[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Lisa]

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. So, yes, any conflict of law is relevant since it is up to our supreme law of the land to resolve them.

It seems that you must be simply trolling. Doing things "naturally where you come from"?

How many times do you need someone to explain this basic concept to you?

The fact that you support polygamy doesn't mean that is should be legal or that Reynolds v. US is a violation of your supposed rights/privileges. There are always groups of people who oppose any law or SCOTUS decision so your idea would remember the government unable to function if any disagreement rendered any government action unconstitutional.

 

[Rich2018]

Daniel, do you indeed support polygamy ?

 

[Lisa]

Daniel, do you indeed support polygamy?

The SCOTUS said in Reynolds that polygamy has never been a right, either secular or religious right, so banning it cannot be in conflict with a person's rights or privileges. The Reynolds' decision was over 100 years ago and there has never been a serious attempt to revisit or repeal it.

 

[danielpalos]

How many times do you need someone to explain this basic concept to you?

The fact that you support polygamy doesn't mean that is should be legal or that Reynolds v. US is a violation of your supposed rights/privileges. There are always groups of people who oppose any law or SCOTUS decision so your idea would remember the government unable to function if any disagreement rendered any government action unconstitutional.

lol. nothing but diversion?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, do you indeed support polygamy ?

Congress has no authority over private marriage.

 

[danielpalos]

The SCOTUS said in Reynolds that polygamy has never been a right, either secular or religious right, so banning it cannot be in conflict with a person's rights or privileges. The Reynolds' decision was over 100 years ago and there has never been a serious attempt to revisit or repeal it.

A legal error and appeal to ignorance of the law for political purposes?

 

[Lisa]

A legal error and appeal to ignorance of the law for political purposes?

Where is the legal error in the decision? Where is the secular legal precedent that says that polygamy is a right in the US? The fact that you disagree with it doesn't mean that there was an error because if it did then the SCOTUS would be unable to rule on anything because there is always a winner and a loser.

 

[Lisa]

Congress has no authority over private marriage.

How many times do you need to be told that marriage is a secular contract between 2 people and the state, so the government is required to have authority? Matrimony is religious and Congress has no authority.

 

[danielpalos]

Where is the legal error in the decision? Where is the secular legal precedent that says that polygamy is a right in the US? The fact that you disagree with it doesn't mean that there was an error because if it did then the SCOTUS would be unable to rule on anything because there is always a winner and a loser.

How can you appeal to that much ignorance? Where is the express power over marriage and how does your point of view conform to our First Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

How many times do you need to be told that marriage is a secular contract between 2 people and the state, so the government is required to have authority? Matrimony is religious and Congress has no authority.

No, it isn't. It merely need Record that Private Act for full faith and credit purposes.

 

[Lisa]

No, it isn't. It merely needs Record that Private Act for full faith and credit purposes.

They have the power to determine who can get married and who benefits from the rights of marriage such as tax benefits, visitation and the 5th amendment right not to testify against your spouse.

Do you seek to deny non-religious people from marrying because of your own religious beliefs? Do you want to have arranged marriages to 12 years old as multiple wives?

 

[Lisa]

How can you appeal to that much ignorance? Where is the express power over marriage and how does your point of view conform to our First Amendment.

What supposed First Amendment right are you referring to?

 

[Rich2018]

The SCOTUS said in Reynolds that polygamy has never been a right, either secular or religious right, so banning it cannot be in conflict with a person's rights or privileges. The Reynolds' decision was over 100 years ago and there has never been a serious attempt to revisit or repeal it.

I know the banning of polygamy was a condition of admitting Utah to the union, there's nothing in the Constitution forbidding though ?


Either way it is hardly a good, non religious, argument against same sex marriage.

 

[Lisa]

I know the banning of polygamy was a condition of admitting Utah to the union, there's nothing in the Constitution forbidding though ?


Either way, it is hardly a good, nonreligious, argument against same sex marriage.

The Constitution does not mention marriage. It was left up to the state but the federal government felt the ened to ban it as a way to limit the power of the LDS church in the new state. This was before the incorporation of the 1st amendment so Utah was a Mormon state.

 

[Rich2018]

The Constitution does not mention marriage. It was left up to the state but the federal government felt the ened to ban it as a way to limit the power of the LDS church in the new state. This was before the incorporation of the 1st amendment so Utah was a Mormon state.

