Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[The Rabbi]

No dumbass, heterosexual people can marry homosexual people now.
Only homosexual people can not marry other homosexual people of the same sex.

Heterosexual people cannot marry heterosexual people of the same sex either.
See, no discrimination at all.
Dumbshit

Blacks could not marry whites.
And you would argue that meant whites could marry blacks.
Because the whites were not black.

Strawman.
Black men could not marry white women while white men could. Unequal.
Heterosexual men can marry women
Homosexual men can marry women.
Not unequal.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hey folks, where does gay marriage fall on your list of national priorities?

States have spent millions on gay marriage referendums and there have been no referendums on balancing budgets in states, maybe a few.

So where is gay marriage on your list of priorities and that would mean we would spend time, effort and $$ attempting to solve the other things in government before we fought the gay boogeyman that will destroy the morality of Americans and the family unit.

Gay marriage is 137 on my list of priorities.

This question was asked at a Baptist Church 20 years ago when they were voting to have an accepting church. Many had gay marriage in their top 3.

Since I don't believe we as a nation are capable of successfully solving our economic differences until we have an agreement on basic human/civil rights outlined, I put this one near the top. The democrats see this, that's why they switched from anti-gay to pro gay this election cycle. It probably gave Obama a 5% swing. Romney lost the election, IMO, the day he told the retired WWII guy to pick a finger regarding his right to marry.

 

[DGS49]

Sorry, but I feel a need to ejaculate a bit of biological reality into this conversation.

At the time when the Constitution was written, it was commonly believed among the majority of the population that so-called "Negroes" were biologically inferior to "whites," and were simply incapable of functioning fully as citizens. Quotes from the Founding Fathers verifying this belief are not often published but are in the record. This is the reason why these enlightened people saw no contradiction in writing about the human rights of life, liberty, and so forth, while tacitly accepting the institution of slavery. Thus, the different treatment of "Blacks" was both constitutional and legal until the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which gave the so-called "Negroes" the full rights of citizenship in the United States.

When those amendments were expanded to protect U.S. citizens as citizens of their respective states, the anti-miscegenation laws (sp?) were doomed.

But unlike the supposed differences between the races, the differences between men and women are not imaginary or supported merely by prejudices or illusions; they are real and verifiable either with or without scientific instrumentation. And "equal protection" has never been applied to "couples," but only to citizens. Furthermore, neither the Constitution nor the USSC has ever ruled that sexual preference is one of the categories - like gender, race, religion, etc - for which states must show a "compelling state interest" to treat one group differently from anyone else.

This is clearly an area where the States are free to discriminate (not all discrimination is bad), based on nothing more than the discretion of the population, as manifested by the peoples' legislatures (the state legislatures). And if the people, acting through legislation or ballot initiatives or whatever it may be, decide that marriage should be defined as ONLY a man and a woman who enter into a state-sanctioned quasi-contract, then that is the prevailing law.

And even with the hundreds of liberal judges and courts all across the fruited plain, who are DETERMINED to change the Constitution without benefit of a Constitutional Amendment, the state of (U.S.) "Constitutional" law on this point has not changed.

We do have many related issues that ar still "in play." It may not be possible for the Federal government to refuse to recognize "marriages" that the various states recognize. It may be necessary for all of the other states to recognize marriages legally created in another state, even if that marriage could not have come into existence in the latter state.

But as of this minute, the States, acting in their sovereign capacity, may REFUSE to accede to the demands of the loud-mouthed socialist, amoral pree-vert bastards who are trying to shove gay "marriage" down their throats (no play on words intended), and there is NOTHING in the United States Constitution that can even remotely be used to force the USSC to overturn the marriage laws of sovereign states who choose the traditional path in this area.

In short, the "equal protection" argument is bullshit.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry, but I feel a need to ejaculate a bit of biological reality into this conversation.

At the time when the Constitution was written, it was commonly believed among the majority of the population that so-called "Negroes" were biologically inferior to "whites," and were simply incapable of functioning fully as citizens. Quotes from the Founding Fathers verifying this belief are not often published but are in the record. This is the reason why these enlightened people saw no contradiction in writing about the human rights of life, liberty, and so forth, while tacitly accepting the institution of slavery. Thus, the different treatment of "Blacks" was both constitutional and legal until the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which gave the so-called "Negroes" the full rights of citizenship in the United States.

When those amendments were expanded to protect U.S. citizens as citizens of their respective states, the anti-miscegenation laws (sp?) were doomed.

But unlike the supposed differences between the races, the differences between men and women are not imaginary or supported merely by prejudices or illusions; they are real and verifiable either with or without scientific instrumentation. And "equal protection" has never been applied to "couples," but only to citizens. Furthermore, neither the Constitution nor the USSC has ever ruled that sexual preference is one of the categories - like gender, race, religion, etc - for which states must show a "compelling state interest" to treat one group differently from anyone else.

