Will Gay Marraige Set a Precedent For Polygamy?

Not really an issue for Gay Marriage, since they're already more stable, insofar as on average, Gays make more than the population at large. So they got the Sub Zeros, drive Beemers, can spend 100 grand adopting from a surrogate. They'll be fine.

So no need for you and the rest of the White Trash enjoying life in single-wides down at Lazy Acres mobile home park to fret over homos not having stable homes. They're good, and even have stable homes in Cancun, to boot.

 

A stable union (home) between persons in society is just as valid for same-gender couples as it is for opposite-gender couples. There is no fundamental difference between the two. The benefits so society of monogomous unions that provide stability in society goes far beyond just raising children. A "married" couple, for example, is less likely to live in poverty because two people can live better than one as both can earn income and the "cost of living" is spread over two incomes and not just one.

 

You are correct. But sometimes the homophobia affecting certain individuals in our society, doesn't allow them to even begin to 'see' and 'understand' what you're saying.

But people like that are literally DYING OFF.

 

Our supreme law of the land was intelligently designed to be both race and gender neutral from inception; should that be one sign, omen, and portent regarding Article 4, Section 2.

- - - Updated - - -

Bills of attainder, even on a class of persons is not right retained by the several States of our Union.

 

Homosexuals have more might to thusly make it so. I accept this. Are you done?

 

The opponents of equality obsess over sex - other folks' sex.

Sex is not required under any marriage contract.

Sex is common without a marriage contract.

A straight person can become a parent biologically or via adoption.

A gay person can become a parent biologically or via adoption.

Couples being equally eligible to enter into marriage contracts has nothing to do with groups of people, children, animals, and/or inanimate objects entering into marriage contracts.

No jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex couples' marriages has ever recognized polygamy.

No jurisdiction that recognizes polygamy has ever recognized same-sex couples' marriages.

No demonstrable harm is inflicted upon others by ending gender discrimination in marriage.

Unless they can contrive an intelligent argument, they'd be better served by keeping their irrational discriminatory inclinations private.

 

I am only insisting that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."; as specifically enumerated in Article 4, Section 2.

 

Sooooo then why the special treatment for homosexual and heterosexual couples? An answer would be nice.

 

Might makes right.

 

Section 2 only deals with how a state treats citizens from other states and has no bearing on the gay marriage debate. If a state recognizes gay marriage in their state, they couldnt refuse to recognize a gay marriage from another state. If on the other hand a state does not recognize gay marriage in their state, they wouldnt have to recognize one from another state. You like parroting constitutional phrases without a clue as to their meaning.

 

No, I think our laws on equal protection need to be adhered to. I dont like it when they cast them aside to appease their favorite identity politics group of the day. Constituional rights belong equally to all citizens.

 

The constitution has no meaning.

 

Because they are the ones that have asked for it.

 

The constitution has no intelligence, it is inanimate. It is unintelligible gibberish.

 

You dont have a clue. Theyve tried to pass the Equal Rights Amendment on gender for decades and it hasnt made it yet. And the 19th amendment was added back in the 1920s. Parrot

 

It would end gender discrimination, just as race discrimination was ended.

Your interest in legalizing polygamy is a cause you are welcome to pursue. Why don't you?

Why are you in such a tizzy over equality for couples? How are you afraid you would be adversely impacted?

 

Constitutional rights aren't created because someone asked for them. Black people have asked for a lot of rights in our country but they are granted to people of all races.

 

You asked why homos are the exception. And it is because they asked for them. That is why the debate occurred at all.

Grandmother/mother marriage has not occurred because there are not mother/grandmother couples asking for it.

Examples?

 

I have no interest in legalizing polygamy, next strawman please. And equality for couples would entail marriage for couples made up of any two consenting adults but thes courts are only making special exceptions for gay couples.

 

Of course you do, how else are we to establish the paternity of children born to the second, third, etc. wives? That establishment of paternity is the primary purpose for marriage, is it not?

 

Any blacks rights issue. Brown v board of education. Blacks were the only race being segregated and asked not to be and now it's against the law to segregate people of any race. Any two people can form a stable home. Heterosexual and homosexual couples are just two of the several possibilities including non sexual couples. Sex has no rational relation to the stated governmental interest of forming stable homes.

 

no really, nothing you posted had anything to do with what I posted.

- - - Updated - - -

strawman. I never mentioned anything about stable homes.

 

It does but judges have become skilled at producing tortured twisted interpretations to make it mean whatever they would like it to mean.

 

We can all have our opinions on it, Dix. But the opinions that become the actual law, come from SCOTUS. Just how it is.

 

As opposed to YOU, who knows the exact meaning and intent in all possible fact situations, right?

Still, your point is essentially correct. Judges decide, probably within seconds of exposure to a given case, which way they will decide. The rest of the time consists of going through the motions while "discovering" that the law supports their preferences. Judges do this because they are human, and we ALL do this.