Page 169 of 193 FirstFirst ... 69119159167168169170171179 ... LastLast
Results 1,681 to 1,690 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1681
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,181
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    It is a problem since this ruling allows incest marriage.

    It certainly does. There is nothing in the ruling that excludes incest marriage. That amendment would be unconstitutional unless it was a federal amendment (which will never happen).
    What I read into it is that the SCOTUS doesn't care about incestuous marriage of same sex couples. Since no biological children can come from the marriage isn't the incestuous SSM make the "incest" moot?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #1682
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, it doesn't. I'm willing to bet the US would not see it that way either.

    An Amendment to the Constitution, by its very nature cannot be unconstitutional so long as it is enacted in the proper manner.
    It specifically allows incest marriage, your moral objections have no relevance to this ruling. That amendment would only pass in a few specific states, and not federally.

  3. #1683
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    11-30-16 @ 09:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,880

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    It specifically allows incest marriage, your moral objections have no relevance to this ruling. That amendment would only pass in a few specific states, and not federally.
    Please show me exactly where in the ruling that just struck down same sex marriage bans that says that it is also striking down incestuous marriage restrictions. Exact wording.

    The SCOTUS cannot do that. It wasn't taking on incestuous marriage bans, which means that the state would not have had a chance to actually argue for those bans. That is why this ruling, in itself, absolutely does not and cannot take down incestuous marriage bans.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #1684
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,320

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    It is a problem since this ruling allows incest marriage.
    It actually doesn't and you asserting it doesn't make it so. Someone at a minimum has to sue for the right to marry their son or daughter, and win that case. If the defenders of prohibitions against incest can't do the simple task of making a case for prohibiting that, then incestuous marriages might be allowed years in the future.

  5. #1685
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    11-30-16 @ 09:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,880

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    What I read into it is that the SCOTUS doesn't care about incestuous marriage of same sex couples. Since no biological children can come from the marriage isn't the incestuous SSM make the "incest" moot?
    No, it doesn't because there is still the issue of undue influence in the relationship.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #1686
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,181
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, it doesn't because there is still the issue of undue influence in the relationship.
    Why does the law care about undue influence in an incestuous same sex marriage?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #1687
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    11-30-16 @ 09:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,880

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Why does the law care about undue influence in an incestuous same sex marriage?
    For the same reason it would care about undue influence in relationships between teachers and students.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #1688
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,181
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    For the same reason it would care about undue influence in relationships between teachers and students.
    I'm still not understanding the foundation of your undue influence argument. Teachers and students are not entering into a marriage - which is legally binding. As long as teachers and students are of legal age according to the law, only ethical and moral issues remain. Explain the legal foundation of undue influence as it applies to same sex marriage as I don't see it being relevant.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #1689
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    09-20-15 @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It actually doesn't and you asserting it doesn't make it so. Someone at a minimum has to sue for the right to marry their son or daughter, and win that case. If the defenders of prohibitions against incest can't do the simple task of making a case for prohibiting that, then incestuous marriages might be allowed years in the future.
    Or cousin, niece, nephew, etc. And they will, specifically because of this ruling. The "case" was the same as for the case against gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Please show me exactly where in the ruling that just struck down same sex marriage bans that says that it is also striking down incestuous marriage restrictions.
    You don't understand how SCOTUS works. You would look to his four arguments: Page 12, sentence starting with "A first premise," page 13, with the sentence starting, "A second principle,", page 14, with the sentence starting "A third principle," and page 16, with the sentence starting, "Fourth and finally." These are the arguments Kennedy makes and they do not exclude incest marriage.
    Last edited by scatt; 07-03-15 at 10:04 AM. Reason: Typo.

  10. #1690
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    11-30-16 @ 09:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,880

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I'm still not understanding the foundation of your undue influence argument. Teachers and students are not entering into a marriage - which is legally binding. As long as teachers and students are of legal age according to the law, only ethical and moral issues remain. Explain the legal foundation of undue influence as it applies to same sex marriage as I don't see it being relevant.
    There are laws against incest, not just against incestuous marriages. The laws against sodomy, homosexual relationships were all struck down prior to same sex marriage being legal. While this might not be necessary in the case of incest and marriage, it would be a consideration. These laws are in place for several reasons, one being children the other being undue influence on the relationship.

    Regardless, the state gets the chance to defend their laws against each issue, challenge. No SCOTUS ruling can go that far to strike down laws that were never originally challenged in the first place because it gives no chance to the sides to actually argue their issue. THAT would make the SCOTUS an oligarchy, if a ruling did that.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

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