This is clearly an area where the States are free to discriminate (not all discrimination is bad), based on nothing more than the discretion of the population, as manifested by the peoples' legislatures (the state legislatures). And if the people, acting through legislation or ballot initiatives or whatever it may be, decide that marriage should be defined as ONLY a man and a woman who enter into a state-sanctioned quasi-contract, then that is the prevailing law.

And even with the hundreds of liberal judges and courts all across the fruited plain, who are DETERMINED to change the Constitution without benefit of a Constitutional Amendment, the state of (U.S.) "Constitutional" law on this point has not changed.

We do have many related issues that ar still "in play." It may not be possible for the Federal government to refuse to recognize "marriages" that the various states recognize. It may be necessary for all of the other states to recognize marriages legally created in another state, even if that marriage could not have come into existence in the latter state.

But as of this minute, the States, acting in their sovereign capacity, may REFUSE to accede to the demands of the loud-mouthed socialist, amoral pree-vert bastards who are trying to shove gay "marriage" down their throats (no play on words intended), and there is NOTHING in the United States Constitution that can even remotely be used to force the USSC to overturn the marriage laws of sovereign states who choose the traditional path in this area.

In short, the "equal protection" argument is bullshit.

So...men and women are not equal in the eyes of U.S. law?

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, but I feel a need to ejaculate a bit of biological reality into this conversation.

At the time when the Constitution was written, it was commonly believed among the majority of the population that so-called "Negroes" were biologically inferior to "whites," and were simply incapable of functioning fully as citizens. Quotes from the Founding Fathers verifying this belief are not often published but are in the record. This is the reason why these enlightened people saw no contradiction in writing about the human rights of life, liberty, and so forth, while tacitly accepting the institution of slavery. Thus, the different treatment of "Blacks" was both constitutional and legal until the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which gave the so-called "Negroes" the full rights of citizenship in the United States.

When those amendments were expanded to protect U.S. citizens as citizens of their respective states, the anti-miscegenation laws (sp?) were doomed.

But unlike the supposed differences between the races, the differences between men and women are not imaginary or supported merely by prejudices or illusions; they are real and verifiable either with or without scientific instrumentation. And "equal protection" has never been applied to "couples," but only to citizens. Furthermore, neither the Constitution nor the USSC has ever ruled that sexual preference is one of the categories - like gender, race, religion, etc - for which states must show a "compelling state interest" to treat one group differently from anyone else.

This is clearly an area where the States are free to discriminate (not all discrimination is bad), based on nothing more than the discretion of the population, as manifested by the peoples' legislatures (the state legislatures). And if the people, acting through legislation or ballot initiatives or whatever it may be, decide that marriage should be defined as ONLY a man and a woman who enter into a state-sanctioned quasi-contract, then that is the prevailing law.

And even with the hundreds of liberal judges and courts all across the fruited plain, who are DETERMINED to change the Constitution without benefit of a Constitutional Amendment, the state of (U.S.) "Constitutional" law on this point has not changed.

We do have many related issues that ar still "in play." It may not be possible for the Federal government to refuse to recognize "marriages" that the various states recognize. It may be necessary for all of the other states to recognize marriages legally created in another state, even if that marriage could not have come into existence in the latter state.

But as of this minute, the States, acting in their sovereign capacity, may REFUSE to accede to the demands of the loud-mouthed socialist, amoral pree-vert bastards who are trying to shove gay "marriage" down their throats (no play on words intended), and there is NOTHING in the United States Constitution that can even remotely be used to force the USSC to overturn the marriage laws of sovereign states who choose the traditional path in this area.

In short, the "equal protection" argument is bullshit.

So...men and women are not equal in the eyes of U.S. law?

No. Only men register for Selective Service.
Next.

 

[kaz]

wow... dude you've been drinking the bigot koolaid...

If a gay guy does not like your vile bigoted attack on his ability to marry another man he can just change his mind and start liking women? WTF is wrong with you people? How would you like it if the law said only gays can get married? That's applying the law equally right? What's wrong you can just go marry some gay guy if you don't like it.

What does this have to do with my post, asshole?

The fact that you don't know you are a bigot by your own words speaks volumes.

What a douche.



You're just yet another lazy ass liberal who wants someone else to do your work for you. No way you're getting off your lazy ass and changing minds. Get a self appointed dictator to do it for you. Next task, get government to tuck you in at night and chew your food for you.

 

[kaz]

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.

