Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This doesn’t make any sense.

The Supreme Court determines what is Constitutional or not, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review in the context of the rule of law.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

This doesn’t make any sense.

The Supreme Court determines what is Constitutional or not, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review in the context of the rule of law.

If you believe that the Justices are conducting judicial review then you are naive and ignorant.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

The Supremacy Clause and subsequent case law make this very clear, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government, Federal laws, and the Federal courts are supreme to state and local jurisdictions. See, e.g., Cooper v. Aaron (1958), U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

 

[Seawytch]

no



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.

It's just a question. It's not "loaded" unless you make it so.

You believe that each time a couple moves, they need to reapply for a marriage license and if DE doesn't recognize your 1st cousin marriage from HI, you're just screwed?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You need your own planet.

I am not the one that needs the government to approve of what I do or who I sleep with.

Well then either be careful or enjoy prison.

That doesn't even make sense if I assume that you are a moron.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Correct.

The Supremacy Clause and subsequent case law make this very clear, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government, Federal laws, and the Federal courts are supreme to state and local jurisdictions. See, e.g., Cooper v. Aaron (1958), U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

Wrong again Vern

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

So First you must show that the statute in question was authorized by a SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED proviso

.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

It's just a question. It's not "loaded" unless you make it so.

You believe that each time a couple moves, they need to reapply for a marriage license and if DE doesn't recognize your 1st cousin marriage from HI, you're just screwed?

The problem is people in a state said no to gay marriage, in many many states. Your president signed doma, but now doesnt like it, hmmmmmmm

alot of democrarts were against gays before being for them, what has changed (for these people personally)?

and why do you want to force your gayness on others, if you want to do your thing, keep it in private and dont tell us about it.
And are you gay because of genetics?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is an ignorant and failed ‘argument.’

And again, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage, contract law written by the states and administered by state courts. “A state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ Romer v. Evans (1996), and that includes marriage law.

One cannot condemn ‘the left’ for obeying the Constitution, its case law, and the original intent of the Framers. It is indeed conservatives who are at odds with the Constitution’s fundamental principles of individual liberty and the prohibition of the states violating that personal liberty, liberty guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is an ignorant and failed ‘argument.’

And how do you know when the "justces" correctly identify an "implied" power?!?!?!?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It's just a question. It's not "loaded" unless you make it so.

You believe that each time a couple moves, they need to reapply for a marriage license and if DE doesn't recognize your 1st cousin marriage from HI, you're just screwed?

The problem is people in a state said no to gay marriage, in many many states. Your president signed doma, but now doesnt like it, hmmmmmmm

alot of democrarts were against gays before being for them, what has changed (for these people personally)?

and why do you want to force your gayness on others, if you want to do your thing, keep it in private and dont tell us about it.
And are you gay because of genetics?

The problem is the majority of a given state lacks the authority to deny a class of persons their equal protection rights.

Another problem is conservatives who continue to adhere blindly to rightist doctrine and dogma even when proven to be factually wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I didn't imply anything, I explained what actually makes a person a Christian. Unless you are claiming to be a Christian it doesn't even apply to you, stop taking everything personally.

Why don't you want to explain the statement you made. Why did you make the comment if you're not willing to stand by it. Who is it that you don't believe are "real Christians"?

Tell you what, go back and read the post I responded to, then read my post.

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.

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.

Someone who doesn't take everything personally might read that and recall that Jesus never preached bigotry or hatred and think I was commiserating with the victims of that activity. That would require them to give up their bigotry and hatred in the process, but I don't think that is a lot to ask.

Especially when you factor in that I haven't said one fucking thing negative about homosexuals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

About as well as I expect it to go when they use that argument against polygamy and incest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is not a religious institution.

Liar.

Translation: Caught in a whopper. I better turn the tables.
Yeah, the kind of marriage we're talking about is a civil institution. Sorry you've had your ass handed to you yet again.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It's just a question. It's not "loaded" unless you make it so.

You believe that each time a couple moves, they need to reapply for a marriage license and if DE doesn't recognize your 1st cousin marriage from HI, you're just screwed?

I dont see where he suggested any such thing. If a gay couple from MA moves to MS they are still married.
Or do you need a state gov't to tell you whether you are married or not?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

It's just a question. It's not "loaded" unless you make it so.

You believe that each time a couple moves, they need to reapply for a marriage license and if DE doesn't recognize your 1st cousin marriage from HI, you're just screwed?

I dont see where he suggested any such thing. If a gay couple from MA moves to MS they are still married.
Or do you need a state gov't to tell you whether you are married or not?

I was, as you are quite aware, talking about civil marriage laws and the state recognition of those laws. Your legal license is "good" in all 50 states. Mine is not. It should be one way or the other. Either mine is treated like yours or vice versa.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So do unmarried people.

 

[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?

About as well as I expect it to go when they use that argument against polygamy and incest.

Best of luck to them , but my money will be on it being unlikely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Equal protection is not the same thing as fairness. Equal protection is treating everyone the same way, fairness is about getting the same result every time. In a truly fair justice system everyone would get the exact same punishment for the same crime. It wouldn't take motive into account, and would dole out the same punishment for stealing a loaf of brad because you are hungry as it would for stealing a loaf of bread because you wanted someone else to go hungry. Only idiots want the law to be fair.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet you unconditionally support the government anyway.

 

[kaz]

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.

It's just a question. It's not "loaded" unless you make it so.

See the red

You believe that each time a couple moves, they need to reapply for a marriage license and if DE doesn't recognize your 1st cousin marriage from HI, you're just screwed?

My first thought when I read this was

Then I went back and read it again to see if I missed something, and I thought

Now that I have read it several times, my thought is

The only thing I can figure out that you could possibly mean is that by the Feds not forcing States to recognize marriages performed in other States that it somehow prohibits them from doing that.

My thought to that would be