Page 170 of 193 FirstFirst ... 70120160168169170171172180 ... LastLast
Results 1,691 to 1,700 of 1930

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

  1. #1691
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    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.



    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 exclude incest marriage.
    You don't understand how SCOTUS works apparently. Their rulings do not work like that. They only cover the questions before them. They do not apply to other questions, other issues, other laws not challenged in those specific cases. Until someone actually challenges incest laws, they are still valid, constitutional.

    And yes, they exclude incest marriage.
    "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.

  2. #1692
    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
    You don't understand how SCOTUS works apparently. Their rulings do not work like that.
    They specifically work like that. Over-broad rulings can have ripple effects over other laws.

  3. #1693
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,420
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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.
    I realize there are already laws against incest but as I already stated earlier, laws must be changed and will be changed to make accommodation to this new SSM ruling. So I still do not get where your finding legal standing on undue influence being an issue because as far as I know it's not. Two males or two females of legal age in the state want to get married who are related shows no undue influence as being a factor in their marriage. The existing law regarding incest, as I've already said, are irrelevant as no biological children can come from a union of same sex marriage where chromosomes are used to create the child from each of the partners.

    Perhaps you have a misconstrued what the legal term of undue influence refers:

    Quote Originally Posted by legal-dictionary
    Four elements must be shown to establish undue influence. First, it must be demonstrated that the victim was susceptible to overreaching. Such conditions as mental, psychological, or physical disability or dependency may be used to show susceptibility. Second, there must be an opportunity for exercising undue influence. Typically, this opportunity arises through a confidential relationship. Courts have found opportunity for undue influence in confidential relationships between Husband and Wife, fiancé and fiancée, Parent and Child, trustee and beneficiary, administrator and legatee, Guardian and Ward, attorney and client, doctor and patient, and pastor and parishioner. Third, there must be evidence that the defendant was inclined to exercise undue influence over the victim. Defendants who aggressively initiate a transaction, insulate a relationship from outside supervision, or discourage a weaker party from seeking independent advice may be attempting to exercise undue influence. Fourth, the record must reveal an unnatural or suspicious transaction. Courts are wary, for example, of testators who make abrupt changes in their last will and testament after being diagnosed with a terminal illness or being declared incompetent, especially if the changes are made at the behest of a beneficiary who stands to benefit from the new or revised testamentary disposition.
    Undue influence normally applies to financial abuse cases...Perhaps in some individual cases this may be true but not globally, and certainly the last two requirements would not be assessed of all SSM candidates, nor same sex polygamists for that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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.

    My point is I don't see enough legal standing for undue influence to even be made as a valid argument - therefore if the claim of undue influence has no legal standing it becomes irrelevant.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d 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.


  4. #1694
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,547

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    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.

    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.
    The ruling didn't address "incest marriage." It's a different issue.

    And, no, the case against incest is different than the case against homosexuality. Bans striking down criminalization of consensual homosexual relationships didn't have the effect of striking down laws against daddy having sex with his 11 year old daughter.

  5. #1695
    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
    The ruling didn't address "incest marriage." It's a different issue.

    Bans striking down criminalization of consensual homosexual relationships didn't have the effect of striking down laws against daddy having sex with his 11 year old daughter.
    The four arguments do not exclude incest marriage, which is the whole point.

    Which state allows adults to marry 11 year olds? If none do, your argument is literally not an argument.

  6. #1696
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,547

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    The four arguments do not exclude incest marriage, which is the whole point.

    Which state allows adults to marry 11 year olds? If none do, your argument is literally not an argument.
    The same number of states that allow adults to marry 11 year olds allow sisters to marry brothers, or dads to marry daughters. Zero. My argument is exactly as sound as yours.

    You're taking a case that didn't address incest and asserting it made incest legal. It just did not. If you want to argue it made the case for legalizing incest easier to demonstrate in a future court case, and that in 5 or 10 years it might be legal for daddy to marry Sissy when she turns 18, fine. I can't predict the future.

  7. #1697
    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
    Zero.

    You're taking a case that didn't address incest and asserting it made incest legal.
    Good to see you agree you have no argument.

    Kennedy's ruling does not exclude incest marriage.

  8. #1698
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,547

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Good to see you agree you have no argument.

    Kennedy's ruling does not exclude incest marriage.
    LOL. I see this is pointless...

  9. #1699
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,027

    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...

    Please cite the passage in the majority opinion that specifically mentions incestual marriage.


    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf



    (I can save you some time. "Incest" does not appear in the ruling.)



    >>>>

  10. #1700
    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]

    Go back one page.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Please cite the passage in the majority opinion that specifically mentions incestual marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

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