Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[dblack]

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.

No, but constitutionally limited, representative democracy was a pretty good shot. Too bad we've given up on it.

 

[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."

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

Um...maybe Rabbi's right, drugs aren't victimless. I head to read this tripping post.

I didn't say any of that. That isn't my position and it isn't the reason. Which is why she was begging the question. I said it is NOT Constitutional for the Federal government to ban laws preventing interracial marriage. They do by the full faith and credit clause have the power to force States to recognize interracial marriages performed in other States. Or they have the right to tell them they don't have to, just like DOMA was Constitutional. But they don't have the Constitutional authority to direct States to allow interracial marriage.

You're having a hard time because you don't understand the concept of anyone not being a flagrant hypocrite like you are. I am not OK with laws banning interracial marriage (assuming marriage is a government function), but that I think that doesn't give the Federal government authority to force States to accept them. Most if not all will anyway, and the battle for the rest should be done at that level as Constitutionally we are a ... wait for it ... Republic.

 

[kaz]

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?

Objection your honor, asked and answered.

I gave you a full and clear answer to this exact question. You're like my kids. When they don't like the answer to a question, they just keep asking it until they get the answer they want.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Gay and Hetero marriage regulations are unequal treatment to plural marriage proponents and single folks.

Federal tax laws that promote marriage are unequal to singles, plural marriage proponents, and gays.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Surprisingly you are wrong. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man. Just like a homosexual man. See, equality.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I'm not the least bit angry. I'm quite happy in fact. I'm not just gay, I'm ecstatic. My legal marriage now has the exact same legal protections afforded your legal marriage in my state. Additionally, I'm quite confident that when such a case comes before them, the SCOTUS will strike down Section II of DOMA which treats your marriage license differently than it treats mine in, oh say, Alabama.

What on earth could I have to be displeased about. Delighting in how racists and bigots are treated by history doesn't make me "angry" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

i'm not the least bit angry. I'm quite happy in fact. I'm not just gay, i'm ecstatic. My legal marriage now has the exact same legal protections afforded your legal marriage in my state. Additionally, i'm quite confident that when such a case comes before them, the scotus will strike down section ii of doma which treats your marriage license differently than it treats mine in, oh say, alabama.

What on earth could i have to be displeased about. Delighting in how racists and bigots are treated by history doesn't make me "angry" by any stretch of the imagination.

snap!

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Surprisingly you are wrong. A heterosexual man cannot marry another man. Just like a homosexual man. See, equality.

Rabbi, proving the adage, there is nothing new under the sun.

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)

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I beg to differ. Our original form of government was damn close to that ideal.

 

[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.

I'm not the least bit angry. I'm quite happy in fact. I'm not just gay, I'm ecstatic. My legal marriage now has the exact same legal protections afforded your legal marriage in my state. Additionally, I'm quite confident that when such a case comes before them, the SCOTUS will strike down Section II of DOMA which treats your marriage license differently than it treats mine in, oh say, Alabama.

What on earth could I have to be displeased about. Delighting in how racists and bigots are treated by history doesn't make me "angry" by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist and a bigot, and you're going to delight in them being judged by history, but you're not angry. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I'm not the least bit angry. I'm quite happy in fact. I'm not just gay, I'm ecstatic. My legal marriage now has the exact same legal protections afforded your legal marriage in my state. Additionally, I'm quite confident that when such a case comes before them, the SCOTUS will strike down Section II of DOMA which treats your marriage license differently than it treats mine in, oh say, Alabama.

What on earth could I have to be displeased about. Delighting in how racists and bigots are treated by history doesn't make me "angry" by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a racist and a bigot, and you're going to delight in them being judged by history, but you're not angry. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that.

Nope...anyone who wishes to deny me equal treatment under the law is a bigot, regardless of how they justify it. Disagreement is fine...heathy and encouraged even.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I think we agree that if you want to stand under an apple tree and pledge your love to someone you can do it.

That's not the topic of this thread though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Um...maybe Rabbi's right, drugs aren't victimless. I head to read this tripping post.

I didn't say any of that. That isn't my position and it isn't the reason. Which is why she was begging the question. I said it is NOT Constitutional for the Federal government to ban laws preventing interracial marriage. They do by the full faith and credit clause have the power to force States to recognize interracial marriages performed in other States. Or they have the right to tell them they don't have to, just like DOMA was Constitutional. But they don't have the Constitutional authority to direct States to allow interracial marriage.

You're having a hard time because you don't understand the concept of anyone not being a flagrant hypocrite like you are. I am not OK with laws banning interracial marriage (assuming marriage is a government function), but that I think that doesn't give the Federal government authority to force States to accept them. Most if not all will anyway, and the battle for the rest should be done at that level as Constitutionally we are a ... wait for it ... Republic.

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Um...maybe Rabbi's right, drugs aren't victimless. I head to read this tripping post.

