Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Gadawg73]

Whatever windbag. By your statements, false witness isn't a lie and insurance fraud isn't a lie or a crime of theft. Additionally by your statements insurance fraud is not false witness about yourself, or false witness about others lol You need a hobby. Should I assume that you have committed insurance fraud and are looking for forgiveness or absolution?

If false witnessing is not lying you must be telling the truth in this post.

Since you are the new self declared expert on lies, why don't you explain why God got away with lying in the Bible if all lying is being a false witness?

What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was thinking more like Roe v. Wade and New London.

Of course you were. Rulings you like, a-okay...rulings you don't ..."judicial activism!"

The one being political in all those rulings is blatantly you.

- Heller - The Constitution enforced the second amendment. Simple case based on the actual Constitution. That case did not in any way expand Federal power. There is no judicial activism in this unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

- Voting Rights Act. There is no basis in the 14th amendment to punish States because of "historical" behavior. If they discriminate, enforce it, if they don't, don't. The 14th does not say if the Feds have the opinion you have discriminated before, then they can arbitrarily punish them. Again, this does not in any way expand Federal power. Clearly not activism, unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

However,

- Roe v. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution. Murder isn't in the Constitution. This greatly expands Federal power giving the Federal government the right to dictate the definition of murder to States. And when you say I "like it" you're perfect in your record of being wrong every time, I'm pro-choice. There is no Constitutional basis for the Fed to have Roe v. Wade power. Pure judicial activism.

- New London. The Constitution gives the right to take land for "public use." Not to take it from the hands of one private citizen and give it to another. This massively expands all government power. Judicial activism pure and simple, there is no Constitutional basis for that. Pure judicial activism.

New London does show the left's hypocrisy. You supported an evil developer over grandma. Then BTW, they didn't build it. Grandma got kicked out of her home, and it got overgrown by weeds and is sitting there. You're the hypocrite, my dear.

Are you really sure you want to claim that the States have the right to decide what is or isn't murder?

btw, pro-choice is a rights issue. If you believe that the right of choice should be at the mercy of the whims of the various states, then you are not pro-choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whatever windbag. By your statements, false witness isn't a lie and insurance fraud isn't a lie or a crime of theft. Additionally by your statements insurance fraud is not false witness about yourself, or false witness about others lol You need a hobby. Should I assume that you have committed insurance fraud and are looking for forgiveness or absolution?

If false witnessing is not lying you must be telling the truth in this post.

Since you are the new self declared expert on lies, why don't you explain why God got away with lying in the Bible if all lying is being a false witness?

What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license?

Very good question.

Ignorance, fear, and hate is the only answer.

 

[Gadawg73]

If false witnessing is not lying you must be telling the truth in this post.

Since you are the new self declared expert on lies, why don't you explain why God got away with lying in the Bible if all lying is being a false witness?

What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license?

Very good question.

Ignorance, fear, and hate is the only answer.

Thank you.
That is exactly what I had to ask myself at one time.
None so I quit opposing it.

 

[Gadawg73]

People, we need to take the humanitarian path on this one.
Either you are with that or opposed to it.
Tell us why you get satisfaction by opposing gay folk getting their joy with a marriage license.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He never spoke of surgery, space flight or electricity...does that make them not good?

I never said you said gays couldn't be Christian. Quantum implied it.

I implied no such thing, you inferred that my statement that anyone who does not follow the teachings of Jesus to mean that. That says more about you than it does me, I have said more than once that I am not in charge of who gets into heaven.

TemplarWassisface: If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.

Me: Except "they" aren't offended by Christians. Many of "them" are Christians. "They" are offended by people who use their religion to justify bigotry, but that's all. It's not a blanket condemnation of ALL Christians as you do to ALL gays.

You: I hate to point out the obvious, but anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus is not a Christian, even if they believe they are.

What did you mean to imply with that statement?

If you are trying to point out your mind reading skills you are failing.

Mathew 7:21-25

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Geez folks, can't you just give in and let gay folks marry? Do you have to fight over it? Does it really make your marriage worse?
How about the humanity of it allowing these folks that love each other to get married?
What satisfaction do you get out of denying them that?

