Page 183 of 193 FirstFirst ... 83133173181182183184185 ... LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,830 of 1930

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

  1. #1821
    Guru
    Zinthaniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-28-16 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,654

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    And until the 26th, incest marriage was not constitutionally protected.
    According to you it was protected the moment marriage was only defined as between one man and one woman.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    In my own experience here, people seem to ignore a posters professional experience or training if the app pro holds a view that is disagreed with.

  2. #1822
    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]

    Only you think and said that. No idea why though.

  3. #1823
    Guru
    Zinthaniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-28-16 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,654

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Only you think and said that. No idea why though.
    You said that when you decided that the absence of specific limitations means legalization of unmentioned variables.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    In my own experience here, people seem to ignore a posters professional experience or training if the app pro holds a view that is disagreed with.

  4. #1824
    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]

    Incest was illegal after Loving. Specifically.

  5. #1825
    Guru
    Zinthaniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    06-28-16 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,654

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Incest was illegal after Loving. Specifically.
    Incest was illegal prior to 1967.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    In my own experience here, people seem to ignore a posters professional experience or training if the app pro holds a view that is disagreed with.

  6. #1826
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,134

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

    Wow.

    What a train wreck.

  7. #1827
    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 Zinthaniel View Post
    Incest was illegal prior to 1967.
    Why do you think it was legal after Loving?

  8. #1828
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,132

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

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post
    What does two gay dudes getting married have to do with a brother and sister doing it?
    What is common there? Marriage, of course.


    Prior to this, one was not legal, and the other was. Now both are.
    I am told that marriage has now been elevated to a civil right, enshrined in the Constitution (with invisible ink, since no one has been able to find it there). Can't deny a person their civil rights.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  9. #1829
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,132

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    ...and another with a type of couple the public simply did not approve of getting married.
    LOL! Now, that's a good one. You mean when there is a Statewide election to allow a certain type of marriage and it gets defeated?
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  10. #1830
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,132

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, it wasn't. And it can't. The SCOTUS is limited to only being able to rule on laws presented to them, no matter how much others may want to apply their rulings to other laws. Just like how Lawrence didn't truly strike down adultery laws, but has the high potential to lead to them being struck down if challenged. That doesn't mean that adultery laws cannot be used against people legally still. They can. Until they are either officially struck down or simply taken off the books altogether, they can be used against people. The same is true for incest laws, they must be challenged first.
    Prior to this decision, marriage was clearly defined as between a man and a woman. States had the power to keep it that way. Now this ruling takes that power away from the States and opens the door to more challenges. They now have the power of this ruling behind them to bolster their case. How can the court deny them their new civil right when they just said okay to gays?
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

Posting Permissions

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