2016 Election
Quote: TomGIt is not about "people loving each other" as you say. It is about what the Supreme Court ruled. The liberal justices do what they want, regardless of what the law says and they won't allow it. Do you really think Scalia and Thomas will be the ones who force the government to accept polygamy?
It will have to go thru lower and state courts first. In reality the Feds had no standing to even rule if you believe in the 10th Amendment. Polygamy will happen faster than gay marriage, which in reality took about 20 years. SCOTUS has ruled that states cannot define marriage. A clever attorney will make it happen. I can't wait, it will be a fantastic day!
Quote: AZDuffmanIt will have to go thru lower and state courts first. In reality the Feds had no standing to even rule if you believe in the 10th Amendment. Polygamy will happen faster than gay marriage, which in reality took about 20 years. SCOTUS has ruled that states cannot define marriage. A clever attorney will make it happen. I can't wait, it will be a fantastic day!
First you say that the Supreme Court didn't follow what the law says for gay marriage. Then you say the courts must accept polygamy because that's what the law says.
The courts -- most notably the Supreme Court -- just do whatever they want. And right now none of them want polygamy.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis has nothing to do with things. Different races can still biologically reproduce and even if they cannot or chose not to male/female is still physically, biologically, and spiritually/mentally a different relationship than a same-sex one.
In what way? What laws were written such that there is a substantive difference between an opposite sex or a same sex partner? I listed multiple related to having 2 people in the relationship whereas you have listed zero that require having a male and a female?
Curious to see the position that the courts no longer even bother to test laws and policies against the Constitution but rather rely on their own inherent prejudices. Wow!Quote: TomGThe courts -- most notably the Supreme Court -- just do whatever they want. And right now none of them want polygamy.
As for "none of them want polygamy," that has not been tested yet. So it is really indeterminate. At least until Ginsburg and Kagan officiate at a polyamorous ceremony.
Quote: TomGFirst you say that the Supreme Court didn't follow what the law says for gay marriage. Then you say the courts must accept polygamy because that's what the law says.
The courts -- most notably the Supreme Court -- just do whatever they want. And right now none of them want polygamy.
We do not know that they want polygamy or not. Nobody has asked. But once you say the states have no right to define marriage, they have no right to define marriage. They found this right in the 14th Amendment, underneath that dusty tape of the 1960 World Series. It was locked away so nobody knew the right existed!
Polygamy is coming. Some people will want more than one spouse. Some people will marry someone to secure more federal handouts. Smart gangsters will all marry each other so they can claim "spousal privilege." Then they can go home to their wives! All wide open in the USA!
Quote: SanchoPanzaCurious to see the position that the courts no longer even bother to test laws and policies against the Constitution but rather rely on their own inherent prejudices. Wow!
As for "none of them want polygamy," that has not been tested yet. So it is really indeterminate. At least until Ginsburg and Kagan officiate at a polyamorous ceremony.
What makes Republicans think the ruling was inherently unconstitutional. Again precedent dictated this had to be done. Loving V Virginia already established that the federal government could put limits on the laws states made in regard to marriage. If you overturn the most recent gay marriage ruling you'd have to overturn that ruling as well.
Quote: SanchoPanza
As for "none of them want polygamy," that has not been tested yet. So it is really indeterminate.
I wonder what the odds would be in a gambling market. I'll take any action on someone who wants to bet on the Supreme Court legalizing polygamy
Quote: TwirdmanIn what way? What laws were written such that there is a substantive difference between an opposite sex or a same sex partner? I listed multiple related to having 2 people in the relationship whereas you have listed zero that require having a male and a female?
I already said it. Physically, biologically, and spiritually/mentally. It is not a natural relationship. I am really not going to go thru this for the 38th time. If you cannot see even the physical differences then you are homophile-indoctrinated as are most people in the USA born since the late-1980s and I cannot undo that. When you can show me how a homosexual couple can have natural sexual relations with each other please let me know. Nothing graphic and X-rated. By "natural" I of course mean that assuming both members are healthy then reproduction can happen. I don't want to hear about any kind of deviate acts that "men and women also do." I don't want to hear about infertile couples and birth control. When you can explain how two gays of the same sex can go to a bedroom and one get pregnant, let me know then I will say it is physically the same. Until then the burden is on your side.
For crying out loud, you got the law you wanted. Time to move on. You are never, ever going to get acceptance from myself and millions of others for such a lifestyle choice. I choose to live single, I do not care who knows it or how much the law penalizes me for it. All I ask is that gays adopt the same attitude.
Quote: AZDuffmanBy "natural" I of course mean that assuming both members are healthy then reproduction can happen. I don't want to hear about any kind of deviate acts that "men and women also do." I don't want to hear about infertile couples and birth control. When you can explain how two gays of the same sex can go to a bedroom and one get pregnant, let me know then I will say it is physically the same. Until then the burden is on your side.
Marriage isn't about reproduction in the US and hasn't been for a long time. Not only are there no laws dictating that reproduction has to be a possibility of a marriage there are laws dictating that marriage can only take place if there is no possibility of reproduction, certain incest marriage laws. Given that and the ruling in Lawrence V. Texas saying states could not regulate sexual relations what legal justification is there for banning gay marriage or as you want to frame it keeping marriage between a man and a woman.
Also, are most people who support legalizing polygamy also among gay marriage supporters or gay marriage opponents?
I would have thought anyone who supported polygamy also supported gay marriage, but it seems to almost be the exact opposite. Is that just faulty perception or is there something I'm missing about why this is happening?
