Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[The Rabbi]

How can you we win until we prove that, ultimately, it doesn't matter?

"Marriage equality" (i.e. destruction of marriage as a societal institution) is hardly inevitable. A number of states have already voted to define marriage and enshrined that in their state constitutions.

Of course it is, but if deluding yourself makes you feel better, have at it.



Enjoy Alabama and Mississippi!

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

 

[NLT]

I was asked if I had ever "engaged in homosexual activity". I had not.

you served while being gay before it was legal. You served dishonestly and you know it end of story.

If I was never asked, how was it "dishonest"?

Are you going to claim you never got a BJ while in the military?

Not from a homo and not from a women that was in the military.

 

[Seawytch]

"Marriage equality" (i.e. destruction of marriage as a societal institution) is hardly inevitable. A number of states have already voted to define marriage and enshrined that in their state constitutions.

Of course it is, but if deluding yourself makes you feel better, have at it.



Enjoy Alabama and Mississippi!

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

You're just a glass half full kinda guy. From where I'm sitting, things look spectacular for marriage equality. Within a couple of years there will be more states falling in line with the Constitution and honoring the 14th Amendment, plus I'm betting Section II of DOMA will be gone and the anti gay states won't matter. This is even if the SCOTUS never hears a case on a state's anti gay marriage law.

Geez, all you have to do is look at the trend in the last for years to know its not looking good for the haters and homophobes.

 

[NLT]

I was asked if I had ever "engaged in homosexual activity". I had not.

you served while being gay before it was legal. You served dishonestly and you know it end of story.

It's always ironic to watch Bootlicker talk about others being "dishonest". I wonder how he got his advancements..........if he got any at all.....

Retired at E-9. I did not have to lie or omit anything.

 

[Seawytch]

you served while being gay before it was legal. You served dishonestly and you know it end of story.

If I was never asked, how was it "dishonest"?

Are you going to claim you never got a BJ while in the military?

Not from a homo and not from a women that was in the military.

Military status and gender of your knob polisher is irrelevant. You violated the same article of the UCMJ that I did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course it is, but if deluding yourself makes you feel better, have at it.



Enjoy Alabama and Mississippi!

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

You're just a glass half full kinda guy. From where I'm sitting, things look spectacular for marriage equality. Within a couple of years there will be more states falling in line with the Constitution and honoring the 14th Amendment, plus I'm betting Section II of DOMA will be gone and the anti gay states won't matter. This is even if the SCOTUS never hears a case on a state's anti gay marriage law.

Geez, all you have to do is look at the trend in the last for years to know its not looking good for the haters and homophobes.

And I see more and more states passing constitutional amendments defining marriage. The homos will need to get their gay judge friends to invalidate the will of the people. Causing a backlash that will cast gays back into the closets where they belong.

 

[Gadawg73]

"Marriage equality" (i.e. destruction of marriage as a societal institution) is hardly inevitable. A number of states have already voted to define marriage and enshrined that in their state constitutions.

Of course it is, but if deluding yourself makes you feel better, have at it.



Enjoy Alabama and Mississippi!

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

Majority mob rule has never and never will interpret THE LAW.
We are not and will never be a majority mob rule democracy.
The Constitution is written to tell GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO, not what citizens can not do and was written to protect the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL.
Keeping government from banning gay couples from getting marriage licenses is as conservative as it gets.

 

[RKMBrown]

Of course it is, but if deluding yourself makes you feel better, have at it.



Enjoy Alabama and Mississippi!

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

You're just a glass half full kinda guy. From where I'm sitting, things look spectacular for marriage equality. Within a couple of years there will be more states falling in line with the Constitution and honoring the 14th Amendment, plus I'm betting Section II of DOMA will be gone and the anti gay states won't matter. This is even if the SCOTUS never hears a case on a state's anti gay marriage law.

Geez, all you have to do is look at the trend in the last for years to know its not looking good for the haters and homophobes.

Ten years ago I would have shrugged and argued to replace the term marriage in federal and state laws with civil unions, and or argued to make the term marriage inclusive of civil unions in the eyes of the law. Now however, after further review, I'm on the side of an amendment, an act of congress extending civil rights laws, or a SCOTUS decision that ensures the right to life and liberty covers the right to marriage for all citizens irregardless of sexual orientation. The bigotry against gays needs to go the way of the bigotry against blacks. Just because the majority can act like a tyrant does not justify the tyrannical acts said majority wields on minority groups.

 

[RKMBrown]

Of course it is, but if deluding yourself makes you feel better, have at it.



Enjoy Alabama and Mississippi!

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

Majority mob rule has never and never will interpret THE LAW.
We are not and will never be a majority mob rule democracy.
The Constitution is written to tell GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO, not what citizens can not do and was written to protect the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL.
Keeping government from banning gay couples from getting marriage licenses is as conservative as it gets.

