- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,655
- Reaction score
- 29,972
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
But it does. The basis is any two people now.
No, it doesn't, and no it isn't. I can do this for a while though.
But it does. The basis is any two people now.
SCOTUS says it does.
It is factually correct.
No, it's not.
But it is. Incest marriage cannot be made illegal any more because of this ruling.
Their argument was made broadly enough to easily cover incest marriage.
The prior definition of marriage (one man, one woman) did not prevent siblings from getting married, yet it was against the law.
Nope.
The new policy of any two people specifically allows for incest marriage.
But it is. I pointed to the specific argument Kennedy made with pages number and sentences.
The prior definition could have been one man (the brother) and one woman (the sister).
The new policy of any two people specifically allows for incest marriage.
But it is. I pointed to the specific argument Kennedy made with pages number and sentences.
The ruling isn't for any two people.
But it is. See post #1689 for specific pages and sentences to read in the ruling.
Again by your own logic, incest was legalized long ago.
I'm so sick of this issue. It SHOULDN'T matter.
No, only this one.
Obergefell is a fallacy?
Obergefell is the argument.
In context of your reasoning incest was legalize decades ago as a result of an entirely different marriage court case that decreed any person can marry any other person of any race.
It took the new argument in Obergefell to make it apply to incest marriage.
Nope.