• 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]

Now that is legal I believe many republican will start ****ing their dogs. I believe many of them said that gay marriage being illegal was the only thing stopping them.
 
Oh, and you referring to page 13 "A second principle" is not even the right page -- that sentence starts on page 18

333co4l.jpg


Yes. I know.

Then read them....
 
They specifically work like that. Over-broad rulings can have ripple effects over other laws.

This one was not "overly broad". And it doesn't take any laws down until they are challenged. Then they will see if their arguments are good enough for the SCOTUS or not, if they make it that far.

Really though I don't care if incest laws are struck down, I simply think ya'll are going overboard trying to make it like the slippery slope is already here. It isn't.
 
There is something seriously wrong when we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent siblings from marrying. That is the road this court has set us on.

We don't need one at all. Eventually it may come to pass that this is allowed. Especially siblings. (It could be just down the road without any help in Rhode Island, where no incestuous relationships are specifically illegal, although they do not allow close relations to marry.)
 
No "defeat" admitted.


You were unable to support your claim that the ruling specifically allows incest marriage and could provide a citation.


Must be a liberal mentality, make a claim, don't support and instead of admitting the claim was unsupported claim "victory".




>>>>

If Scatt is a liberal then I'm LeBron James.
 
Sure it is, because the basis for his argument is any two people.

No, it isn't. It is specifically addressed for what they were discussing, two people of the same sex can be in a marriage in the same way as two people of the opposite sexes. There is no mention of incest. If they want marriage, they need to fight for it themselves. This ruling does not apply to them. It could become a part of a case that is brought up to the court, but not likely going to have more precedent than other cases, since this one was saying that there was no reason to keep two people of the same sex from getting married, it doesn't further any legitimate state interest at all. The Court would have to know what the state considers its state interests are in denying incestuous relationships the right to marry before they can simply strike down those bans.
 
No, it isn't.

The Court would have to know what the state considers its state interests are in denying incestuous relationships the right to marry before they can simply strike down those bans.

If Kennedy wanted to exclude any two people who are related he would have done so.

What state interests outweigh Kennedy's argument about a federal constitutional right that has to be applied to all states?
 
If Kennedy wanted to exclude any two people who are related he would have done so.

What state interests outweigh Kennedy's argument about a federal constitutional right that has to be applied to all states?

As I've said before, that is not how SCOTUS decisions work. They do not apply to other cases, other issues that are not brought up to them. They may later be used in future decisions, but they don't automatically cover such issues. Nor should Justices have to specifically mention every situation where the decision doesn't apply just so some don't wrongfully believe it automatically does.
 
There is something seriously wrong when we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent siblings from marrying. That is the road this court has set us on.

What does two gay dudes getting married have to do with a brother and sister doing it?


Prior to this, one was not legal, and the other was. Now both are.
 
They do not apply to other cases, other issues that are not brought up to them.

But they specifically do. That is why the cases are referenced back to in new cases that have similar facts.
 
But they specifically do. That is why the cases are referenced back to in new cases that have similar facts.

No, they don't. Otherwise, same sex marriage would have been legal due to several earlier cases before this one, including one dealing with prisoners getting married, another a divorcee behind on child support, and another with a type of couple the public simply did not approve of getting married.
 
But they do. That is the whole point of referencing the other cases.

No, no they don't. And you can continue to repeat your failed argument as much as you like, but it is still a failing argument. They have no obligation to mention potential future cases in any ruling they make. They can cover them if those laws are challenged, and actually address the issues with those cases then.
 
No, no they don't.

They have no obligation to mention potential future cases in any ruling they make.

But they do.

You did finally say something correct when you said they are not obligated to. Sadly, nobody argued they were. So you won that argument against literally nobody arguing against you.
 
But they do.

You did finally say something correct when you said they are not obligated to. Sadly, nobody argued they were. So you won that argument against literally nobody arguing against you.

Are you going to continue this ridiculous argument forever? The SCOTUS did not legalize incestuous marriage with this decision, no matter what you may believe. That is a crazy, ridiculous argument. No one who knows how the SCOTUS works or the constitutional arguments pertaining to SCOTUS decisions would legitimately argue that incest marriage is made legal with this decision.
 
The SCOTUS did not legalize incestuous marriage with this decision, no matter what you may believe.

Their argument was made broadly enough to easily cover incest marriage.
 
Their argument was made broadly enough to easily cover incest marriage.

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.
 
The same is true for incest laws, they must be challenged first.

Good thing for incest couples that this ruling argues for incest marriage to be legal.
 
Good thing for incest couples that this ruling argues for incest marriage to be legal.

No. It can add weight to their argument within the court, but it doesn't rule for them, nor really argue for them. It merely can be used, as Loving was/is to justify why they should have consideration. The arguments against their relationships are still a factor though and they are different arguments than those used in Loving or same sex marriage cases.
 
Back
Top Bottom