Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Gadawg73]

A mass murderer can marry in Tennessee but not gay folk.
Makes perfect sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

How many states have Constitutional Amendments BANNING SAME SEX MARRIAGE?
That is "nothing in law"?

No state bans gay marriage. My state, TN, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. That doesnt mean two faygolas can't go get hitched and live together. No state police officer is going to haul people off to jail because they put a piece of paper on the wall.

Your state did not define a damn thing. They passed A LAW that banned same sex marriage in your state.
The Act specifically states that gay marriages will not be recognized there and ANY AND ALL states that recognize it and marry same sex couples, that contract will not be honored there.
I have no problem with ignorance by popular vote. That is a states' right.
So you good folks hate gay folks so much you spent millions for a referendum to make a statement that affects no one.
Got it.

I used to think you were a smart person.

The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.

There is no ban here. No word of a ban. Gay people get married in TN all the freaking time.

 

[Seawytch]

I have been married for 37 years to the same woman. We have 3 grown kids.
Show me how gay marriage affects MY marriage, ANYONE'S MARRIAGE and how it has redefined MY MARRIAGE.
OR ANYONE'S MARRIAGE.

I've been with my spouse for 17, legally married for 4 1/2 with two teen/Tweens. Anyone feeling "redefined"? Anyone's marriage affected in any way as a result? Got any earthquakes you wanna blame on it?

 

[Gadawg73]

We discriminate against felons and illegal aliens in voting rights. We discriminate against children in voting. We discriminate against traitors in the first amendment. There's a whole list.

Some states discriminate against felons voting rights, some do not. Have some of these laws, like those that permanently take away a Felon's right to vote been challenged all the way to the SCOTUS yet?

A convicted felon's right to marry was affirmed by the SCOTUS. (Turner v Safley)

You have to have a reason to take away or deny a right from a group of people. A reason that will stand up in a court of law. "It's icky" or "then we (heterosexuals) won't be special" will not.

Because a stable nuclear family is the foundation of society and therefore in the state's interest to promote.
That pretty well covers it. You can carp and dither all you want about childless couples and older couples but it is irrelevant.

How is gay marriage stating "we oppose the stable nuclear family"?
I missed that. Please tell us how gay folk marrying is a statement that folks oppose stable nuclear families.

 

[The Rabbi]

A mass murderer can marry in Tennessee but not gay folk.
Makes perfect sense.

What does one have to do with the other? It's an idiotic comparison.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some states discriminate against felons voting rights, some do not. Have some of these laws, like those that permanently take away a Felon's right to vote been challenged all the way to the SCOTUS yet?

A convicted felon's right to marry was affirmed by the SCOTUS. (Turner v Safley)

You have to have a reason to take away or deny a right from a group of people. A reason that will stand up in a court of law. "It's icky" or "then we (heterosexuals) won't be special" will not.

Because a stable nuclear family is the foundation of society and therefore in the state's interest to promote.
That pretty well covers it. You can carp and dither all you want about childless couples and older couples but it is irrelevant.

How is gay marriage stating "we oppose the stable nuclear family"?
I missed that. Please tell us how gay folk marrying is a statement that folks oppose stable nuclear families.

You missed it because it wasn't there.
Swing and a miss.

 

[Seawytch]

A mass murderer can marry in Tennessee but not gay folk.
Makes perfect sense.

Not just a mass murderer, but a convicted murderer on death row with no chance of having conjugal visits (hence no chance at procreating).

 

[The Rabbi]

I have been married for 37 years to the same woman. We have 3 grown kids.
Show me how gay marriage affects MY marriage, ANYONE'S MARRIAGE and how it has redefined MY MARRIAGE.
OR ANYONE'S MARRIAGE.

I've been with my spouse for 17, legally married for 4 1/2 with two teen/Tweens. Anyone feeling "redefined"? Anyone's marriage affected in any way as a result? Got any earthquakes you wanna blame on it?

Your "marriage" hasnt been affected by acts of pederasty either. Perhaps we should legalize them on that basis.

