Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.
Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?
We can do this all day if you like....round and round and round. Below is just one of dozens of similar paragraphs using the words in bold interchangeably.And no where in the quote does the Obergefell court equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples.
.
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as
Amicus Curiae
5–28
Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.
Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?
We can do this all day if you like....round and round and round.And no where in the quote does the Obergefell court equate same sex intimacy with same sex couples.
.
Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution Page 7
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as
Amicus Curiae
5–28
Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.
Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?
Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.
Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?
Can't agree totally. What Obergfell accomplished was opening the door to Same - Sex marriage in totality. Doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual. Same - Sex, by it's very definition simply means two people of the same sex. If it did not, then heterosexuals, for some odd reason would be excluded.
I've gone through over a dozen state laws on marriage, and there is not a single one that has non quantifiable, non arbitrary conditions that would disallow two straight men, or women, from marriage. Or groups or closely related family members.
Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.
Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?
Can't agree totally. What Obergfell accomplished was opening the door to Same - Sex marriage in totality. Doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual. Same - Sex, by it's very definition simply means two people of the same sex. If it did not, then heterosexuals, for some odd reason would be excluded.
I've gone through over a dozen state laws on marriage, and there is not a single one that has non quantifiable, non arbitrary conditions that would disallow two straight men, or women, from marriage. Or groups or closely related family members.
Obergefell ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional- just as previous rulings said that bans on mixed race marriages, marriages by people who owe child support, and marriage by a convict- are unconstitutional.
There is nothing in Obergefell that changes anything regarding closely related family members.
But if you believe that the laws against incestuous marriageare wrong- you can always go to court to demand your Constitutional rights.
Let us know how it turns out.
Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.
Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?
Can't agree totally. What Obergfell accomplished was opening the door to Same - Sex marriage in totality. Doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual. Same - Sex, by it's very definition simply means two people of the same sex. If it did not, then heterosexuals, for some odd reason would be excluded.
I've gone through over a dozen state laws on marriage, and there is not a single one that has non quantifiable, non arbitrary conditions that would disallow two straight men, or women, from marriage. Or groups or closely related family members.
Obergefell ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional- just as previous rulings said that bans on mixed race marriages, marriages by people who owe child support, and marriage by a convict- are unconstitutional.
There is nothing in Obergefell that changes anything regarding closely related family members.
But if you believe that the laws against incestuous marriageare wrong- you can always go to court to demand your Constitutional rights.
Let us know how it turns out.
Sure there is, if the ban is based on arbitrary reasoning, then the license cannot be denied.
Not sure what the courts say, but same sex does not just mean homosexuals.
Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?
Can't agree totally. What Obergfell accomplished was opening the door to Same - Sex marriage in totality. Doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual. Same - Sex, by it's very definition simply means two people of the same sex. If it did not, then heterosexuals, for some odd reason would be excluded.
I've gone through over a dozen state laws on marriage, and there is not a single one that has non quantifiable, non arbitrary conditions that would disallow two straight men, or women, from marriage. Or groups or closely related family members.
Obergefell ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional- just as previous rulings said that bans on mixed race marriages, marriages by people who owe child support, and marriage by a convict- are unconstitutional.
There is nothing in Obergefell that changes anything regarding closely related family members.
But if you believe that the laws against incestuous marriageare wrong- you can always go to court to demand your Constitutional rights.
Let us know how it turns out.
Sure there is, if the ban is based on arbitrary reasoning, then the license cannot be denied.
Do you support incestuous marriage? Do you want it to be legal?
If you don't- why don't you?
Read post #236 quote directly from Obergefell's Opinion. They use the words interchangeably. What else is "same-sex intimacy" except homosexuality? Back rubs? Foot rubs? A pat on the shoulder?
Can't agree totally. What Obergfell accomplished was opening the door to Same - Sex marriage in totality. Doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual. Same - Sex, by it's very definition simply means two people of the same sex. If it did not, then heterosexuals, for some odd reason would be excluded.
