Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Agit8r]

If we are to believe the biblical account, incest and polygamy are part of traditional marriage.


just sayin'

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Even if we take same sex marraige off the table it is possible to be married in one state and not married in another, why should same sex marraige be exempted from the confusion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Damn, you insist on repeating stupid, don't you?

The 10th Amendment does not prevent the states from doing anything.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th clearly limits the the United States itself, not the states. It has nothing to do with the states not being able to write a law that is unconstitutional.
​

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I know many people won't agree with me here.. but I really don't want the government dictating my sexual preferences so long as it doesn't harm a child or cause the death or NON CONSENT of another adult, BUTT the hell out.. Just my personal feelings on this matter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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).

Correct?

CORRECT?

I am going to keep this bookmarked and slap you with it every fucking time you post. The 10th Amendment has never been used to find a state law unconstitutional because it is absolutely impossible for a sane person to read it and infer that it limits the states.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

My handgun carry permit isn't good in all 50 states either. Why is this any different?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are not qualified to talk about anything regarding constitutional law until you admit you were wrong about this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...s-doesn-t-understand-the-law.html#post7606979

 

[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?

Even if we take same sex marraige off the table it is possible to be married in one state and not married in another, why should same sex marraige be exempted from the confusion?

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

 

[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?

Even if we take same sex marraige off the table it is possible to be married in one state and not married in another, why should same sex marraige be exempted from the confusion?

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

In the issue of same sex marriage licenses.
Just like the issue of handgun carry permits.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

My handgun carry permit isn't good in all 50 states either. Why is this any different?

But your marriage license is. Imagine that my CC was good in all 50 states, but yours wasn't. Make it the same. Either mine is "good" in all 50 states or yours isn't.

 

[Seawytch]

Even if we take same sex marraige off the table it is possible to be married in one state and not married in another, why should same sex marraige be exempted from the confusion?

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

In the issue of same sex marriage licenses.
Just like the issue of handgun carry permits.

Pay fucking attention. Quantum is making the claim of an instance other than legal same sex marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Damn, you insist on repeating stupid, don't you?

The 10th Amendment does not prevent the states from doing anything.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th clearly limits the the United States itself, not the states. It has nothing to do with the states not being able to write a law that is unconstitutional.
​

It's not stupidity, it's ignorance. The misnomer is common and based on the stupid title... the bill of rights. It should have been called the bill of federal limits on restricting rights of the people.. lol

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Damn, you insist on repeating stupid, don't you?

The 10th Amendment does not prevent the states from doing anything.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th clearly limits the the United States itself, not the states. It has nothing to do with the states not being able to write a law that is unconstitutional.
​

Yes, states "can" pass laws that violate the Constitution...but when they do, they get challenged.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

My handgun carry permit isn't good in all 50 states either. Why is this any different?

But your marriage license is. Imagine that my CC was good in all 50 states, but yours wasn't. Make it the same. Either mine is "good" in all 50 states or yours isn't.

IMO the requirement for government to manage a license to drive is fine because you may do harm to another if you are not qualified to drive.

IMO the requirement to have government manage license to marry is not fine because personal relationships are none of the government's business. I do see how we might want to let government manage asset sharing contracts, as someone needs to arbitrate when there is a disagreement. But I see no need to have government manage what types of relationships responsible adults can enter into.

IMO the requirement to have governments manage CC licenses is fine because right to conceal weapons does not appear to be covered by the 2nd amendment. That said I don't think open carry laws are constitutional based on incorporation of the 2nd amendment through the 14th amendment. I think we need to amend the 2nd amendment to cover open and concealed carry in public issues.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Damn, you insist on repeating stupid, don't you?

The 10th Amendment does not prevent the states from doing anything.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th clearly limits the the United States itself, not the states. It has nothing to do with the states not being able to write a law that is unconstitutional.
​

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

My handgun carry permit isn't good in all 50 states either. Why is this any different?

But your marriage license is. Imagine that my CC was good in all 50 states, but yours wasn't. Make it the same. Either mine is "good" in all 50 states or yours isn't.

Obviously it doesnt work that way. States have sovereign power. Got over it.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

If some guy wants to marry more than one wife (is stupid enough) and there are women who are willing to share some dumb asshole, why should we care? In regard to incest, I believe only in America are people freaked out about kissing cousins. Hell, the monarchy and other royalty survived through a pure bloodline.. not to mention the Jewish people.. I don't get the fascination with people's sexual preferences?

Get the government out of the marriage business.. period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

Then what were they doing when they struck down the Chicago law banning handguns.

If that wasn't judicial review, what was it?

 

[The Rabbi]

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

In the issue of same sex marriage licenses.
Just like the issue of handgun carry permits.

Pay fucking attention. Quantum is making the claim of an instance other than legal same sex marriage.

I was responding to your moronic post.
But he is right. A mixed race marriage could be recognized in one state but not in another. The only reason that isn't the case is because of equal protection/civil rights. But the notion of states being sovereign would still hold true.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.

.

Then what were they doing when they struck down the Chicago law banning handguns.

If that wasn't judicial review, what was it?

You libruls can't have it both ways.. You either support the essence of liberty or not.. Which is it? Leave people the hell alone.. stop forcing your fucking opinion and beliefs on them. Whether the right to own weapons, or marriage..Damn, it's not rocket science.