Gay Couples:Marriage is Not a Right

@Debra Law,

Quote:

But, I'm trying . . .

0 Replies

So we have the Mormans, Muslims and traditional Africans (and Hippies) who will want polygyny . As adults they have a societal need for marriage to ensure their full legal participation and protection in today's society . Failing to allow them that participation and protection will be an infringement of their constitutionally guaranteed human rights . If you dont get that then you haven't read the court's decision and understood it .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Its you who have a problem in reading comp.

Polyangyny (all forms of multiplle spouses) where their equal protection guarantee is denied, IS ILLEGAL IN THE US> Please stop acting like a moron. There is no way that the USSC will "ok" the practice no matter what your convoluted thinking yields. Go back to your rice krispies and see what else you can learn that is more factual.

If Hutterites, Muslims, Dukhabors,Animists or HIPPIES (in the US states or Territories) want to practice it, they will be arrested if found out and be punished.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Polyangyny (all forms of multiplle spouses) where their equal protection guarantee is denied, IS ILLEGAL IN THE US

So was homosexual marriage before the ScotUS handed out its landmark ruling . Read the court decision in its entirety with commentary and then come back . Stop saying stupid things that make it clear you have no real concept of the topic .

Quote:

they will be arrested if found out and be punished.

How many a year are arrested ? They turn a blind eye to it so long as there are no other crimes involved . Are you going to go jackbooting in and take away the bread winner with how many wives and children he was supporting ? They turn a blind eye and you know it .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I know you did not read the majority decision nd minority dissent because you are such a goddam liar in everything you say. Ive got a summary of the decision so present to me the point that I would see an AHA about polygamous marriages and Ill show you the exact opposite.

IN the preamble alone it says that mrrige is the union of TWO people.. Not three , or the population of Geelong.

You have nothing to offer except gaseous emenations.
Go find someone who is easily bluffed .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

It is not a logical fallacy and your smart arse approach is wearing a bit thin. Google the actual finding by SCotUS and READ it !! It is based on the legal rights on marriage being denied to an individual when those rights are essential to living in a modern society with the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution . It can not be withheld from polygamists who as adults want to enjoy the same freedoms they have been guaranteed . Now as a matter of constitutional law, it is verbalised bullshit but if we are to live with it then it is clear marriage rights can not be withheld from polygamists .

I read the decision. You created a strawman. The court did not say that a person may enter into multiple marriages. You must legally dissolve your first marriage before you may marry your second spouse, and so on.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I know you did not read the majority decision nd minority dissent because you are such a goddam liar in everything you say.

You dont lie do you Gomer, you just never make a mistake even when you do...

Quote:

present to me the point

Detailed post following .

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

The court did not say that a person may enter into multiple marriages.

That's correct, it didnt . My argument is that is next on the agenda based on their decision . See detailed post following .

0 Replies

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Quote:

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and eduation.

Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.

Quote:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

It will be found that an adults right to enter into any reationship involving marriage is guaranteed by the rights of an individual and that religious rights involving marriage both support polygyny .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

You seem to have problems reading or comprehending what you are reading.

Quote:

the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union

I wonder how you are going to explain how 3 people can be in a two-person union.

1 Reply

@parados,

I like you parados . You never give me any trouble but just fall for the obvious . The Judge was well aware that everything else he was going to say would point straight at the rights of polygamists, so he tried to forestall that discussion . He changed the traditional reading of the law as a man and a woman to a couple . Nice try on his part, but rather obvious . He has changed marriage . Now lets see them close the Pandora's box .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Of course, it was obvious to everyone that is why only you could see it.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Of course, it was obvious to everyone that is why only you could see it.

???? Yep. You've had a bad headknock . Is that your wit ? Needs work .

0 Replies

@Ionus,

first: let´s let it clear: my brain is perfectly ok and exceedintly dotated
second: heterosexual didn´t invent marriage. It exists in every culture all over the world since we don´t know exactly when and it´s a civil contract that states rights and obligations between two (or several people) regarding properties, money or whatever woods and roles were important and created in the marriage nest. Just like the concept of "property" when you sell/buy a property a contract it´s held between the parts to state the different aspects and conditions of the transmision
That´s what called it Marriage Rights... the definition of marriage itself: gives rights on the other´s health issues, properties and several other aspects of life.
Denying homosexuals to held that civil contract between adults would be as denying them the right to by a property with the same condicions and rights heterosexual do
homosexual shouldn´t be the ones calling that civil contract something different than marriage cause that name has been used worldwide and for ages to define it. You want to be completely differentiated from gay marriage when talking about yours... you change your marriage name.
i won´t ever bother with you comparing isis to homosexuals but i´ll let you know that your rights remain untouched unless you consider having the same rights as your fellow citizens as an invasion in you self-given priviledge social status

0 Replies

Gay Couples:Marriage is Not a Right

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know