I've gone through over a dozen state laws on marriage, and there is not a single one that has non quantifiable, non arbitrary conditions that would disallow two straight men, or women, from marriage. Or groups or closely related family members.
Obergefell ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional- just as previous rulings said that bans on mixed race marriages, marriages by people who owe child support, and marriage by a convict- are unconstitutional.
There is nothing in Obergefell that changes anything regarding closely related family members.
But if you believe that the laws against incestuous marriageare wrong- you can always go to court to demand your Constitutional rights.
Let us know how it turns out.
Sure there is, if the ban is based on arbitrary reasoning, then the license cannot be denied.
Do you support incestuous marriage? Do you want it to be legal?
If you don't- why don't you?
Incest is illegal, so the term is moot. No one can enter into a contract for illegal purpose.
And no I don't support it.
However, I can't seem to find a reason that a State who's law does not specifically calls for sexual intimacy for a legal binding marriage can ban anyone from entering into this contract. Certainly the can for those not of a certain age, but for no others.
Most states appear to allow the participants to agree to what the marriage should be, with few none arbitrary duties for the parties.
Some states claim that fidelity is a duty, but they will also allow swingers to marry. I've never heard of a State removing a license from known swingers. So even their own rules are non sense.
We know the courts have claimed that, denying the rights of some to Marry was the State denying financial rights, only obtained through marriage for arbitrary reasons. I have yet to hear an argument that denial of these rights to anyone wouldn't also be done on an arbitrary basis.
Can't agree totally. What Obergfell accomplished was opening the door to Same - Sex marriage in totality. Doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual. Same - Sex, by it's very definition simply means two people of the same sex. If it did not, then heterosexuals, for some odd reason would be excluded.
I've gone through over a dozen state laws on marriage, and there is not a single one that has non quantifiable, non arbitrary conditions that would disallow two straight men, or women, from marriage. Or groups or closely related family members.
Obergefell ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional- just as previous rulings said that bans on mixed race marriages, marriages by people who owe child support, and marriage by a convict- are unconstitutional.
There is nothing in Obergefell that changes anything regarding closely related family members.
But if you believe that the laws against incestuous marriageare wrong- you can always go to court to demand your Constitutional rights.
Let us know how it turns out.
Sure there is, if the ban is based on arbitrary reasoning, then the license cannot be denied.
Do you support incestuous marriage? Do you want it to be legal?
If you don't- why don't you?
Incest is illegal, so the term is moot. No one can enter into a contract for illegal purpose.
And no I don't support it.
However, I can't seem to find a reason that a State who's law does not specifically calls for sexual intimacy for a legal binding marriage can ban anyone from entering into this contract. Certainly the can for those not of a certain age, but for no others.
Most states appear to allow the participants to agree to what the marriage should be, with few none arbitrary duties for the parties.
Some states claim that fidelity is a duty, but they will also allow swingers to marry. I've never heard of a State removing a license from known swingers. So even their own rules are non sense.
We know the courts have claimed that, denying the rights of some to Marry was the State denying financial rights, only obtained through marriage for arbitrary reasons. I have yet to hear an argument that denial of these rights to anyone wouldn't also be done on an arbitrary basis.
Okay now we are getting somewhere.
Why don't you support such marriage? Why do you oppose it?
Do you think your own rational is arbitrary?
Is the State's age restriction on marriage is 'arbitrary'?
Where I agree with you is that if the State cannot establish a clear interest the state has in preventing a marriage- then the State law unconstitutionally interferes with American's right to marry.
Which is why 4 times now the Court has overturned State marriage laws. In each of these cases the State was unable to explain what clear interest that state had, that prevailed over our right to marry.
Obergefell ruled that bans on same gender marriage are unconstitutional- just as previous rulings said that bans on mixed race marriages, marriages by people who owe child support, and marriage by a convict- are unconstitutional.
There is nothing in Obergefell that changes anything regarding closely related family members.
But if you believe that the laws against incestuous marriageare wrong- you can always go to court to demand your Constitutional rights.
