Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[kaz]

But de facto same sex marriage exists a real form of monogamy, whether the law recognizes it or not.

Your argument btw would be the argument why miscegenation laws are constitutional, because they allowed everyone to enter into a same race marriage, but not into an interracial marriage.

In case you're not aware of it, miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

It's not quite as simple because everyone is a man or a woman, but not everyone belongs to one race. However, that aside, I'm in an interracial marriage, and I can tell you that in no possible way do I think the ability of judges to create law is what protects me.

You're counting on that if the public is immoral, a few moral people will go to law school, become judges and protect us from ourselves by making moral laws from the bench by decree.

That ... is nuts ...

You took alot of words to dodge my post. Let me boil it down it bit for you...

Why weren't laws against interracial marriage constitutional?

OK, let me dumb down my answer for you. Laws banning interracial marriage are not Unconstitutional. I would have no problem adding abortion (pro-choice), interracial marriage, even gay marriage to the Constitutional. However, I have a huge problem with adding them because 5 out of 9 dictators say they don't consider it "fair." In no way does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to make life "fair." And giving it that power is far more scary to me or anyone else with a critical mind then the idea that I may have to live in a different State if I want government recognition of my marriage. Which I don't care about BTW, my wife does. I am referring to the government part, not the marriage part.

Which is also the positive side, in the pursuit of the liberal concept of "fairness" the left drive incredible unfairness through our government. So by going back to being a republic, I also have the choice by not allowing you to force States to be "fair" to live in States that are not unfair. A choice I don't have now since you force them all to be unfair.

 

[The Rabbi]

The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?

You keep beating that one note, girl.
Black men and white men should have the same rights. Men and women should have the same rights. Gays and straights should have the same rights. And currently they all do.
What gays want are special rights.

If by "beating the same drum", you mean pointing out the startling similarities between the arguments used to try to keep blacks from marrying whites, and the current attempt to keep gays and lesbians from equal access to civil marriage laws, yes I will keep beating.

I enjoy pointing out how wrong they were in regards to history (even though they were in a 70% majority) and delight in how bigots like you will be judged historically.

Except blacks are not gays. But you can pretend all you like. Just like you pretend that men are women and vice versa.

 

[kaz]

The difference between a marriage of a man and woman and a man and 2 women (or 3 or 4 or 10 or 100) is greater than the difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

The government's obligation is to give equal treatment when the circumstances are similar. It's at least arguable that polygamy is not sufficiently similar to monogamy to require equal treatment.

Man/woman marriage is equal treatment for gays and straights. Both can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a single sex marriage. The law is literal, it's not algebra. There are no variables.

The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?

Your argument is a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

 

[Seawytch]

Man/woman marriage is equal treatment for gays and straights. Both can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a single sex marriage. The law is literal, it's not algebra. There are no variables.

The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?

Your argument is a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

This doesn't seem at all similar?

Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [p8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.
Loving v. Virginia (No. 395)

The Court (SCOTUS) rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Loving v Virginia

 

[Seawytch]

You keep beating that one note, girl.
Black men and white men should have the same rights. Men and women should have the same rights. Gays and straights should have the same rights. And currently they all do.
What gays want are special rights.

If by "beating the same drum", you mean pointing out the startling similarities between the arguments used to try to keep blacks from marrying whites, and the current attempt to keep gays and lesbians from equal access to civil marriage laws, yes I will keep beating.

I enjoy pointing out how wrong they were in regards to history (even though they were in a 70% majority) and delight in how bigots like you will be judged historically.

Except blacks are not gays. But you can pretend all you like. Just like you pretend that men are women and vice versa.

Nobody has compared race to sexual orientation, just the discrimination. The 14th Amendment isn't a "blacks only" amendment.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not quite as simple because everyone is a man or a woman, but not everyone belongs to one race. However, that aside, I'm in an interracial marriage, and I can tell you that in no possible way do I think the ability of judges to create law is what protects me.

You're counting on that if the public is immoral, a few moral people will go to law school, become judges and protect us from ourselves by making moral laws from the bench by decree.

That ... is nuts ...

You took alot of words to dodge my post. Let me boil it down it bit for you...

Why weren't laws against interracial marriage constitutional?