I have polygamous friends, why can't they get married?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whatever windbag. By your statements, false witness isn't a lie and insurance fraud isn't a lie or a crime of theft. Additionally by your statements insurance fraud is not false witness about yourself, or false witness about others lol You need a hobby. Should I assume that you have committed insurance fraud and are looking for forgiveness or absolution?

If false witnessing is not lying you must be telling the truth in this post.

Since you are the new self declared expert on lies, why don't you explain why God got away with lying in the Bible if all lying is being a false witness?

What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license?

Practicing up on being a false witness in case the government ever needs you to get rid of someone who doesn't agree with the Ministry of Truth?

 

[dblack]

All slippery slope arguments are suspect because we can stop the slide at any point. It does however open up debate on other issues when one issue is settled so to speak.

Not all slippery slope arguments are suspect. Those that make a compelling case for why accepting something as a precedent is likely to an undesirable result are making a valid argument. Whether we agree with their reasons for the 'slipperiness' is another matter. But it's a valid technique of argument in many cases.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Geez folks, can't you just give in and let gay folks marry? Do you have to fight over it? Does it really make your marriage worse?
How about the humanity of it allowing these folks that love each other to get married?
What satisfaction do you get out of denying them that?

I have polygamous friends, why can't they get married?

Because laws prohibiting plural marriage are applied to everyone equally, there is no particular class of persons singled out for exclusion. Such laws are rationally based, seek a legitimate legislative end, and exhibit animus toward no class of persons. And no state’s law currently written can accommodate plural marriage.

That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples accessing marriage law.

Laws that prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law singles out homosexuals as a class of persons to make them different from everyone else. Such laws lack a rational basis, they fail to seek a legitimate legislative end, have no objective, documented evidence in their support, and are predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals. And the marriage laws in all 50 states can currently accommodate same-sex couples.

You may ask this ignorant, inane question as many times as you want, and the facts of law rendering this question ignorant and inane will forever remain the same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm saying that Genesis is a creation myth written by Men. Perhaps it was written by God through men,

but we do not have any evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

The machinations of our creator, the ruler of this universe and the next, are not made for the minds of men to understand.

Which is why religious dogma is thankfully irrelevant in a court of law.

If one believes homosexuality is ‘sinful,’ then that means he shouldn’t engage in homosexual acts.

It doesn’t mean he should attempt to codify that subjective religious dogma into a secular measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law.

Sure. So is your opinions of the law. Personal opinions don't stick in the court of law. You should have learned that after the Zimmerman case. As far as I can see, this thread isn't about gay marriage, so therefore I will repel you attempt to bait me. Incest or polygamy are not homosexual acts. They are acts of perversion. They pollute the gene pool of a generation or generations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If false witnessing is not lying you must be telling the truth in this post.

Since you are the new self declared expert on lies, why don't you explain why God got away with lying in the Bible if all lying is being a false witness?

What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license?

Practicing up on being a false witness in case the government ever needs you to get rid of someone who doesn't agree with the Ministry of Truth?

You refuse to answer the question and respond with only nonsense.

Again:

“What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license”?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The machinations of our creator, the ruler of this universe and the next, are not made for the minds of men to understand.

Which is why religious dogma is thankfully irrelevant in a court of law.

If one believes homosexuality is ‘sinful,’ then that means he shouldn’t engage in homosexual acts.

It doesn’t mean he should attempt to codify that subjective religious dogma into a secular measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law.

Sure. So is your opinions of the law. Personal opinions don't stick in the court of law. You should have learned that after the Zimmerman case. As far as I can see, this thread isn't about gay marriage, so therefore I will repel you attempt to bait me. Incest or polygamy are not homosexual acts. They are acts of perversion. They pollute the gene pool of a generation or generations.

You’re invited to answer the question as well:

“What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license”?

 

[Seawytch]

I implied no such thing, you inferred that my statement that anyone who does not follow the teachings of Jesus to mean that. That says more about you than it does me, I have said more than once that I am not in charge of who gets into heaven.