Let us know how it turns out.
Sure there is, if the ban is based on arbitrary reasoning, then the license cannot be denied.
Do you support incestuous marriage? Do you want it to be legal?
If you don't- why don't you?
Incest is illegal, so the term is moot. No one can enter into a contract for illegal purpose.
And no I don't support it.
However, I can't seem to find a reason that a State who's law does not specifically calls for sexual intimacy for a legal binding marriage can ban anyone from entering into this contract. Certainly the can for those not of a certain age, but for no others.
Most states appear to allow the participants to agree to what the marriage should be, with few none arbitrary duties for the parties.
Some states claim that fidelity is a duty, but they will also allow swingers to marry. I've never heard of a State removing a license from known swingers. So even their own rules are non sense.
We know the courts have claimed that, denying the rights of some to Marry was the State denying financial rights, only obtained through marriage for arbitrary reasons. I have yet to hear an argument that denial of these rights to anyone wouldn't also be done on an arbitrary basis.
Okay now we are getting somewhere.
Why don't you support such marriage? Why do you oppose it?
Do you think your own rational is arbitrary?
Is the State's age restriction on marriage is 'arbitrary'?
Where I agree with you is that if the State cannot establish a clear interest the state has in preventing a marriage- then the State law unconstitutionally interferes with American's right to marry.
Which is why 4 times now the Court has overturned State marriage laws. In each of these cases the State was unable to explain what clear interest that state had, that prevailed over our right to marry.
My opinion on support means nothing. The USSC has made it clear that the State cannot ban on an arbitrary basis. Sex is not a qualifier for a marriage license, not even implied. So the ban is arbitrary in nature, Whether I like it or not.
I think the State's rights to limit age is correct, as it is in any contract.
Sure there is, if the ban is based on arbitrary reasoning, then the license cannot be denied.
Do you support incestuous marriage? Do you want it to be legal?
If you don't- why don't you?
Incest is illegal, so the term is moot. No one can enter into a contract for illegal purpose.
And no I don't support it.
However, I can't seem to find a reason that a State who's law does not specifically calls for sexual intimacy for a legal binding marriage can ban anyone from entering into this contract. Certainly the can for those not of a certain age, but for no others.
Most states appear to allow the participants to agree to what the marriage should be, with few none arbitrary duties for the parties.
Some states claim that fidelity is a duty, but they will also allow swingers to marry. I've never heard of a State removing a license from known swingers. So even their own rules are non sense.
We know the courts have claimed that, denying the rights of some to Marry was the State denying financial rights, only obtained through marriage for arbitrary reasons. I have yet to hear an argument that denial of these rights to anyone wouldn't also be done on an arbitrary basis.
Okay now we are getting somewhere.
Why don't you support such marriage? Why do you oppose it?
Do you think your own rational is arbitrary?
Is the State's age restriction on marriage is 'arbitrary'?
Where I agree with you is that if the State cannot establish a clear interest the state has in preventing a marriage- then the State law unconstitutionally interferes with American's right to marry.
Which is why 4 times now the Court has overturned State marriage laws. In each of these cases the State was unable to explain what clear interest that state had, that prevailed over our right to marry.
My opinion on support means nothing. The USSC has made it clear that the State cannot ban on an arbitrary basis. Sex is not a qualifier for a marriage license, not even implied. So the ban is arbitrary in nature, Whether I like it or not.
I think the State's rights to limit age is correct, as it is in any contract.
Why is age any less arbitrary than gender?
And I appreciate you admitting your opinion means nothing on this. Your opinion is that the ban is arbitrary. That doesn't mean it is.
Any more than the restrictions on age are arbitrary.
Do you support incestuous marriage? Do you want it to be legal?
If you don't- why don't you?
Incest is illegal, so the term is moot. No one can enter into a contract for illegal purpose.
And no I don't support it.
However, I can't seem to find a reason that a State who's law does not specifically calls for sexual intimacy for a legal binding marriage can ban anyone from entering into this contract. Certainly the can for those not of a certain age, but for no others.