 

[The Rabbi]

A mass murderer can marry in Tennessee but not gay folk.
Makes perfect sense.

Not just a mass murderer, but a convicted murderer on death row with no chance of having conjugal visits (hence no chance at procreating).

Governors pardon people at the last minute.
Fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi claims to be a conservative but yet wants the state to enforce his idea of marriage. Rab is a rightwing progressive statist. He is very confused.

 

[Gadawg73]

No state bans gay marriage. My state, TN, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. That doesnt mean two faygolas can't go get hitched and live together. No state police officer is going to haul people off to jail because they put a piece of paper on the wall.

Your state did not define a damn thing. They passed A LAW that banned same sex marriage in your state.
The Act specifically states that gay marriages will not be recognized there and ANY AND ALL states that recognize it and marry same sex couples, that contract will not be honored there.
I have no problem with ignorance by popular vote. That is a states' right.
So you good folks hate gay folks so much you spent millions for a referendum to make a statement that affects no one.
Got it.

I used to think you were a smart person.

The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.

There is no ban here. No word of a ban. Gay people get married in TN all the freaking time.

Show me ONE marriage license in Tennessee issued to a gay couple.
I am not a smart person, I am an INFORMED CITIZEN.

 

[Seawytch]

There is nothing in law that tells a person, RIGHT NOW and before, that they can not marry.

No, you're correct, it doesn't say you can't marry...someone you don't want to marry, are not attracted to and do not wish to create a partnership with.

Just like blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. Argument tried and failed.

Bzzt. Another failed attempt at appropriating the mantle of civil rights. Which group in CA was most opposed to gay marriage?

No appropriation necessary. Each civil rights struggle is its own...but the discrimination is often the same.

Argument Then: "there is no discrimination because you can marry your own race" (even though that isn't who you fell in love with)

Argument Now: "there is no discrimination because you can marry someone of the opposite sex" (even though that isn't who you fell in love with)

Same same

 

[The Rabbi]

Your state did not define a damn thing. They passed A LAW that banned same sex marriage in your state.
The Act specifically states that gay marriages will not be recognized there and ANY AND ALL states that recognize it and marry same sex couples, that contract will not be honored there.
I have no problem with ignorance by popular vote. That is a states' right.
So you good folks hate gay folks so much you spent millions for a referendum to make a statement that affects no one.
Got it.

I used to think you were a smart person.

The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.

There is no ban here. No word of a ban. Gay people get married in TN all the freaking time.

Show me ONE marriage license in Tennessee issued to a gay couple.
I am not a smart person, I am an INFORMED CITIZEN.

Moving the goal posts, skippy?

You claimed the law "banned" same sex marriage. I posted the exact text of the constitutional amendment and there is no "ban" anywhere there.
Heres a pic of a couple who got married with mention of many more.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/2...pects-move-quickly-gay-rights-TN-after-ruling

 

[g5000]

My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.

When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.

Kent Greenfield - Boston College

You know what is particularly funny about this topic?

Kent Greenfield is a liberal teacher. And we all know what complete idiots liberal teachers are...

 

[The Rabbi]

No, you're correct, it doesn't say you can't marry...someone you don't want to marry, are not attracted to and do not wish to create a partnership with.

Just like blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. Argument tried and failed.

Bzzt. Another failed attempt at appropriating the mantle of civil rights. Which group in CA was most opposed to gay marriage?

No appropriation necessary. Each civil rights struggle is its own...but the discrimination is often the same.

Argument Then: "there is no discrimination because you can marry your own race" (even though that isn't who you fell in love with)

Argument Now: "there is no discrimination because you can marry someone of the opposite sex" (even though that isn't who you fell in love with)

Same same

Not at all. Not even remotely close. But you parrot the party line pretty well.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have been married for 37 years to the same woman. We have 3 grown kids.
Show me how gay marriage affects MY marriage, ANYONE'S MARRIAGE and how it has redefined MY MARRIAGE.
OR ANYONE'S MARRIAGE.