 

[NLT]

If I was never asked, how was it "dishonest"?

Are you going to claim you never got a BJ while in the military?

Not from a homo and not from a women that was in the military.

Military status and gender of your knob polisher is irrelevant. You violated the same article of the UCMJ that I did.

So sex with my Wife is a violation of the UCMJ? You get more full of bull shit with every post.

 

[Gadawg73]

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

You're just a glass half full kinda guy. From where I'm sitting, things look spectacular for marriage equality. Within a couple of years there will be more states falling in line with the Constitution and honoring the 14th Amendment, plus I'm betting Section II of DOMA will be gone and the anti gay states won't matter. This is even if the SCOTUS never hears a case on a state's anti gay marriage law.

Geez, all you have to do is look at the trend in the last for years to know its not looking good for the haters and homophobes.

Ten years ago I would have shrugged and argued to replace the term marriage in federal and state laws with civil unions, and or argued to make the term marriage inclusive of civil unions in the eyes of the law. Now however, after further review, I'm on the side of an amendment, an act of congress extending civil rights laws, or a SCOTUS decision that ensures the right to life and liberty covers the right to marriage for all citizens irregardless of sexual orientation. The bigotry against gays needs to go the way of the bigotry against blacks. Just because the majority can act like a tyrant does not justify the tyrannical acts said majority wields on minority groups.

I used to be a bigot against gays. Then I was one of those that claimed I wasn't and likened to giving them any rights to allowing incest and sex with donkeys.
When I gave all of that nonsense I found that treating them the same and giving them the rights and respect they deserve is so much easier to carry. And made many a new friend along the way.
If a southern bred straight country boy done good like me can come around anyone can.
And that is my mission here. If JUST ONE changes like I did my work has been done.

 

[Katzndogz]

We will have same sex marriage, polygamy, incest and legalized child sexual abuse. Then some better people will come along, crush the hollowed out, weakened and degenerate Americans and put an end to it. Just the way it has always happened before.

 

[kaz]

We will have same sex marriage, polygamy, incest and legalized child sexual abuse. Then some better people will come along, crush the hollowed out, weakened and degenerate Americans and put an end to it. Just the way it has always happened before.

Crimes with an actual victim are completely different than victimless crimes. The former is a matter for government, the latter is a matter for one's conscience and/or church. Mixing them in a list isn't productive.

 

[bodecea]

Not from a homo and not from a women that was in the military.

Military status and gender of your knob polisher is irrelevant. You violated the same article of the UCMJ that I did.

So sex with my Wife is a violation of the UCMJ? You get more full of bull shit with every post.

The article on sodomy does not differentiate. Sodomy is sodomy. There's an article on adultery too.

 

[Redfish]

Of course it is, but if deluding yourself makes you feel better, have at it.



Enjoy Alabama and Mississippi!

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

Majority mob rule has never and never will interpret THE LAW.
We are not and will never be a majority mob rule democracy.
The Constitution is written to tell GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO, not what citizens can not do and was written to protect the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL.
Keeping government from banning gay couples from getting marriage licenses is as conservative as it gets.

What??? we don't live in a majority rules democracy???? WTF are you talking about?

does the majority elect presidents and congressmen? does the majority decide tax levees and referendums? does the majority decide what is right and what is wrong?

your argument is fatally flawed. you cite the constitution---did a majority not ratify the constitution? can't a majority change it?

the opposite of majority rule is dictatorship----is that what you want?

 

[kaz]

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

Majority mob rule has never and never will interpret THE LAW.
We are not and will never be a majority mob rule democracy.
The Constitution is written to tell GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO, not what citizens can not do and was written to protect the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL.
Keeping government from banning gay couples from getting marriage licenses is as conservative as it gets.

What??? we don't live in a majority rules democracy???? WTF are you talking about?

does the majority elect presidents and congressmen? does the majority decide tax levees and referendums? does the majority decide what is right and what is wrong?

your argument is fatally flawed. you cite the constitution---did a majority not ratify the constitution? can't a majority change it?

the opposite of majority rule is dictatorship----is that what you want?

Actually we live in a republic, not a democracy. The term democracy was not actually even used until the 20th century. That's a good thing, power divided is power checked. That's a good thing, a Democracy leads to mob rule, it is oppression of the majority. Clearly what the Democratic party is doing today. Talking about respecting "minorities" while they crush all opposition under the justification 50%+1.

 

[Redfish]

Majority mob rule has never and never will interpret THE LAW.
We are not and will never be a majority mob rule democracy.
The Constitution is written to tell GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO, not what citizens can not do and was written to protect the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL.
Keeping government from banning gay couples from getting marriage licenses is as conservative as it gets.