TemplarWassisface: If they can be offended by Christians, we can be offended by homosexuality, polygamy and incest. It's only fair.

Me: Except "they" aren't offended by Christians. Many of "them" are Christians. "They" are offended by people who use their religion to justify bigotry, but that's all. It's not a blanket condemnation of ALL Christians as you do to ALL gays.

You: I hate to point out the obvious, but anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus is not a Christian, even if they believe they are.

What did you mean to imply with that statement?

If you are trying to point out your mind reading skills you are failing.

Mathew 7:21-25

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

I'll ask again. Who were you implying were not real Christians?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The machinations of our creator, the ruler of this universe and the next, are not made for the minds of men to understand.

Which is why religious dogma is thankfully irrelevant in a court of law.

If one believes homosexuality is ‘sinful,’ then that means he shouldn’t engage in homosexual acts.

It doesn’t mean he should attempt to codify that subjective religious dogma into a secular measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law.

Sure. So is your opinions of the law. Personal opinions don't stick in the court of law. You should have learned that after the Zimmerman case. As far as I can see, this thread isn't about gay marriage, so therefore I will repel you attempt to bait me. Incest or polygamy are not homosexual acts. They are acts of perversion. They pollute the gene pool of a generation or generations.

How can polygamy be a perversion when it is most likely the most common form of marriage that the human species originally practiced? Primitive man was most likely polygamous. Polygamy is a function of Darwinian evolutionary principles. The stronger more dominant males get the most females, and thus reproduce and pass their genes on more than the weaker males.

 

[Seawytch]

Which is why religious dogma is thankfully irrelevant in a court of law.

If one believes homosexuality is ‘sinful,’ then that means he shouldn’t engage in homosexual acts.

It doesn’t mean he should attempt to codify that subjective religious dogma into a secular measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection right to access marriage law.

Sure. So is your opinions of the law. Personal opinions don't stick in the court of law. You should have learned that after the Zimmerman case. As far as I can see, this thread isn't about gay marriage, so therefore I will repel you attempt to bait me. Incest or polygamy are not homosexual acts. They are acts of perversion. They pollute the gene pool of a generation or generations.

How can polygamy be a perversion when it is most likely the most common form of marriage that the human species originally practiced? Primitive man was most likely polygamous. Polygamy is a function of Darwinian evolutionary principles. The stronger more dominant males get the most females, and thus reproduce and pass their genes on more than the weaker males.

When it becomes just the richest that "get all the girls", the practice falls out of favor.

 

[Gadawg73]

If false witnessing is not lying you must be telling the truth in this post.

Since you are the new self declared expert on lies, why don't you explain why God got away with lying in the Bible if all lying is being a false witness?

What satisfaction do you get out of denying gays the right to get a marriage license?

Practicing up on being a false witness in case the government ever needs you to get rid of someone who doesn't agree with the Ministry of Truth?

You claimed you were not basing any of your opinions and beliefs on this subject on religious beliefs or religion.

 

[bodecea]

Geez folks, can't you just give in and let gay folks marry? Do you have to fight over it? Does it really make your marriage worse?
How about the humanity of it allowing these folks that love each other to get married?
What satisfaction do you get out of denying them that?

I have polygamous friends, why can't they get married?

I have no problem with it...have you acted to get the laws changed in that regard like gays have acted to get the laws changed in our regard? Or do you just whine?

 

[RKMBrown]

Geez folks, can't you just give in and let gay folks marry? Do you have to fight over it? Does it really make your marriage worse?
How about the humanity of it allowing these folks that love each other to get married?
What satisfaction do you get out of denying them that?

I have polygamous friends, why can't they get married?

Because laws prohibiting plural marriage are applied to everyone equally, there is no particular class of persons singled out for exclusion. Such laws are rationally based, seek a legitimate legislative end, and exhibit animus toward no class of persons. And no state’s law currently written can accommodate plural marriage.

That is not the case with regard to laws prohibiting same-sex couples accessing marriage law.