It didn't really end the Church of LDS power but it did help to abolish one of its worst practices.

 

[danielpalos]

They have the power to determine who can get married and who benefits from the rights of marriage such as tax benefits, visitation and the 5th amendment right not to testify against your spouse.

Do you seek to deny non-religious people from marrying because of your own religious beliefs? Do you want to have arranged marriages to 12 years old as multiple wives?

Not under our federal form of Government.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

There can be no compelling reason to deny or disparage our natural rights or any privileges and immunities resulting.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

What supposed First Amendment right are you referring to?

are you trolling? We only have one, First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[danielpalos]

I know the banning of polygamy was a condition of admitting Utah to the union, there's nothing in the Constitution forbidding though ?


Either way it is hardly a good, non religious, argument against same sex marriage.

Seems more like Judicial activism.

In the midst of the American Civil War, Republican majorities in Congress were able to pass legislation meant to curb the Mormon practice of polygamy. One such act was the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.[5] The act targeted the LDS Church's control of Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and thus it was not rigorously enforced. The Mormons, believing that the law unconstitutionally deprived them of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion, chose to ignore the law.

Wikipedia

Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late-19th century

Controversy and opposition by the United States government

 

[Lisa]

are you trolling? We only have one, First Amendment.

How does that have anything to do with being prohibited from regulating secular marriage? Our religious rights are limited to being protected from the state limiting your right to believe or not to believe in a god or gods, and to worship/pray as you choose. Prohibiting state recognition of a polygamous marriage is not one of our rights. You can take part in a religious ceremony of a polygamous marriage but those are recognized by the state as being legitimate because we are limited to marrying only one person of either gender. Maybe Mormons and bisexuals can petition for Reynolds v. US to be revisited.

I would have flunked you if you were in my poli-sci class.

 

[Lisa]

Seems more like Judicial activism.

The fact that the Supreme Court performs their duty of constitutional interpretation when they rule on any duty is judicial activism in the eyes of many because they made a decision that one of the parties did not agree with.

 

[danielpalos]

How does that have anything to do with being prohibited from regulating secular marriage? Our religious rights are limited to being protected from the state limiting your right to believe or not to believe in a god or gods, and to worship/pray as you choose. Prohibiting state recognition of a polygamous marriage is not one of our rights. You can take part in a religious ceremony of a polygamous marriage but those are recognized by the state as being legitimate because we are limited to marrying only one person of either gender. Maybe Mormons and bisexuals can petition for Reynolds v. US to be revisited.

I would have flunked you if you were in my poli-sci class.

lol. you have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Where does our federal Government get any authority to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities based on marriage contract(s)?

 

[Lisa]

lol. you have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Where does our Federal Government get any authority to deny or disparage our privileges and immunities based on marriage contract(s)?

Im tired of schooling you on constitutional basics.

You have yet to prove that any rights were denied or disparaged. Your claims, inaccurate religious beliefs and repeating a phrase out of contest are not legally sufficient. You have the same marriage rights that you always have had because polygamy was never an explicit right. The fact that nobody had ever asked the question doesn't mean that it was a right before the SCOTUS made their ruling. Instead, the position was undefined.

 

[Nalu]

While there are some sort of good reasons for governments to encourage opposite sex marriages, there are no good reasons for governments to prohibit same sex marriages.

 

[danielpalos]

Im tired of schooling you on constitutional basics.

You have yet to prove that any rights were denied or disparaged. Your claims, inaccurate religious beliefs and repeating a phrase out of contest are not legally sufficient. You have the same marriage rights that you always have had because polygamy was never an explicit right. The fact that nobody had ever asked the question doesn't mean that it was a right before the SCOTUS made their ruling. Instead, the position was undefined.

It must be a natural right.

Equal protection of the law is part of our franchise.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

Im tired of schooling you on constitutional basics.

You have yet to prove that any rights were denied or disparaged. Your claims, inaccurate religious beliefs and repeating a phrase out of contest are not legally sufficient. You have the same marriage rights that you always have had because polygamy was never an explicit right. The fact that nobody had ever asked the question doesn't mean that it was a right before the SCOTUS made their ruling. Instead, the position was undefined.

You appeal to too much ignorance to be more than frivolous.