What??? we don't live in a majority rules democracy???? WTF are you talking about?

does the majority elect presidents and congressmen? does the majority decide tax levees and referendums? does the majority decide what is right and what is wrong?

your argument is fatally flawed. you cite the constitution---did a majority not ratify the constitution? can't a majority change it?

the opposite of majority rule is dictatorship----is that what you want?

Actually we live in a republic, not a democracy. The term democracy was not actually even used until the 20th century. That's a good thing, power divided is power checked. That's a good thing, a Democracy leads to mob rule, it is oppression of the majority. Clearly what the Democratic party is doing today. Talking about respecting "minorities" while they crush all opposition under the justification 50%+1.

I understand, but those on the left use some court's interpretation of "the law" in order to overturn or ignore the will of the people.

There are no laws on gay marriage at the federal level. The SCOTUS rulings are based on the "interpretations" of the judges. So, their political bias is the real determining factor, and they are allowed to overrule the will of the people via their interpretations. I think that is wrong.

 

[kaz]

What??? we don't live in a majority rules democracy???? WTF are you talking about?

does the majority elect presidents and congressmen? does the majority decide tax levees and referendums? does the majority decide what is right and what is wrong?

your argument is fatally flawed. you cite the constitution---did a majority not ratify the constitution? can't a majority change it?

the opposite of majority rule is dictatorship----is that what you want?

Actually we live in a republic, not a democracy. The term democracy was not actually even used until the 20th century. That's a good thing, power divided is power checked. That's a good thing, a Democracy leads to mob rule, it is oppression of the majority. Clearly what the Democratic party is doing today. Talking about respecting "minorities" while they crush all opposition under the justification 50%+1.

I understand, but those on the left use some court's interpretation of "the law" in order to overturn or ignore the will of the people.

There are no laws on gay marriage at the federal level. The SCOTUS rulings are based on the "interpretations" of the judges. So, their political bias is the real determining factor, and they are allowed to overrule the will of the people via their interpretations. I think that is wrong.

Agreed

 

[Gadawg73]

Fortunately we dont govern by polls. We govern by elections. And in that respect your side isn't looking too good.
Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

You're just a glass half full kinda guy. From where I'm sitting, things look spectacular for marriage equality. Within a couple of years there will be more states falling in line with the Constitution and honoring the 14th Amendment, plus I'm betting Section II of DOMA will be gone and the anti gay states won't matter. This is even if the SCOTUS never hears a case on a state's anti gay marriage law.

Geez, all you have to do is look at the trend in the last for years to know its not looking good for the haters and homophobes.

Ten years ago I would have shrugged and argued to replace the term marriage in federal and state laws with civil unions, and or argued to make the term marriage inclusive of civil unions in the eyes of the law. Now however, after further review, I'm on the side of an amendment, an act of congress extending civil rights laws, or a SCOTUS decision that ensures the right to life and liberty covers the right to marriage for all citizens irregardless of sexual orientation. The bigotry against gays needs to go the way of the bigotry against blacks. Just because the majority can act like a tyrant does not justify the tyrannical acts said majority wields on minority groups.

I used to be a bigot against gays. Then I was one of those that claimed I wasn't and likened to giving them any rights to allowing incest and sex with donkeys.
When I gave all of that nonsense I found that treating them the same and giving them the rights and respect they deserve is so much easier to carry. And made many a new friend along the way.
If a southern bred straight country boy done good like me can come around anyone can.
And that is my mission here. If JUST ONE changes like I did my work has been done.

 

[kaz]

You're just a glass half full kinda guy. From where I'm sitting, things look spectacular for marriage equality. Within a couple of years there will be more states falling in line with the Constitution and honoring the 14th Amendment, plus I'm betting Section II of DOMA will be gone and the anti gay states won't matter. This is even if the SCOTUS never hears a case on a state's anti gay marriage law.

Geez, all you have to do is look at the trend in the last for years to know its not looking good for the haters and homophobes.

Ten years ago I would have shrugged and argued to replace the term marriage in federal and state laws with civil unions, and or argued to make the term marriage inclusive of civil unions in the eyes of the law. Now however, after further review, I'm on the side of an amendment, an act of congress extending civil rights laws, or a SCOTUS decision that ensures the right to life and liberty covers the right to marriage for all citizens irregardless of sexual orientation. The bigotry against gays needs to go the way of the bigotry against blacks. Just because the majority can act like a tyrant does not justify the tyrannical acts said majority wields on minority groups.

I used to be a bigot against gays. Then I was one of those that claimed I wasn't and likened to giving them any rights to allowing incest and sex with donkeys.
When I gave all of that nonsense I found that treating them the same and giving them the rights and respect they deserve is so much easier to carry. And made many a new friend along the way.
If a southern bred straight country boy done good like me can come around anyone can.
And that is my mission here. If JUST ONE changes like I did my work has been done.

There are exceptions, but most liberals in real life aren't the stick up their ass variety that dominate liberalism on message boards.