Page 4 of 55 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #31
    Magic!

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    24,594

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Nope. Bigots on the left will try to stop this from happening, but their bigotry will fail. When my sister and I show up looking for a marriage license is when their heads will explode.
    Actually, after a lifetime of hearing all the stories of that sort of thing coming out of the South, we're pretty blasé about it by now.

  2. #32
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    I'll be very interested to see how this plays out. There is definitely a point to the idea that polyamorous marriage might be just fine, and that expanding marriage rights maybe should include that. The idea has a point, even if it is being cynically made by pouting homophobes who don't actually mean it. On the other hand, there's a lot of legal untangling to be done before it can proceed. And maybe it oughtn't to be protected because it so often results in the abuse of women. I'd really like to hear the arguments. Arguments made by professionals and scholars, of course, and not sad theocrats who can't stand that society won't cater to their backwards religion and that religious liberty doesn't just mean their liberty, but everyone else's, too.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,027

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Agree, I don't see how it could be...however don't underestimate the SCOTUS in their ability to legislate from the bench.

    They will find a way to bend the law to suit their whims, don't you doubt that
    How about the people of this country start finding their backbones, and making the Supreme Court watch its step? Even if they have not done it in a very long time, our representatives can still impeach and try justices. Congress can make laws that frustrate or reverse the effect of Supreme Court decisions. Congress can even remove the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, over cases involving a particular issue. A president can refuse to enforce a decision. States can refuse to comply with a decision.

    All these checks are already available to us. And if we don't think they are enough, we can follow Sen. Cruz' suggestion, and amend the Constitution to provide for judicial retention elections, as twenty states have done by law.

  4. #34
    Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    6,256

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    How about the people of this country start finding their backbones, and making the Supreme Court watch its step? Even if they have not done it in a very long time, our representatives can still impeach and try justices. Congress can make laws that frustrate or reverse the effect of Supreme Court decisions. Congress can even remove the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, over cases involving a particular issue. A president can refuse to enforce a decision. States can refuse to comply with a decision.

    All these checks are already available to us. And if we don't think they are enough, we can follow Sen. Cruz' suggestion, and amend the Constitution to provide for judicial retention elections, as twenty states have done by law.
    As soon as a Justice commits a crime, displays mental health issues, or acts in a way that violates his oath to uphold the Constitution, then by all means...impeach him. Otherwise, obey the law.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  5. #35
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    I want to wish them luck, but this isn't a Constitutional issue like gay marriage is. This should be settled in the legislatures.

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,027

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    As soon as a Justice commits a crime, displays mental health issues, or acts in a way that violates his oath to uphold the Constitution, then by all means...impeach him. Otherwise, obey the law.
    I do not consider flaccid acceptance of unlawful dictates to be obeying the law. And since the Constitution does not specifically define what the "good behavior" that determines tenure for the justices means, I don't see why Congress could not make it mean pretty much whatever the people want. After all, if the people want to impeach a president, their representatives in the House can make just about anything into a "high crime or misdemeanor"--just look at the way the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was contrived.

    I would say that all five of the justices in the majority in Obergefell violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. I have read and studied hundreds of Supreme Court decisions, and I understand the nature and history of substantive due process pretty well. This decision is as lawless and arbitrary a dictate as I have ever seen from the Court. It has no authority whatever in the Constitution, but is just a matter of five judges illegitimately substituting their preferred policy for the votes of tens of millions of Americans. It does not deserve to be obeyed, any more than Dred Scott v. Sandford did.

    No reason to trouble with impeachment, when simple failure by states to comply would do the job.

  7. #37
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,271

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    I suspect that after the crazies and the activists and the crazy activists are done with this thing the whole concept of marriage is going to be stricken from law....which, when you get right down to it, is fine with me.
    Can it be stricken from law anymore? The Court has decided people have a fundamental right to a government-recognized marriage.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    6,256

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I do not consider flaccid acceptance of unlawful dictates to be obeying the law. And since the Constitution does not specifically define what the "good behavior" that determines tenure for the justices means, I don't see why Congress could not make it mean pretty much whatever the people want. After all, if the people want to impeach a president, their representatives in the House can make just about anything into a "high crime or misdemeanor"--just look at the way the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was contrived.

    I would say that all five of the justices in the majority in Obergefell violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. I have read and studied hundreds of Supreme Court decisions, and I understand the nature and history of substantive due process pretty well. This decision is as lawless and arbitrary a dictate as I have ever seen from the Court. It has no authority whatever in the Constitution, but is just a matter of five judges illegitimately substituting their preferred policy for the votes of tens of millions of Americans. It does not deserve to be obeyed, any more than Dred Scott v. Sandford did.

    No reason to trouble with impeachment, when simple failure by states to comply would do the job.
    Oh, really? Exactly which "people" are you talking about? Apparently NOT the majority of citizens who support the decision, (which includes myself). Nor the minority of citizens who, as with any other decision of SCOTUS, might not agree with it but are willing to accept and adapt to it as the price of citizenship.

    You must mean that OTHER minority of people, like yourself, who think either your religious-based objections OR non-religious personal prejudices make your claim that this decision is "unlawful," true?

    IMO you do NOT understand constitutional law, despite your claim to have read "hundreds of decisions," because despite the regretfully flowery rhetoric used by Justice Kennedy in his Majority decision, if opposite sex marriages want to retain all the legal privileges and immunities of marriage granted to them no matter where they reside in the USA, then same-sex couples legally married in one state MUST have those same privileges and immunities protected in ALL states too.

    That is a perfect application of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment under the Incorporation Doctrine.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  9. #39
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    46,121

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash Farley View Post
    Why not. How about marrying your horse?
    Horses can't sign legal contracts.

  10. #40
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    46,121

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    So that's what marriage is all about? It's just about a bunch of legal "benefits"? Then why was everyone so opposed to civil unions?
    1) Separate but equal
    2) Not Actually Equal

    That's all marriage is to the government. As for what my hypothetical marriage might mean to you, I refer you to my previous question. Who cares what you think?

Page 4 of 55 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •