Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Syriusly]

There it is.....gays = incest = polygamy......what can be far behind?

How are they legally different? Hint: I'm going to bring up Lawrence v Texas and be looking for hints of hypocracy in your answer.

How are they legally different?

Well incest is the rape of children.

Homosexuality doesn't involve rape.

Why can't you understand the difference between rape of children- and consensual sexual relationships?

 

[Syriusly]

Reality- Gay folks had kids before this ruling, they will have them afterwards.

Learn to deal.

Polygamists had kids too before this ruling. So did single people. So did brothers and sisters. So you're saying they all qualify for marriage benefits and tax breaks? Or do polysexuals and monosexuals or incest pairings not have rights to marry according to the very narrow preference of sexual kinks June's Decision covers?

What we are saying is that your foot stomping about gay couples marrying is no more than trying to deny the children of gay couples married parents.

Why do you hate those children so much?

 

[Pop23]

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

The mess in his head. For some reason, he blames the Supreme Court for that.

Interesting content, really it is.

So what is the societal safety net that remained after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergfell?

You can do something no one else has been able to do.......

You say that as if your argument hasn't been thoroughly and utterly destroyed.

It hasn't, and it appears you don't have the ability to do so.

But good luck with that

Sure, perv ... keep telling yourself that.

Iowa Code 595

Wanna deal with reality. The link is just that.

 

[Pop23]

There it is.....gays = incest = polygamy......what can be far behind?

How are they legally different? Hint: I'm going to bring up Lawrence v Texas and be looking for hints of hypocracy in your answer.

How are they legally different?

Well incest is the rape of children.

Homosexuality doesn't involve rape.

Why can't you understand the difference between rape of children- and consensual sexual relationships?

Incest can be the rape of a child. But adults also can be incestuous as well.

Since marriage involves adults, your claim is without basis

 

[jillian]

There it is.....gays = incest = polygamy......what can be far behind?

How are they legally different? Hint: I'm going to bring up Lawrence v Texas and be looking for hints of hypocracy in your answer.

How are they legally different?

Well incest is the rape of children.

Homosexuality doesn't involve rape.

Why can't you understand the difference between rape of children- and consensual sexual relationships?

Incest can be the rape of a child. But adults also can be incestuous as well.

Since marriage involves adults, your claim is without basis

no wacko. your homophobia does not make homosexuality the same as incest. and incest is still a valid basis for the state to intervene as most incestuous relationships are based in some level of abuse...

but thanks for playing.

you can go back to fantasizing about homosexual sex now since you seem obsessed with it.

 

[Pop23]

Iowa law seems to allow same sex family members to marry

Maryland law seems to allow male family members to marry

Wisconsin and several other states allow first cousins to marry if:

1. They have reached a certain age where procreation would be unlikely, or

2. They can prove infertility.

Now, it would be an undo burdon to make same sex cousins wait or prove infertility (duh) so it would appear they are free to do so at will.
.

An undue burden according to who?
Any state that believes that siblings should not marry, can of course change their laws to prevent same sex siblings from marrying if their current language is not gender blind. IF states choose not to do so- well apparently the states don't care.

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Iowa law restricts only opposite sex family members from marriage

Maryland only restricts those that vaginally penetrate.

Of course prior to Obergfell, neither state allowed any. It was due to Obergfell.

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Clearly you're backtracking.

Previously you said "why haven't these laws changed" faster then those for same sex marriage.

Iowa Code 595

Clearly they changed much faster, actually simultaneously with the legalization of same sex marriage

Another of your fails.

Interesting, these marriages would have to be recognized in all 50 states

Backtracking?

LOL.

As I said-

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Same sex siblings appear legal in iowa, according to:

Iowa Code 595

 

[Pop23]

There it is.....gays = incest = polygamy......what can be far behind?

How are they legally different? Hint: I'm going to bring up Lawrence v Texas and be looking for hints of hypocracy in your answer.

How are they legally different?

Well incest is the rape of children.

Homosexuality doesn't involve rape.

Why can't you understand the difference between rape of children- and consensual sexual relationships?

