Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Gadawg73]

Recent news is that in Ohio 2 gay men sued to get their out of state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban there. The Federal Judge's order last Monday gave the right to the dying spouse to have "married" listed on his death certificate.
Now do I have to explain this to everyone here what this means?
4 similar law suits are pending in other states that ban gay marriage.
The Judge's ruling was based on that Ohio has always recognized out of state marriages as long as they were legal where they took place.
In his opinion he stated that Ohio can not single out same sex marriages as one they do not recognize.
Refer back to my statement that Scalia's dissent in the recent case was brilliant, I did not agree with all of it but he predicted this.

These men are 65 and 67 years old. Why anyone wants to deny them the dignity they deserve is absurd.

It means the fags will get their gay allies on the bench to over rule the will of the sovereign people, which is tyranny.

You oppose gay marriage because you hate "fags".
Just go ahead and be honest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You should read what I said before you try getting snarky with me.

It would be really simple to prove me wrong, all you have to do is find a single example of any state law being overturned as the result of a 1oth Amendment challenge. I will state right now that not only will you not find any such example, you won't even find an example of a state law being challenged on 10th Amendment grounds.

The 10th amendment contains 2 provisions for which powers are granted to the States:

1. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and,

2. Nor prohibited by it to the States.

The 'it' above refers to the Constitution. If the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power,

then they don't get that power. Passing any unconstitutional law would fall under that prohibition.

States cannot for example ban personal ownership of firearms, because the Constitution prohibits states from having the power to do that, because the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional protection against such a ban,

the 10th Amendment and 'states' rights' notwithstanding.

That almost makes sense, if I start with the assumption that the Constitution was written by morons.

Why would the 10the Amendment talk about limits on the federal government for 11 words, diverge to talking about the states for 7 words, then finish off with 10 more words talking about limits on the federal government, just to make it possible for you to make a stupid statement?

The phrase is clearly talking about powers that are probated to the states, not from them.

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 first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power.

1. Powers NOT delegated to the US. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that ARE delegated to the federal government OUT of those reserved for the States.

2. Prohibited by the Constitution to the States. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that the Constitution prohibits the States from having.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You would be correct if you limited your view of the constitution to the first 10 amendments. However, the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibits the states from limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of US citizens. Civil rights laws also prohibit said activities. Unless you are willing to throw out the 14th due process clause your argument is moot.

You would be correct if you were referring to government preventing gays from being gay. The discussion is about what government recognizes as marriage. It does not limit your life, limit or pursuit of happiness for government to not recognize your union as marriage. No one has the right to demand things of others, including government. You have the right to be left alone from government without due process. Government not recognizing gay marriage as marriage has nothing to do with preventing people from living their own lives as they see fit. Ditto interracial marriage.

That is true but misses the crucial point and that is the equal application of law. By blessing hetero marriages with certain advantages and then not giving that same blessing to other marriages is not an equal application of the law. It is selectively applying law to a preferred group while excluding the non-preferred group. While your above argument works well in defending the position that government should be out of marriage entirely, it fails in limiting gay marriages while still recognizing hetero ones. Laws should never apply to one group or type of people without applying evenly to other people.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

Same as above though. While life might not be fair LAW should always be applied equally. It is not a matter of fair. It is a matter of the equal application of law.

 

[FA_Q2]

Marriage is not a religious institution.

Liar.

You are incorrect. There are 2 sides to marriage; a religious one that has nothing to do with the state and a civil one that has everything to do with the state. To demand that religion is a religious institution is to completely ignore the fact that there is a civil side that is completely independent to religion. That is where the disruption lies as well. I don’t care if there are religious tenants in marriages; all that matters to the state is contractual laws governing the civil side of marriage. In that light, there is no reasonable way to deny a group of people access to those laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

Recent news is that in Ohio 2 gay men sued to get their out of state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban there. The Federal Judge's order last Monday gave the right to the dying spouse to have "married" listed on his death certificate.
Now do I have to explain this to everyone here what this means?
4 similar law suits are pending in other states that ban gay marriage.
The Judge's ruling was based on that Ohio has always recognized out of state marriages as long as they were legal where they took place.
In his opinion he stated that Ohio can not single out same sex marriages as one they do not recognize.
Refer back to my statement that Scalia's dissent in the recent case was brilliant, I did not agree with all of it but he predicted this.

These men are 65 and 67 years old. Why anyone wants to deny them the dignity they deserve is absurd.

It means the fags will get their gay allies on the bench to over rule the will of the sovereign people, which is tyranny.

You oppose gay marriage because you hate "fags".
Just go ahead and be honest.

Why dont you go ahead and be honest that the gay agenda calls for overthrowing the will of the people, which is the only legitimate source of government power.

 

[Seawytch]

It means the fags will get their gay allies on the bench to over rule the will of the sovereign people, which is tyranny.

You oppose gay marriage because you hate "fags".
Just go ahead and be honest.

Why dont you go ahead and be honest that the gay agenda calls for overthrowing the will of the people, which is the only legitimate source of government power.

Only when the "will of the people" violates the civil rights some "other people".

 

[The Rabbi]

You oppose gay marriage because you hate "fags".
Just go ahead and be honest.

