• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Indeed, but not the problem. The public admission by the Chief administrator and head of the Judicial Branch that the court is unmoored from the constitution is the final straw. The difference between us thinking on occasion our government doesn't give two ****s what we think and the government announcing the fact that they don't publically. The cat is well out of the bag, our system is not what it purports to be, the constitution no longer matters. The fantasy that it did has been shattered.

Has nothing to do with this decision. This decision, taking down same sex marriage bans, is absolutely abiding by the Constitution, in a way that puts individual rights above states' rights. It is that simple. Individuals should have more rights than the states, particularly when the state cannot show any state interest furthered at all by restricting who can get married by their sex, when we treat spouses the same in pretty much all our laws pertaining to spouses regardless of their sex.
 
This ruling most certainly allows incest marriage.

Possibly, but likely not. And if the people are really worried about it, I'm willing to bet there is more than enough support for a Constitutional Amendment that bans such close relationships getting married.
 
Really, then why can't a mother marry her son? After all, it's a civil right.

And all rights can be limited.

Is it a problem for you or anyone else to come up with defensible reasons to prohibit incestuous marriages? I wouldn't think so....
 
And all rights can be limited.

Is it a problem for you or anyone else to come up with defensible reasons to prohibit incestuous marriages? I wouldn't think so....

It is a problem since this ruling allows incest marriage.

Possibly, but likely not. And if the people are really worried about it, I'm willing to bet there is more than enough support for a Constitutional Amendment that bans such close relationships getting married.

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).
 
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).

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. There is nothing in the ruling that includes it either.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:

legal-dictionary said:
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Go back one page.

Please cite the passage in the majority opinion that specifically mentions incestual 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom