Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Seawytch]

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

no

or was it "judicial activism"?

Yes, and for that reason. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to either force or deny interracial marriage or gay marriage, therefore it is prohibited to the Federal government. Judicial activism pure and simple.

Okay, let's say they never ruled. Should legal marriages (whether cousin, interracial or same sex) performed in one state have to be recognized in another state that did not choose to give their citizens equal protection under state law?

 

[Seawytch]

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)

Your argument is approaching absurdity. Blacks aren't gays. And vice versa. Men aren't women, and vice versa.

Was this a valid argument in Loving v Virginia? They thought it was...they actually argued it.

If you don't believe it to be a valid argument in Loving, why is it a valid argument for you to use to oppose marriage equality?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

no

or was it "judicial activism"?

Yes, and for that reason. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to either force or deny interracial marriage or gay marriage, therefore it is prohibited to the Federal government. Judicial activism pure and simple.

Reduce it to its most basic principle:

Denying a black man the right to marry a white woman is racial discrimination. That is unconstitutional.

As are all the other racial combinations you might want to list. The example, however, should best demonstrate the constitutional violation.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Your argument is approaching absurdity. Blacks aren't gays. And vice versa. Men aren't women, and vice versa.

Was this a valid argument in Loving v Virginia? They thought it was...they actually argued it.

If you don't believe it to be a valid argument in Loving, why is it a valid argument for you to use to oppose marriage equality?

In Loving VA actually criminalized the relationship. Is there a state that criminalizes gay relationships? No, I didnt think so.
Hardly applicable then.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong. Marriage is a part of life. Government has decided that it will regulate marriage, thus regulate life. Government has decided that it will reward some marriages and deny recognition of other marriages based on sexual orientation, based on religious laws of catholics. This goes against the 1st amendment.

If that was your entry into "MOst ignorant post filled with biggest errors" I'd say you win.

Just because something is a part of life does not make it protected.
Government's recognition of some marriages is based on the very real fact that some relationships tend to produce good citizens and others don't. Catholicism has nothing to do with it. Ergo it is not a 1A issue.
Ergo you don't knwo what the hell you're talking about. Liek that's news.

Marriage is most certainly a part of life. The SCOTUS already ruled on that. Further marriage is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. Always has been in this country. Therefore the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof means no laws respecting marriage. Further, by incorporation, the states also shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof including marriage.

Taking a dump is a part of life. Is that constitutionally protected?
Marriage is not a religious institution. That is why justices of the peace, civil secular officials, perform it.

 

[Contumacious]

[

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

Marriage at Common Law

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18 John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.

.

I'm not sure how that changes anything. If you live in a common law State or not is still State law.

You have to check your state' statutes to determine if the Common Law definition was specifically repealed.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

Are you willing to abolish the power of judicial review by the SCOTUS?

Are you willing to accept that gun bans that would inevitably occur at state and local levels if that happened?

 

[kaz]

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

no

or was it "judicial activism"?

Yes, and for that reason. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to either force or deny interracial marriage or gay marriage, therefore it is prohibited to the Federal government. Judicial activism pure and simple.

Okay, let's say they never ruled. Should legal marriages (whether cousin, interracial or same sex) performed in one state have to be recognized in another state that did not choose to give their citizens equal protection under state law?

That you can't ask a question that isn't loaded doesn't speak well for your confidence in your position or ability to actually discuss an issue. But ignoring that part, the full faith and credit clause certainly gives the Feds the power to make that decision.

However, no, I don't think they should force States to recognize any marriage performed in other States at all. I like that people are free to live in a republic (State) with their values, and we don't have to live in one that doesn't.

 

[kaz]

Marriage at Common Law

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18 John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.

.

I'm not sure how that changes anything. If you live in a common law State or not is still State law.

You have to check your state' statutes to determine if the Common Law definition was specifically repealed.

.

I love ya man, but I have no idea what point you're driving at.

 

[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.

This is correct. The confusion on the prior post was the level of government. You said "laws," and I was getting confused if you meant Federal or State laws. I am saying:

1) State laws banning interracial marriage are Constitutional.
2) Federal laws forcing States to either recognize or not recognize interracial marriage are not Constitutional. No Constitutional authority means they have no say.

Constitutional does not mean I agree or disagree with the law. It means whether it's in the Constitution or not. If it's not, that means the Federal government has no authority by the nature of the Constitution and as clearly stated in the 10th amendment.