OK, let me dumb down my answer for you. Laws banning interracial marriage are not Unconstitutional. I would have no problem adding abortion (pro-choice), interracial marriage, even gay marriage to the Constitutional. However, I have a huge problem with adding them because 5 out of 9 dictators say they don't consider it "fair." In no way does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to make life "fair." And giving it that power is far more scary to me or anyone else with a critical mind then the idea that I may have to live in a different State if I want government recognition of my marriage. Which I don't care about BTW, my wife does. I am referring to the government part, not the marriage part.

Which is also the positive side, in the pursuit of the liberal concept of "fairness" the left drive incredible unfairness through our government. So by going back to being a republic, I also have the choice by not allowing you to force States to be "fair" to live in States that are not unfair. A choice I don't have now since you force them all to be unfair.

According to the SCOTUS decision on Obuma care, Congress has the power to make life un-fair by redistributing funds via taxing and spending programs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Man/woman marriage is equal treatment for gays and straights. Both can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a single sex marriage. The law is literal, it's not algebra. There are no variables.

The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?

You keep beating that one note, girl.
Black men and white men should have the same rights. Men and women should have the same rights. Gays and straights should have the same rights. And currently they all do.
What gays want are special rights.

Wrong. Gays want the right that heterosexuals have, the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

Currently, where gay marriage is not legal, and heterosexual marriage is, it's the heterosexuals who have a 'special' right.

 

[dblack]

The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?

You keep beating that one note, girl.
Black men and white men should have the same rights. Men and women should have the same rights. Gays and straights should have the same rights. And currently they all do.
What gays want are special rights.

Wrong. Gays want the right that heterosexuals have, the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

Currently, where gay marriage is not legal, and heterosexual marriage is, it's the heterosexuals who have a 'special' right.

Exactly. Which is why the libertarian approach to this problem has always been to stop granting the special rights for any married couples. Then, marriage becomes civil contract and no one's business besides those who sign it. Granting special rights to gays does, unfortunately, raise the questions asked in the thread - where does it stop?

I'm not anti-gay marriage, and in as much as the gay marriage issue has become a proxy referendum on the acceptability of gay relationships in general - I support it. But forcing people to accept gay marriage isn't the best answer - getting government out of the marriage-defining business is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Man/woman marriage is equal treatment for gays and straights. Both can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a single sex marriage. The law is literal, it's not algebra. There are no variables.

The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?

Your argument is a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

It's your argument. Your argument is that banning interracial marriage should be constitutional because it's not discriminatory.

 

[RKMBrown]

The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?

You keep beating that one note, girl.
Black men and white men should have the same rights. Men and women should have the same rights. Gays and straights should have the same rights. And currently they all do.
What gays want are special rights.

Wrong. Gays want the right that heterosexuals have, the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

Currently, where gay marriage is not legal, and heterosexual marriage is, it's the heterosexuals who have a 'special' right.

They can get married they just can't get the marriage license.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep beating that one note, girl.
Black men and white men should have the same rights. Men and women should have the same rights. Gays and straights should have the same rights. And currently they all do.
What gays want are special rights.

Wrong. Gays want the right that heterosexuals have, the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

Currently, where gay marriage is not legal, and heterosexual marriage is, it's the heterosexuals who have a 'special' right.

Exactly. Which is why the libertarian approach to this problem has always been to stop granting the special rights for any married couples. Then, marriage becomes civil contract and no one's business besides those who sign it.

The problem with that libertarian idea is that married people vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep beating that one note, girl.
Black men and white men should have the same rights. Men and women should have the same rights. Gays and straights should have the same rights. And currently they all do.
What gays want are special rights.

Wrong. Gays want the right that heterosexuals have, the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

Currently, where gay marriage is not legal, and heterosexual marriage is, it's the heterosexuals who have a 'special' right.

They can get married they just can't get the marriage license.

I don't think we need to make that distinction in every post.

 

[dblack]

Wrong. Gays want the right that heterosexuals have, the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

Currently, where gay marriage is not legal, and heterosexual marriage is, it's the heterosexuals who have a 'special' right.

Exactly. Which is why the libertarian approach to this problem has always been to stop granting the special rights for any married couples. Then, marriage becomes civil contract and no one's business besides those who sign it.

The problem with that libertarian idea is that married people vote.

The problem with many libertarian ideas is that people vote. Or, rather, that the power of voters to dictate how other people live isn't properly limited by the Court via constitutional constraints.