I've been with my spouse for 17, legally married for 4 1/2 with two teen/Tweens. Anyone feeling "redefined"? Anyone's marriage affected in any way as a result? Got any earthquakes you wanna blame on it?

Your "marriage" hasnt been affected by acts of pederasty either. Perhaps we should legalize them on that basis.

So you admit that gay marriage is against the law "legalize" in some states.
Took a while to get you there with your dodges but the truth always comes out.
You support efforts not to legalize gay marriage because you believe it should be a crime similar to pederasty.
Your example, not mine.

 

[The Rabbi]

I've been with my spouse for 17, legally married for 4 1/2 with two teen/Tweens. Anyone feeling "redefined"? Anyone's marriage affected in any way as a result? Got any earthquakes you wanna blame on it?

Your "marriage" hasnt been affected by acts of pederasty either. Perhaps we should legalize them on that basis.

So you admit that gay marriage is against the law "legalize" in some states.
Took a while to get you there with your dodges but the truth always comes out.
You support efforts not to legalize gay marriage because you believe it should be a crime similar to pederasty.
Your example, not mine.

You're becoming especially incoherent now that i've taken you to cleaners on this issue.
There is no ban. There are no gay police out there hauling off couples to jail because they posted a piece of paper on a wall.
Go have another scotch and maybe things will be clearer.

 

[Seawytch]

We discriminate against felons and illegal aliens in voting rights. We discriminate against children in voting. We discriminate against traitors in the first amendment. There's a whole list.

Some states discriminate against felons voting rights, some do not. Have some of these laws, like those that permanently take away a Felon's right to vote been challenged all the way to the SCOTUS yet?

A convicted felon's right to marry was affirmed by the SCOTUS. (Turner v Safley)

You have to have a reason to take away or deny a right from a group of people. A reason that will stand up in a court of law. "It's icky" or "then we (heterosexuals) won't be special" will not.

Because a stable nuclear family is the foundation of society and therefore in the state's interest to promote.
That pretty well covers it. You can carp and dither all you want about childless couples and older couples but it is irrelevant.

We have families too you know. How does allowing us to protect our spouse's and families "un-promote" the "nuclear" family?

Wouldn't it be more in the state's interest to make the absolution of the marriage contract more difficult than to prevent a group from joining in on the fun?

Tell me how Turney v Safley relates to your "stable nuclear family" argument.

 

[Seawytch]

Bzzt. Another failed attempt at appropriating the mantle of civil rights. Which group in CA was most opposed to gay marriage?

No appropriation necessary. Each civil rights struggle is its own...but the discrimination is often the same.

Argument Then: "there is no discrimination because you can marry your own race" (even though that isn't who you fell in love with)

Argument Now: "there is no discrimination because you can marry someone of the opposite sex" (even though that isn't who you fell in love with)

Same same

Not at all. Not even remotely close. But you parrot the party line pretty well.

How is the discrimination different? I'm not asking how race and orientation are different, I'm asking how the discrimination is different.

 

[Gadawg73]

Your "marriage" hasnt been affected by acts of pederasty either. Perhaps we should legalize them on that basis.

So you admit that gay marriage is against the law "legalize" in some states.
Took a while to get you there with your dodges but the truth always comes out.
You support efforts not to legalize gay marriage because you believe it should be a crime similar to pederasty.
Your example, not mine.

You're becoming especially incoherent now that i've taken you to cleaners on this issue.
There is no ban. There are no gay police out there hauling off couples to jail because they posted a piece of paper on a wall.
Go have another scotch and maybe things will be clearer.

So you spent millions on a referendum to ban same sex marriage and it passes and you allow marriage licenses for same sex couples as a result of that.
Back in my playing days I always knew when I had that big, overgrown man mountain of an offensive tackle beat when he started calling me names, crying to the line ref and making excuses.
You have been caught and filleted. You claim that your state passed a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriages yet do not enforce it.
Enforcement IS NOT PRISON, it is NOT issuing them a license.
B