Incest can be the rape of a child. But adults also can be incestuous as well.

Since marriage involves adults, your claim is without basis

no wacko. your homophobia does not make homosexuality the same as incest. and incest is still a valid basis for the state to intervene as most incestuous relationships are based in some level of abuse...

but thanks for playing.

you can go back to fantasizing about homosexual sex now since you seem obsessed with it.

Abuse is illegal in marriage. Regardless of gender makeup.

But then there's also that whole due process mess as well.

 

[jillian]

There it is.....gays = incest = polygamy......what can be far behind?

How are they legally different? Hint: I'm going to bring up Lawrence v Texas and be looking for hints of hypocracy in your answer.

How are they legally different?

Well incest is the rape of children.

Homosexuality doesn't involve rape.

Why can't you understand the difference between rape of children- and consensual sexual relationships?

Incest can be the rape of a child. But adults also can be incestuous as well.

Since marriage involves adults, your claim is without basis

no wacko. your homophobia does not make homosexuality the same as incest. and incest is still a valid basis for the state to intervene as most incestuous relationships are based in some level of abuse...

but thanks for playing.

you can go back to fantasizing about homosexual sex now since you seem obsessed with it.

Abuse is illegal in marriage. Regardless of gender makeup.

But then there's also that whole due process mess as well.

nah... you've already proven you have zero understanding and your "views" are governed by your bigotry.

but it's actually "equal protection", not due process. and it doesn't say the government can't regulate. it says there has to be a good reason for the limitation.

now run along wackadoodle.

 

[bodecea]

Tell us more about how a Supreme Court Justice isn't a judge.

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of honesty. I never said a supreme court justice wasn't a judge, I said they DO NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE MD DEFINITION OF A JUDGE WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Either do so, or bug off.

Nor have you proven that the justice in question- was not legally eligible to officiate. You have speculated- but until you show us what capacity she officiated as- it is nothing more than your speculation.

Read the qualifications for yourself, they are posted in this string. There is NO SPECULATION, period end of story.
I'm really sorry you ignorant regressives can't read, but that's not my problem.

A judge....you want us to believe that a U.S. District Court judge counts...a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge counts...but not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Ok.....denial is not just a river in Egypt I guess.

Hey folks anyone who was lucky (unlucky) enough to ever have a Supreme Court Justice do your ceremony in Maryland ...guess what? You're not really married.

Maybe you should be directing your ignorant assed bullshit to the people who actually wrote the definitions, hint, that ain't me. I've been trying to be nice even in the face of your attempts to demean me, so instead of stooping to your level, I'm done with you, you're excused.

I beg your pardon? Is there any reason to get foul mouthed?

 

[bodecea]

There it is.....gays = incest = polygamy......what can be far behind?

How are they legally different? Hint: I'm going to bring up Lawrence v Texas and be looking for hints of hypocracy in your answer.

C'mon....continue down the line.....you know you want to.

 

[Pop23]

How are they legally different? Hint: I'm going to bring up Lawrence v Texas and be looking for hints of hypocracy in your answer.

How are they legally different?

Well incest is the rape of children.

Homosexuality doesn't involve rape.

Why can't you understand the difference between rape of children- and consensual sexual relationships?

Incest can be the rape of a child. But adults also can be incestuous as well.

Since marriage involves adults, your claim is without basis

no wacko. your homophobia does not make homosexuality the same as incest. and incest is still a valid basis for the state to intervene as most incestuous relationships are based in some level of abuse...

but thanks for playing.

you can go back to fantasizing about homosexual sex now since you seem obsessed with it.

Abuse is illegal in marriage. Regardless of gender makeup.

But then there's also that whole due process mess as well.

nah... you've already proven you have zero understanding and your "views" are governed by your bigotry.

but it's actually "equal protection", not due process. and it doesn't say the government can't regulate. it says there has to be a good reason for the limitation.

now run along wackadoodle.

You could attempt an adult conversation, but that would mean you would need to be an adult I guess.