Most states appear to allow the participants to agree to what the marriage should be, with few none arbitrary duties for the parties.
Some states claim that fidelity is a duty, but they will also allow swingers to marry. I've never heard of a State removing a license from known swingers. So even their own rules are non sense.
We know the courts have claimed that, denying the rights of some to Marry was the State denying financial rights, only obtained through marriage for arbitrary reasons. I have yet to hear an argument that denial of these rights to anyone wouldn't also be done on an arbitrary basis.
Okay now we are getting somewhere.
Why don't you support such marriage? Why do you oppose it?
Do you think your own rational is arbitrary?
Is the State's age restriction on marriage is 'arbitrary'?
Where I agree with you is that if the State cannot establish a clear interest the state has in preventing a marriage- then the State law unconstitutionally interferes with American's right to marry.
Which is why 4 times now the Court has overturned State marriage laws. In each of these cases the State was unable to explain what clear interest that state had, that prevailed over our right to marry.
My opinion on support means nothing. The USSC has made it clear that the State cannot ban on an arbitrary basis. Sex is not a qualifier for a marriage license, not even implied. So the ban is arbitrary in nature, Whether I like it or not.
I think the State's rights to limit age is correct, as it is in any contract.
Why is age any less arbitrary than gender?
And I appreciate you admitting your opinion means nothing on this. Your opinion is that the ban is arbitrary. That doesn't mean it is.
Any more than the restrictions on age are arbitrary.
I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.
Correct, just as your opinion doesn't make the bans valid.
Incest is illegal, so the term is moot. No one can enter into a contract for illegal purpose.
And no I don't support it.
However, I can't seem to find a reason that a State who's law does not specifically calls for sexual intimacy for a legal binding marriage can ban anyone from entering into this contract. Certainly the can for those not of a certain age, but for no others.
Most states appear to allow the participants to agree to what the marriage should be, with few none arbitrary duties for the parties.
Some states claim that fidelity is a duty, but they will also allow swingers to marry. I've never heard of a State removing a license from known swingers. So even their own rules are non sense.
We know the courts have claimed that, denying the rights of some to Marry was the State denying financial rights, only obtained through marriage for arbitrary reasons. I have yet to hear an argument that denial of these rights to anyone wouldn't also be done on an arbitrary basis.
Okay now we are getting somewhere.
Why don't you support such marriage? Why do you oppose it?
Do you think your own rational is arbitrary?
Is the State's age restriction on marriage is 'arbitrary'?
Where I agree with you is that if the State cannot establish a clear interest the state has in preventing a marriage- then the State law unconstitutionally interferes with American's right to marry.
Which is why 4 times now the Court has overturned State marriage laws. In each of these cases the State was unable to explain what clear interest that state had, that prevailed over our right to marry.
My opinion on support means nothing. The USSC has made it clear that the State cannot ban on an arbitrary basis. Sex is not a qualifier for a marriage license, not even implied. So the ban is arbitrary in nature, Whether I like it or not.
I think the State's rights to limit age is correct, as it is in any contract.
Why is age any less arbitrary than gender?
And I appreciate you admitting your opinion means nothing on this. Your opinion is that the ban is arbitrary. That doesn't mean it is.
Any more than the restrictions on age are arbitrary.
I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.
Correct, just as your opinion doesn't make the bans valid.
However the bans are valid- unless and until a court is convinced that they are not.
If children are implicitly involved with contracts the Infancy Doctrine still applies. They need not sign. The adults involved are bound by the rules of the Infancy Doctrine.I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.
Okay now we are getting somewhere.
Why don't you support such marriage? Why do you oppose it?
Do you think your own rational is arbitrary?
Is the State's age restriction on marriage is 'arbitrary'?
Where I agree with you is that if the State cannot establish a clear interest the state has in preventing a marriage- then the State law unconstitutionally interferes with American's right to marry.
