Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

LOL- the same could have been said in Loving v. Virginia- and was said.

You want to argue that the U.S. Constitution can be over-ridden by the popular vote in a state- and the South learned in the 1960's that is not the case.

 

Which of course carefully fails to mention that (1) gays and lesbians regularly become parents,who (2) do as well as any other set of parents in raising families, according to every metric examined over large samples.

But it is kind of nice for a wider audience here to see the techniques of deliberate cherry-picking, quote-mining, misinterpretation, careful omission, changing the subject, and outright falsehoods.

The courts have asked the states for any compelling reason to deny a basic right to a whole class of people, when doing so demeans and injures those people while benefiting nobody. So far, no state has been able to come up with a single one - and the states have lost every case.

 

Well that is not the most asinine claim you have ever made here on PF.

It has nothing to do with these cases or the U.S. Constitution though.

Individuals in the United States have a fundamental right to marriage. States can only overcome that right by demonstrating a specific and overwhelming need- they didn't do so when they outlawed marriage for men who owed child support- and they didn't where they made same gender marriage illegal.

 

Unless the popular vote restricts ownership of guns. THEN the Constitution obviously overrides the people.

 

Actually if you read the judges decision, you would find out why you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL....absolutely not- I know gay couples who have done and are doing exactly those things.

You just keep making stuff up.

 

In Wisconsin, state law only allows first cousins to marry IF they prove that they are sterile and unable to procreate together.

Which means that your claims is just as false as every other time you have made it.

 

It's has to be legalized in order for us to allow consenting adults to marry whoever they love.... just like gay marriage. The setbacks for the Liberals are going to be enormous! We cannot say two men or two women have the right to marriage, but 3 women and one man do not (or vice versa). It's just garbage.

All the weak Beta male Liberals are going to be short on women. The Alphas will take their share and the Beta's former share. As polygamy becomes more acceptable, like gay marriage women will flock to the alphas. It's inevitable. Fortunately for these Liberal Beta Males they will have each other and can have gay marriage for companionship instead of being alone. A few of them will settle for the bottom of the barrel when it comes to women or be dominated by women that keep multiple Beta males. Many Beta males will have to share a woman if they choose not to be gay.

Not only will Liberal men be at a loss for wives in a big way, the woman's rights movement is going to be set back HUGE. As many very young women (18-22) will be snatched up by successful dominant men in their 40's-50's. The young men who have yet to achieve, and cannot provide like those that have found success, will find themselves in a difficult way to find a woman. As older successful men have 3,4,5 wives, these younger men will be hard pressed to find a wife.

Gay marriage has other ramifications that I have forwarded before. I am all for it. You can check my posts forever as I have supported Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption, but being a realist and logical this means Polygamy should be legal as well.

Weak kneed Liberal men will be left with each other or a dominant woman that will take control of them a few others like them.

It should be interesting to witness.

 

Try to label marriage equality a "special exception/right" all you like.

You've lost.

 

Single mothers get tax breaks.

Individuals of certain ethnic backgrounds get tax breaks.

Churches get tax breaks.

Corporations get tax breaks.

And again attempting to label marriage equality as "special rights" is just a terrible smoke screen attempt.

 

Keep trying to obfuscate.

Changes nothing and your argument is still invalid.

 

And there you go again, trying to pretend that gays don't raise kids.

You can lie and pretend and wish it away all you like. But again, that's why you've lost.

 

Actually you're completely wrong, and must have zero knowledge of our legal system.

To outlaw something you. Just be able to prove detrimental effect. That's why 19 states now have legal gay marriage, because the opposition could in no way prove detriment in allowing it.

 

Let's be realistic here, if you ever use the terms alpha or beta male...you do not belong to the former category.

- - - Updated - - -

As many times as you repeat this...it will never be true.

But keep trying to sell that lie!

 

If living with a female housemate results in me paying more tax than if I married her, then I'm opposed to that difference in tax. Individuals should have their tax rates slashed accordingly. Hell, give the couples a tax cut too. Abolish taxation entirely.

 

I have no qualms with changing the tax code so that all people are taxed on an individual rate. No tax breaks for married couples is fine by me.

Doesn't change the need for marriage equality at all.

 

Not at all, I'm pretty straight forward. You're the one who's grasping at straws(as is the Court)

Which strongly referenced hetrosexual marriage, in fact all rulings bore that in mind. Only in Liberal la-la land can you reject a thesis, then attempt to use said thesis for your support.

If they wanted to proclaim marriage universal, they could have added gay protections to DOMA, they chose not to. That's because the Court ruled that States cannot interject into marriage. Put another way: Marriage as an 'institution' is seen as Patriarchal, most women wouldn't want marriage 'recognized' as a right.
Margret Sanger admitted as much. Marriage is DEAD.

They've done so, contrary to Constitutional law. Marriage is neither fundamental, nor a right. The usage of the 14th Amendment clearly defines it as a "privilege".

With the exception of Marriage, when has the Court ever granted political rights? Technically Slavery, but Abe Lincoln made the push before the Courts did. There's no other notable time of judicial 'activism'(As there shouldn't be).

Justice Scalia is often mocked for his Windsor dissent by intellectually deficient Liberals, but he was quite prophetic about his warning, as was Sir Thomas Jefferson.

The Courts are a mockery of themselves, a sham unto the Republic.

 

I'm am a marriage abolitionist I guess. When a group is being provided a special privilege you have two options: also provide that privilege to the individuals not currently receiving it, or take it away from those who are. I choose the latter.

Not in the sense that I want to do away with marriage, on the contrary - committing to another person is a great idea. I just have no interest in giving this force of law. Let people sort this stuff out themselves, if they want more stringent terms let them put that in the marriage contract. Perhaps appoint an arbitrator whose say is final, or explicitly detail terms themselves. Or choose from a template contract. Whatever they want.

 

Ignorant fool logic. Nobody is denying gays raise kids. The benefit of marriage is putting both the mother and father in the home with the child because that childs birth obligates no one other than the women who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so. Because the most frequent alternative to this arrangement is the single mother on her own with absent or unknown fathers. Without the mother and father the child has only the hope that someone else might voluntarily step forward to assume those obligations. NONE of this is relevant in the case of a gay couple with kids. None of these benefits would be gained in the case of a gay couple. Not to mention that a gay couple with a child requires seperating the child from either its biological father, mother or both. Not to mention that more households are made up of two closely related adults with children than there are homes with a gay couple and children. But you want special treatment for homosexuals because they are just oh so special.

 

Well, that would be treating the gays the same as everybody else. They wouldnt stand for that. They need special treatment because they are so special

 

Agreed. Windsor held that the federal government cant dictate to states their definition of marriage(even though they had not and instead only defined who was eligible for federal benefits) and must respect how the states choose to define it. AND NOW we have the result of the federal government dictating to states how to define marriage.

 

That would require extending marriage to all who are prohibited from marriage. Not just the gay couples. Gay marriage is UNequal by design. Cant win more "respect" and "dignity" for gays if they were treated like everyone else, they need special treatment because they are all just so damned special.

 

Where in the hell did you come up with that little tidbit. Care to cite ANY published source with this same principle. What tax break or governmental entitlement could ever be limited to some while outlawed to others?

 

No obfuscation here. These are facts.

 

Oh about 1100 or so to same sex couple from the fed that does not include the state. Of course in your eyes I guess on straight couple deserve benefits while others do not. This has been posted here a couple million of times and well you refuse to acknowledge them. Their is a very good reason why the right is losing in every court on this. Maybe it is time to kick some states out of the Union and let them fend for themselves. They are not American so why do we need them.