1. The states of Iowa and Maryland both allow same sex family members to marry. Maryland requires vaginal penetration as the basis of incest, so same sex male family members to Marry

Here is the iowa statute, find the excluded pairs, all opposit sex:

Iowa Code 595

2. These marriages must be recognized in all 50 States

3. No state requires sex as a requirement of a valid marriage.

So tell me the societal harm (which is far different than individual harm) that gives the State the right to deny same sex siblings the right to marry? And because the right to marry was declared a fundamental right, the States compelling interest to do so.

And Icky or tradition has already been rejected by the courts.

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

a literalist wouldn't think computers or digital expression are covered under the 1st amendment. A literalist wouldn't allow the "fire" exception to the 1st amendment.

 

[martybegan]

And you think this view is different than that of others? that sounds crazy. All you've done is state what everyone knows

I know other people think likewise, all of this is due to Skylar harping on how all of this is nothing more than my opinion.

it does appear you mix your opinion in with things and then backtrack

How so?

 

[martybegan]

it's pretty simple, it boils down to seeing the constitution as reserving rights to the people at the base, then giving states the right to legislate other matters as they see fit, and finally the federal government to legislate those things specifically given to them as powers under the constitution.

You conveniently ignore the 14th amendment which requires that all state laws not deprive citizens or equal protection of the law or life,liberty or property without due procedure. That means that any state law is subject to constitutional challenge regardless of whether it involved a power that could be only exercised by the state. You simply do not understand that the enumeration of powers deal with powers delegated to Congress and has nothing to do with the authority of the Supreme Court.

Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

 

[martybegan]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

 

[martybegan]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

I have zero issue with SSM when it is allowed via legislative action, and would probably vote for it if it was put up for a referendum. I would also have no issue with forcing States that banned SSM from having to recognize legal SSM marriage licenses from States that DID issue them, under full faith and credit.

 

[Seawytch]

How are they legally different?

Well incest is the rape of children.

Homosexuality doesn't involve rape.

Why can't you understand the difference between rape of children- and consensual sexual relationships?

Incest can be the rape of a child. But adults also can be incestuous as well.

Since marriage involves adults, your claim is without basis

no wacko. your homophobia does not make homosexuality the same as incest. and incest is still a valid basis for the state to intervene as most incestuous relationships are based in some level of abuse...

but thanks for playing.

you can go back to fantasizing about homosexual sex now since you seem obsessed with it.

Abuse is illegal in marriage. Regardless of gender makeup.

But then there's also that whole due process mess as well.

nah... you've already proven you have zero understanding and your "views" are governed by your bigotry.

but it's actually "equal protection", not due process. and it doesn't say the government can't regulate. it says there has to be a good reason for the limitation.

now run along wackadoodle.

You could attempt an adult conversation, but that would mean you would need to be an adult I guess.

1. The states of Iowa and Maryland both allow same sex family members to marry. Maryland requires vaginal penetration as the basis of incest, so same sex male family members to Marry

Here is the iowa statute, find the excluded pairs, all opposit sex:

Iowa Code 595

2. These marriages must be recognized in all 50 States

3. No state requires sex as a requirement of a valid marriage.

So tell me the societal harm (which is far different than individual harm) that gives the State the right to deny same sex siblings the right to marry? And because the right to marry was declared a fundamental right, the States compelling interest to do so.

And Icky or tradition has already been rejected by the courts.

It would not be equal application of the law to only allow same sexed siblings to marry.

I really think you should try though since you seem to think you've got a case. We're all behind you 100%.

Go for it...but you're all talk. You're nothing but a bloviating bigot using the same tired arguments the racist bigots used.

Who said it, Pops or R.D. McIlwaine III?


“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,
eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage)

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

sounds more like you are arguing over conservative constructionists versus liberal constructionists. there is nothing strict in your strict

would you allow the label strict vegan, for a person who claims to be a strict vegan and admits to sometimes drinking soups made with beef stock?

It is far more strict than the living constitution view.

and on your 2nd case, that person isn't a vegan at all, so the point is moot.

 

[Seawytch]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

Except you don't. You said that Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail were all valid and legitimate rulings...only Obergefell isn't.

What could be different I wonder...