 

[The Rabbi]

If by "beating the same drum", you mean pointing out the startling similarities between the arguments used to try to keep blacks from marrying whites, and the current attempt to keep gays and lesbians from equal access to civil marriage laws, yes I will keep beating.

I enjoy pointing out how wrong they were in regards to history (even though they were in a 70% majority) and delight in how bigots like you will be judged historically.

Except blacks are not gays. But you can pretend all you like. Just like you pretend that men are women and vice versa.

Nobody has compared race to sexual orientation, just the discrimination. The 14th Amendment isn't a "blacks only" amendment.

There is no discrimination. Gays and straights are treated equally. You want unequal treatment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not quite as simple because everyone is a man or a woman, but not everyone belongs to one race. However, that aside, I'm in an interracial marriage, and I can tell you that in no possible way do I think the ability of judges to create law is what protects me.

You're counting on that if the public is immoral, a few moral people will go to law school, become judges and protect us from ourselves by making moral laws from the bench by decree.

That ... is nuts ...

You took alot of words to dodge my post. Let me boil it down it bit for you...

Why weren't laws against interracial marriage constitutional?

OK, let me dumb down my answer for you. Laws banning interracial marriage are not Unconstitutional. I would have no problem adding abortion (pro-choice), interracial marriage, even gay marriage to the Constitutional. However, I have a huge problem with adding them because 5 out of 9 dictators say they don't consider it "fair." In no way does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to make life "fair." And giving it that power is far more scary to me or anyone else with a critical mind then the idea that I may have to live in a different State if I want government recognition of my marriage. Which I don't care about BTW, my wife does. I am referring to the government part, not the marriage part.

Which is also the positive side, in the pursuit of the liberal concept of "fairness" the left drive incredible unfairness through our government. So by going back to being a republic, I also have the choice by not allowing you to force States to be "fair" to live in States that are not unfair. A choice I don't have now since you force them all to be unfair.

Equal treatment under the law is all about fairness.

If you take away the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution and apply it questions of constitutionality of local state and federal laws, like I said,

guns would be banned city by city, county by county, state by state.

Is that what you want?

 

[kaz]

and delight in how bigots like you will be judged historically.

Interesting comment.

1) You are angry
2) You think everyone else is angry
3) You want people in the future to be angry, judgmental and unforgiving.

It's actually only the stick up your ass hard left who are angry, and you're angry about everything, not just this. Based on views of older people and younger people, there is no doubt that gay marriage will be legal in the not too distant future even if you don't circumvent the Constitution and get it decreed by our criminal court system.

However, most of the young who are changing that aren't angry, they just support gay marriage. And most people who view history don't view it with anger either. So gay marriage you will get regardless, the rest of your hate spew you won't.

Get help.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except blacks are not gays. But you can pretend all you like. Just like you pretend that men are women and vice versa.

Nobody has compared race to sexual orientation, just the discrimination. The 14th Amendment isn't a "blacks only" amendment.

There is no discrimination. Gays and straights are treated equally. You want unequal treatment.

Legalizing gay marriage isn't unequal treatment. Those laws don't deny heterosexuals access to same sex marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. Gays want the right that heterosexuals have, the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

Currently, where gay marriage is not legal, and heterosexual marriage is, it's the heterosexuals who have a 'special' right.

They can get married they just can't get the marriage license.

I don't think we need to make that distinction in every post.

The right to have your relationship regulated by government, is significantly different than the right to swear before god, friends, and family that you love your partner and will stay with your partner for life.

HUGE difference.

 

[kaz]

The same "math" was argued in Loving v Virginia. It was argued that interracial marriage laws did not discriminate because they applied equally to men and women of all races. How did that argument go?

Your argument is a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

This doesn't seem at all similar?

Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [p8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.
Loving v. Virginia (No. 395)

The Court (SCOTUS) rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Loving v Virginia

This doesn't change that you are begging the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Exactly. Which is why the libertarian approach to this problem has always been to stop granting the special rights for any married couples. Then, marriage becomes civil contract and no one's business besides those who sign it.

The problem with that libertarian idea is that married people vote.

The problem with many libertarian ideas is that people vote. Or, rather, that the power of voters to dictate how other people live isn't properly limited by the Court via constitutional constraints.

No one's come up with a form of government where no one loses.