I didn't say any of that. That isn't my position and it isn't the reason. Which is why she was begging the question. I said it is NOT Constitutional for the Federal government to ban laws preventing interracial marriage. They do by the full faith and credit clause have the power to force States to recognize interracial marriages performed in other States. Or they have the right to tell them they don't have to, just like DOMA was Constitutional. But they don't have the Constitutional authority to direct States to allow interracial marriage.

You're having a hard time because you don't understand the concept of anyone not being a flagrant hypocrite like you are. I am not OK with laws banning interracial marriage (assuming marriage is a government function), but that I think that doesn't give the Federal government authority to force States to accept them. Most if not all will anyway, and the battle for the rest should be done at that level as Constitutionally we are a ... wait for it ... Republic.

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

Right. States were "forced" to accept them by the SCOTUS. All bans were struck down, not ones that prevented a marriage in another state from being recognized.

Did the Judicial Branch have that authority or was it "judicial activism"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[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?

Objection your honor, asked and answered.

I gave you a full and clear answer to this exact question. You're like my kids. When they don't like the answer to a question, they just keep asking it until they get the answer they want.

This was your answer:

NYcarbineer
Elected officials banned handguns in Chicago, and the 9 dictators said 'No'.

I take it you would then prefer that guns could be banned city by city state by state[/COLOR]

YOU:

No. Think about what you just said. You are crying about how government has long power. Federal versus State government power and Government versus the rights of the People are fundamentally different things. You're still just crying about lost government power.

That's supposed to be a full and clear answer? It's an incoherent attempt to attack me.

Or is the 'no' supposed to be your answer?

If that's the case, then clearly you want the 9 'dictators' as you call them to have full power over the states when you like the outcome, as in guns,

but no power over the states when you don't like the outcome, as in marriage equality.

You need to make up your mind.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I think we agree that if you want to stand under an apple tree and pledge your love to someone you can do it.

That's not the topic of this thread though.

IMO the correct solution was always to ban government from regulation of marriage based on the first amendment. If however we insist on having government manage our relationships, then they should not be able to ban relationships based on sexual orientation. But lets be clear we are talking about relationship regulation by government thus our relationship with government. Our relationship with government is not the same as our relationship with our chosen life partner(s). As soon as folks change the language of the discussion from marriage regulation to marriage... they change the context of the subject. For example, a broader term than marriage is relationship. Why did you not just say gays should be allowed to be in gay relationships? I can remember a time when gays could not practice gay relationships in public. We've come a long way from those days.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Um...maybe Rabbi's right, drugs aren't victimless. I head to read this tripping post.

I didn't say any of that. That isn't my position and it isn't the reason. Which is why she was begging the question. I said it is NOT Constitutional for the Federal government to ban laws preventing interracial marriage. They do by the full faith and credit clause have the power to force States to recognize interracial marriages performed in other States. Or they have the right to tell them they don't have to, just like DOMA was Constitutional. But they don't have the Constitutional authority to direct States to allow interracial marriage.

You're having a hard time because you don't understand the concept of anyone not being a flagrant hypocrite like you are. I am not OK with laws banning interracial marriage (assuming marriage is a government function), but that I think that doesn't give the Federal government authority to force States to accept them. Most if not all will anyway, and the battle for the rest should be done at that level as Constitutionally we are a ... wait for it ... Republic.

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

Right. States were "forced" to accept them by the SCOTUS. All bans were struck down, not ones that prevented a marriage in another state from being recognized.

Did the Judicial Branch have that authority or was it "judicial activism"?

kaz has made it clear he only likes the SCOTUS power of judicial review when he likes the outcome.

 

[RKMBrown]

You admit in the bolded that you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional.

Only if they're unconstitutional could the states be forced to give them up, and you say the Federal government doesn't have that authority.

Right. States were "forced" to accept them by the SCOTUS. All bans were struck down, not ones that prevented a marriage in another state from being recognized.

Did the Judicial Branch have that authority or was it "judicial activism"?

kaz has made it clear he only likes the SCOTUS power of judicial review when he likes the outcome.

Can you blame him? Look at these scum bag liberal judges, they vote on emotion alone, they care not one bit what is constitutional or not. To these scum bag judges everything in the modern liberal political platform plank is constitutional.

 

[Contumacious]

Right. States were "forced" to accept them by the SCOTUS. All bans were struck down, not ones that prevented a marriage in another state from being recognized.

Did the Judicial Branch have that authority or was it "judicial activism"?

kaz has made it clear he only likes the SCOTUS power of judicial review when he likes the outcome.

Can you blame him? Look at these scum bag liberal judges, they vote on emotion alone, they care not one bit what is constitutional or not. To these scum bag judges everything in the modern liberal political platform plank is constitutional.

BOTH "liberal" and "conservative" Justices are STATE SUPREMACIST scumbags.

.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

How can gays want "special rights" when you claim they ALREADY have those rights?
You keep beating that one note yourself and it makes no sense.