Laws that prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law singles out homosexuals as a class of persons to make them different from everyone else. Such laws lack a rational basis, they fail to seek a legitimate legislative end, have no objective, documented evidence in their support, and are predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals. And the marriage laws in all 50 states can currently accommodate same-sex couples.

You may ask this ignorant, inane question as many times as you want, and the facts of law rendering this question ignorant and inane will forever remain the same.

What is the rationality to prohibit plural marriages? Who is harmed by a plural marriage?

 

[kaz]

Of course you were. Rulings you like, a-okay...rulings you don't ..."judicial activism!"

The one being political in all those rulings is blatantly you.

- Heller - The Constitution enforced the second amendment. Simple case based on the actual Constitution. That case did not in any way expand Federal power. There is no judicial activism in this unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

- Voting Rights Act. There is no basis in the 14th amendment to punish States because of "historical" behavior. If they discriminate, enforce it, if they don't, don't. The 14th does not say if the Feds have the opinion you have discriminated before, then they can arbitrarily punish them. Again, this does not in any way expand Federal power. Clearly not activism, unless you're arguing you don't accept Marbury v. Madison.

However,

- Roe v. Wade. Abortion isn't in the Constitution. Murder isn't in the Constitution. This greatly expands Federal power giving the Federal government the right to dictate the definition of murder to States. And when you say I "like it" you're perfect in your record of being wrong every time, I'm pro-choice. There is no Constitutional basis for the Fed to have Roe v. Wade power. Pure judicial activism.

- New London. The Constitution gives the right to take land for "public use." Not to take it from the hands of one private citizen and give it to another. This massively expands all government power. Judicial activism pure and simple, there is no Constitutional basis for that. Pure judicial activism.

New London does show the left's hypocrisy. You supported an evil developer over grandma. Then BTW, they didn't build it. Grandma got kicked out of her home, and it got overgrown by weeds and is sitting there. You're the hypocrite, my dear.

Neither is the individual right to own a firearm or the right to self-defense, yet the Heller Court determined they existed nonetheless.

The bill of rights aren't individual liberties, gotcha, I'll stop arguing that idiocy. Out of curiosity, what are they then? Who's rights do the bill of rights protect? And what does "the right to bear arms not be infringed" mean? Who's right to bear arms shall not be infringed? In their writings, the funding fathers said they meant the right of citizens to bear arms. So what did they mean when they wrote the Constitution?

And Roe wasn’t solely about abortion, it was primarily about the right to privacy in the context of substantive due process as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. See: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972).

Hmmm...the due process in the 14th amendment says that you cannot deprive someone of life, liberty or property without legislative process. And so if a legislature bans abortion, you just lost based on the technical argument. But wow, the hypocrisy of the left in that a woman has a right to an abortion based on the 14th amendment, but the endless confiscation of our money and Federal regulations aren't banned? Pathetic.

As for Kelo, the petitioners were requesting the Court overturn established Takings Clause jurisprudence that had been accepted and settled law for over 100 years.

Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.10

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a “public purpose.” Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.

KELO V. NEW LONDON

Consequently, the Kelo Court merely reaffirmed long-standing precedent where a taking is justified even if there’s a private sector component.

Kelo is among the least understood of the Court’s recent rulings, particularly among libertarians who have contrived the case into a partisan myth.

Clearly it’s ignorant idiocy to claim that Kelo is somehow an example of ‘liberal hypocrisy.’

You're an idiot. You're doing well and addressing the points, why start the insults at the end? I either insult when I'm getting no serious responses or discuss, I don't discuss and throw in insults, it destroys the discussion.

1) Basically your argument comes down to that "public use" has gray that can't be eliminated, therefore, there are no restrictions on public use at all. That's ridiculous. I don't agree with the court on some of the things you said, but I agree they are at least gray. There is nothing gray about taking property by the force of government guns from one citizen and giving it to another. There is no public use there at all.

2) You didn't address the hypocrisy I pointed out when you rejected it. The left are hypocrites, they supported taking land by force from grandma and giving it to an evil developer. The right, who are supposed to be the hypocrites, weren't. They considered it a violation of individual liberty. Rejection isn't an argument, address it or concede. It's flagrant hypocrisy.