot love? I know many people not married that love each other.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steinlight]

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

It is an issue to me, you ******* bigot. Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who they can and cannot love?

I want my harem codified into law through marriage licenses.

Where is the government telling anyone who they can or cannot love? I know many people not married that love each other.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

homophobe.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you support granting marriage licenses to polygamists than right? After all, if they love each other, and are consenting adults...

Whether one ‘supports’ polygamy or not is irrelevant, as marriage law isn’t written to accommodate three or more partners. Marriage law is written to accommodate two partners – same- or opposite-sex.

You sorta sound like a bigot. Why is a number important?

Funny how they want to change the definition but only the way they want it, they are intolerant, even in their claim they are tolerant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except polygamy isn't the issue. Neither is the issue bestiality, pedophilia, or even sexual intercourse. Two-person same-sex marriage is the issue, and marriage can very easily come to mean "two people" instead of "man and woman".

If corporations are people now, should a corporate merger be called a marriage? If so, are gay businesses allowed to get married if they call it a corporate merger?

The US Supreme Court is in the business of anticipating setting unwieldy future precedents in the current decisions it is pondering today. Polygamy between more than two consenting adults is off the table why exactly? Because more than two people consenting to marriage is "weird" or "icky" to the majority? More weird and icky than two men using the anus as an artificial vagina?

If sex has nothing to do with it then gays will be happy to know they can already legally marry...the opposite gender. And if love is the issue, then why can't a sister and brother both adults who love each other get married?

Because it's "icky"? You clearly don't understand the true meaning of marriage equality if you object to any of these adult-consenting arrangements.

The dynamics of Polygamy is far closer to the dynamics of the "Loving" decision. So clearly it should become law first.

Incorrect.

Loving concerned denying an interracial couple access to marriage law that the couple was eligible to participate in, a union of two equal partners, where race is irrelevant, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, a union of two equal partners, where gender is irrelevant, is likewise un-Constitutional.

Polygamy has nothing to do with marriage or the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law.

 

[Steinlight]

The US Supreme Court is in the business of anticipating setting unwieldy future precedents in the current decisions it is pondering today. Polygamy between more than two consenting adults is off the table why exactly? Because more than two people consenting to marriage is "weird" or "icky" to the majority? More weird and icky than two men using the anus as an artificial vagina?

If sex has nothing to do with it then gays will be happy to know they can already legally marry...the opposite gender. And if love is the issue, then why can't a sister and brother both adults who love each other get married?

Because it's "icky"? You clearly don't understand the true meaning of marriage equality if you object to any of these adult-consenting arrangements.

The dynamics of Polygamy is far closer to the dynamics of the "Loving" decision. So clearly it should become law first.

Incorrect.

Loving concerned denying an interracial couple access to marriage law that the couple was eligible to participate in, a union of two equal partners, where race is irrelevant, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in, a union of two equal partners, where gender is irrelevant, is likewise un-Constitutional.

Polygamy has nothing to do with marriage or the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law.

So slavery was ok because the constitution allowed for it?

Please, your arguments are pathetic hear. They are pathetic because they are based in thinly veiled bigotry, you bigot.

 

[Grandma]

Jesus did not Condone Sin... You know this... Go forth and Sin no more... Adultery and Homosexuality are Sins... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus change that Fact.



peace...

So going by that it should be illegal to eat pork, all boys should be circumsized, all women of childbearing age should be forced into a week-long vacation every month, work on Sunday would be a felony, and wine would have to be served at all parties.

I'm glad government laws aren't based on religious edicts here.

 

[Steinlight]

Jesus did not Condone Sin... You know this... Go forth and Sin no more... Adultery and Homosexuality are Sins... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus change that Fact.



peace...

So going by that it should be illegal to eat pork, all boys should be circumsized, all women of childbearing age should be forced into a week-long vacation every month, work on Sunday would be a felony, and wine would have to be served at all parties.

I'm glad government laws aren't based on religious edicts here.

No, it is much better that we are governed by your juvenile liberal predilections

 

[Pop23]

Whether one ‘supports’ polygamy or not is irrelevant, as marriage law isn’t written to accommodate three or more partners. Marriage law is written to accommodate two partners – same- or opposite-sex.

You sorta sound like a bigot. Why is a number important?

Funny how they want to change the definition but only the way they want it, they are intolerant, even in their claim they are tolerant.

I actually find it kind of amusing.

In the entire history of the world, not one child has EVER been born from same sex couplings. The joining of male and female components, including polygamy is responsible for 100% of all living and dead human beings. 100%

We have the ACA as law because a few in our country would not participate in buying health insurance. Seems to me the baby business makes the entire economy go round, and a few won't participate. Makes a guy think.