Which is why 4 times now the Court has overturned State marriage laws. In each of these cases the State was unable to explain what clear interest that state had, that prevailed over our right to marry.
My opinion on support means nothing. The USSC has made it clear that the State cannot ban on an arbitrary basis. Sex is not a qualifier for a marriage license, not even implied. So the ban is arbitrary in nature, Whether I like it or not.
I think the State's rights to limit age is correct, as it is in any contract.
Why is age any less arbitrary than gender?
And I appreciate you admitting your opinion means nothing on this. Your opinion is that the ban is arbitrary. That doesn't mean it is.
Any more than the restrictions on age are arbitrary.
I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.
Correct, just as your opinion doesn't make the bans valid.
However the bans are valid- unless and until a court is convinced that they are not.
Correct, but the precedence is established. If banning the individual from a right, they must show it is not arbitrary and that there is a compelling State interest in that denial.
If children are implicitly involved with contracts the Infancy Doctrine still applies. They need not sign. The adults involved are bound by the rules of the Infancy Doctrine.I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.
The compelling state interest that would deny polygamy kink or incest kink marriage would be & is "it's detrimental to children." .
My opinion on support means nothing. The USSC has made it clear that the State cannot ban on an arbitrary basis. Sex is not a qualifier for a marriage license, not even implied. So the ban is arbitrary in nature, Whether I like it or not.
I think the State's rights to limit age is correct, as it is in any contract.
Why is age any less arbitrary than gender?
And I appreciate you admitting your opinion means nothing on this. Your opinion is that the ban is arbitrary. That doesn't mean it is.
Any more than the restrictions on age are arbitrary.
I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.
Correct, just as your opinion doesn't make the bans valid.
However the bans are valid- unless and until a court is convinced that they are not.
Correct, but the precedence is established. If banning the individual from a right, they must show it is not arbitrary and that there is a compelling State interest in that denial.
The precedent was established by Loving v. Virginia.
When Virginia could not come up with a compelling reason why the State had an interest in banning mixed race marriages- or to use your terms- because the Court found that Virginia's reason was 'arbitrary'
The precedent is that the Supreme Court can overturn unconstitutional marriage laws. And that Americans have a right to legal marriage- and for the state to deny that right the state must have a compelling reason- which for:
The state was not able to do. If you don't think that the state has any compelling reason to prevent incestuous marriage, then you would of course applaud the repeal of such a ban- unless you are for government having arbitrary bans in place.
- Mixed race marriages
- Marriages where child support is owed
- Marriage of an imprisoned person
- Same gender marriages
Why is age any less arbitrary than gender?
And I appreciate you admitting your opinion means nothing on this. Your opinion is that the ban is arbitrary. That doesn't mean it is.
Any more than the restrictions on age are arbitrary.
I never said it was less arbitrary then gender. What I said is that it well established that children under a certain age cannot enter into binding contracts. There is well reasoned legal standards for age of consent laws.
Correct, just as your opinion doesn't make the bans valid.
However the bans are valid- unless and until a court is convinced that they are not.
Correct, but the precedence is established. If banning the individual from a right, they must show it is not arbitrary and that there is a compelling State interest in that denial.
The precedent was established by Loving v. Virginia.
When Virginia could not come up with a compelling reason why the State had an interest in banning mixed race marriages- or to use your terms- because the Court found that Virginia's reason was 'arbitrary'
The precedent is that the Supreme Court can overturn unconstitutional marriage laws. And that Americans have a right to legal marriage- and for the state to deny that right the state must have a compelling reason- which for:
The state was not able to do. If you don't think that the state has any compelling reason to prevent incestuous marriage, then you would of course applaud the repeal of such a ban- unless you are for government having arbitrary bans in place.
- Mixed race marriages
- Marriages where child support is owed
- Marriage of an imprisoned person
- Same gender marriages
Oberfell took it a step further, making excluding just about any couple or group eligible because denial is on arbitrary basis.
The laws stated only one man to one woman. They qualified it with “not closely related”..