Why dont you go ahead and be honest that the gay agenda calls for overthrowing the will of the people, which is the only legitimate source of government power.

Only when the "will of the people" violates the civil rights some "other people".

No one's civil rights are violated. Another canard.

 

[Seawytch]

Recent news is that in Ohio 2 gay men sued to get their out of state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban there. The Federal Judge's order last Monday gave the right to the dying spouse to have "married" listed on his death certificate.
Now do I have to explain this to everyone here what this means?
4 similar law suits are pending in other states that ban gay marriage.
The Judge's ruling was based on that Ohio has always recognized out of state marriages as long as they were legal where they took place.
In his opinion he stated that Ohio can not single out same sex marriages as one they do not recognize.
Refer back to my statement that Scalia's dissent in the recent case was brilliant, I did not agree with all of it but he predicted this.

These men are 65 and 67 years old. Why anyone wants to deny them the dignity they deserve is absurd.

Yup...Scalia first "predicted" this in his Lawrence v Texas dissent then again in the DOMA dissent. He's pissed about it, but really good at reading the writing on the wall.

I hear the dickhead Ohio governor was going to challenge the judges ruling.

 

[Seawytch]

Why dont you go ahead and be honest that the gay agenda calls for overthrowing the will of the people, which is the only legitimate source of government power.

Only when the "will of the people" violates the civil rights some "other people".

No one's civil rights are violated. Another canard.

Odd that court case after court case is proving you wrong. Truly shocking...

 

[The Rabbi]

Only when the "will of the people" violates the civil rights some "other people".

No one's civil rights are violated. Another canard.

Odd that court case after court case is proving you wrong. Truly shocking...

Not really. The homos shop for sympathetic judges. It is judicial legislation, overturning the sovereign will of the people. If that isnt tyranny I'm not sure what is.
Recall that gov't gets its power from the "consent of the governed"

 

[Seawytch]

No one's civil rights are violated. Another canard.

Odd that court case after court case is proving you wrong. Truly shocking...

Not really. The homos shop for sympathetic judges. It is judicial legislation, overturning the sovereign will of the people. If that isnt tyranny I'm not sure what is.
Recall that gov't gets its power from the "consent of the governed"

"Shop for judges". Jeez...you've got an excuse for everything.

The tyranny comes when the "will of the people" wishes to trod upon the "rights of the minority".

 

[Gadawg73]

I have never been a "will of the people" guy.
Of course my many years of playing ball hardened me to the realities of that. You play to the rules and the rules in this are the laws.
Add in the Constitution and the rights of the individual over mob rule.
The will of the people has held up religion to lead the sheep masses for centuries to oppress folks.
The law will be one day that gay marriage will be legal.
Then what excuse will they have?

 

[Katzndogz]

The law one day will be that every kind of perversion is legal. Once a culture starts its degredation it doesn't stop. It has always been some external force that comes in, overruns the country and imposes its own, better, culture on the one that has failed.

Part of the reason why it is relatively easy to overrun a rotting culture facing little opposition is that what decent people there are won't defend their own country. Whatever will be imposed on them is better than the cess pool they have in their own culture.

Acceptance of perversion as normal, accepting its expansion is part of the unfolding of history.

 

[G.T.]

It's not degradation of society if it's not perversion. Homosexuality is not perversion.

Old people typically have a hard head around things like that, but that's been common throughout all of history. You're not unique, in your lack of pragmatism. Society will continue on, just fine.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not degradation of society if it's not perversion. Homosexuality is not perversion.

Old people typically have a hard head around things like that, but that's been common throughout all of history. You're not unique, in your lack of pragmatism. Society will continue on, just fine.

It's not perversion? In what world?

 

[G.T.]

It's not degradation of society if it's not perversion. Homosexuality is not perversion.

Old people typically have a hard head around things like that, but that's been common throughout all of history. You're not unique, in your lack of pragmatism. Society will continue on, just fine.

It's not perversion? In what world?

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not degradation of society if it's not perversion. Homosexuality is not perversion.

Old people typically have a hard head around things like that, but that's been common throughout all of history. You're not unique, in your lack of pragmatism. Society will continue on, just fine.

It's not perversion? In what world?

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

The natural order is for species to seek to reproduce and continue the species. Homosexuality is a perversion of that order.

 

[G.T.]

It's not perversion? In what world?

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

The natural order is for species to seek to reproduce and continue the species. Homosexuality is a perversion of that order.

Gymnastics is certainly natural for you, it's not a perversion of whatever manliness you think you've got. Your arguments are all gymnastics, no substance. Get over it pessimist, it's 2013 nobody gives a fuck if gay people get married except for simpletons and hard headed older folks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not perversion? In what world?

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

The natural order is for species to seek to reproduce and continue the species. Homosexuality is a perversion of that order.

You're dead wrong.

If I had to put a number on it, I think it would be safe to say that 99% of human sexual activity occurs for purposes other than reproduction.

In cases where, for example, a husband has had a vasectomy, then 100% of the sex he and his wife have is for a non-reproductive reason.

How then does this make homosexual non-reproductive sex a 'perversion'?