There are in fact a lot of things that I oppose that the Constitution doesn't address. That doesn't mean that I don't oppose them, that means that I don't argue they are Unconstitutional just because I don't like them. As the left does with gay marriage and a plethora of other issues. Fighting things you disagree with the right way is the way it should be done.

The 10th amendment only allows states to make laws that are constitutional,

i.e., 'not prohibited by IT to the states', the 'it' in the 10th amendment being the Constitution.

Unconstitutional laws are determined so by the Supreme Court, therefore,

States can only make laws that pass muster with the SCOTUS, if they are appealed to the SCOTUS.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

Are you willing to abolish the power of judicial review by the SCOTUS?

As presently constituted we are not obtaining judicial review. They are a mini-legislature.

Are you willing to accept that gun bans that would inevitably occur at state and local levels if that happened?

I would never accept a gun ban no matter no matter who ordered it.

.

 

[kaz]

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

no

or was it "judicial activism"?

Yes, and for that reason. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to either force or deny interracial marriage or gay marriage, therefore it is prohibited to the Federal government. Judicial activism pure and simple.

Reduce it to its most basic principle:

Denying a black man the right to marry a white woman is racial discrimination. That is unconstitutional.

As are all the other racial combinations you might want to list. The example, however, should best demonstrate the constitutional violation.

The 14th was created to address the situation where blacks were just subject to different laws than anyone else. You can't extrapolate that to that preventing "discrimination" is a Federal power. Welcome to live, it's not always fair. Problem is that fighting it with government just endlessly makes it more unfair.

 

[kaz]

Unconstitutional laws are determined so by the Supreme Court, therefore,

States can only make laws that pass muster with the SCOTUS, if they are appealed to the SCOTUS.

That's the way our system works, the problem is the SCOTUS flagrantly makes law that isn't justifiable to any critical mind by the Constitution. And that ... is criminal.

 

[Contumacious]

I'm not sure how that changes anything. If you live in a common law State or not is still State law.

You have to check your state' statutes to determine if the Common Law definition was specifically repealed.

.

I love ya man, but I have no idea what point you're driving at.

Easy.

At common law the ONLY state restrictions on marriage were:

Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infant; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve, and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians.

.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Couldn't any law defining rights or governing actions be argued to be a 'slippery slope'?

If you have to register and micro-chip your dog what's to stop registration and micro-chipping of your family?

I agree, why do you HAVE to micro chip your dog? That's still creepy to me

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

Wrong. The People's representatives in the city of Chicago banned handguns. Whatever they might think or care about the 2nd Amendment did not prevent them from banning handguns.

That was their law, that was their fait accompli.

Now either you respect the will of those People, in their government, or you don't.

If you don't, you bring in the 9 federal dictators you referred to to overturn the law. You trump the will of that group of People with the will of a bigger group of People,

i.e., those People whose representatives delegated the power of judicial review to the SCOTUS.

 

[RKMBrown]

Marriage is not a religious institution.

Liar.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

Wrong. The People's representatives in the city of Chicago banned handguns. Whatever they might think or care about the 2nd Amendment did not prevent them from banning handguns.

That was their law, that was their fait accompli.

Now either you respect the will of those People, in their government, or you don't.

If you don't, you bring in the 9 federal dictators you referred to to overturn the law. You trump the will of that group of People with the will of a bigger group of People,

i.e., those People whose representatives delegated the power of judicial review to the SCOTUS.

Except the right to keep and bear arms in part of the Constitution and a right of all citizens. Even those in Chicago.
Chicago's law went against the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Thats why it was struck down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unconstitutional laws are determined so by the Supreme Court, therefore,

States can only make laws that pass muster with the SCOTUS, if they are appealed to the SCOTUS.

That's the way our system works, the problem is the SCOTUS flagrantly makes law that isn't justifiable to any critical mind by the Constitution. And that ... is criminal.

Any critical mind? This is the arrogance of the ignorant Right...

...if the Supreme Court makes a decision that I don't like, it must be because the SCOTUS doesn't understand the Constitution as well as I do.

Sorry, but there is no magical kingdom where everything constitutional is everything the Right likes.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Sorry, but there is no magical kingdom where everything constitutional is everything the Right likes.

WHY did the Framers decide to adopt a Constitution?

.