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

Sorry, but no. Women can’t marry women is no different than saying that black cant marry white. You are twisting equal protection into something that it is not. Equal protection means, as you said, that all laws are applied in the same manner to all people. The fact is that the law is not being applied equally from one sex to another – a woman cannot marry another woman but a man can. A man cannot marry another man but a woman can. That is not equal protection; that is defining the application of the law based on the particular group that you belong to (in this case sex, in the former race).

Deer season isn't fair, I don't want to hunt hunt deer, I want to hunt pheasants, it's a violation of equal protection. Instead of persuading anyone that I should be able to hunt pheasant in deer season, I'm going to run to a judge to order them to let me because it's a violation of my constitutional rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

No dumbass, heterosexual people can marry homosexual people now.
Only homosexual people can not marry other homosexual people of the same sex.

Heterosexual people cannot marry heterosexual people of the same sex either.
See, no discrimination at all.
Dumbshit

Blacks could not marry whites.
And you would argue that meant whites could marry blacks.
Because the whites were not black.

No, black men could not marry white women although white men could.
That is discrimination.

Any man can marry any woman (given limits on age, incest, and marital state). Doesn't matter if theyr'e straight or gay.
Squirrel fuckers cannot marry squirrels. Maybe this is the new discrimination?

 

[RKMBrown]

What does this have to do with my post, asshole?

The fact that you don't know you are a bigot by your own words speaks volumes.

What a douche.



You're just yet another lazy ass liberal who wants someone else to do your work for you. No way you're getting off your lazy ass and changing minds. Get a self appointed dictator to do it for you. Next task, get government to tuck you in at night and chew your food for you.

I'm starting to think you have a man crush on me.

 

[Seawytch]

Equal protection has been cited in every anti-gay marriage case that has come before a court...including the SCOTUS.

 

[The Rabbi]

Equal protection has been cited in every anti-gay marriage case that has come before a court...including the SCOTUS.

And?

 

[Seawytch]

Equal protection has been cited in every anti-gay marriage case that has come before a court...including the SCOTUS.

And?

It just seems rather short sighted to state that the equal protection of gays and lesbians isn't being violated when court after court disagrees with your assessment.

 

[kaz]

The fact that you don't know you are a bigot by your own words speaks volumes.

What a douche.



You're just yet another lazy ass liberal who wants someone else to do your work for you. No way you're getting off your lazy ass and changing minds. Get a self appointed dictator to do it for you. Next task, get government to tuck you in at night and chew your food for you.

I'm starting to think you have a man crush on me.

Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drinking like that?

 

[kaz]

Equal protection has been cited in every anti-gay marriage case that has come before a court...including the SCOTUS.

And?

It just seems rather short sighted to state that the equal protection of gays and lesbians isn't being violated when court after court disagrees with your assessment.

Lawyers actually like the ability to make laws. Wow, who'd have seen that coming?

 

[Seawytch]

And?

It just seems rather short sighted to state that the equal protection of gays and lesbians isn't being violated when court after court disagrees with your assessment.

Lawyers actually like the ability to make laws. Wow, who'd have seen that coming?

They aren't making laws, they're finding that some of the legislation being passed violates the Constitution...as they are supposed to.

Do you disagree that DOMA did that?

 

[RKMBrown]

What a douche.



You're just yet another lazy ass liberal who wants someone else to do your work for you. No way you're getting off your lazy ass and changing minds. Get a self appointed dictator to do it for you. Next task, get government to tuck you in at night and chew your food for you.

I'm starting to think you have a man crush on me.

Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drinking like that?

It's 5-oclock somewhere, I'm sure of it.

 

[kaz]

I'm starting to think you have a man crush on me.

Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drinking like that?

It's 5-oclock somewhere, I'm sure of it.

The beauty of having a round world.

Ben Franklin: Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.

 

[The Rabbi]

It just seems rather short sighted to state that the equal protection of gays and lesbians isn't being violated when court after court disagrees with your assessment.

Lawyers actually like the ability to make laws. Wow, who'd have seen that coming?

They aren't making laws, they're finding that some of the legislation being passed violates the Constitution...as they are supposed to.

Do you disagree that DOMA did that?

The Court found that teh case in DOMA only because federal law was dictating whether state action was or was not valid. I.e. the states have the power to decide what marriage is.

 

[bodecea]

And?

It just seems rather short sighted to state that the equal protection of gays and lesbians isn't being violated when court after court disagrees with your assessment.

Lawyers actually like the ability to make laws. Wow, who'd have seen that coming?

What laws are being made?

 

[kaz]

Just a few off the top of my head include that the Federal government has a say in abortion, that private land can be confiscated for non-public use, that discrimination is OK if it's "reverse" discrimination, that the Federal government can ban drugs and commit major atrocities on our privacy with no warrant to go after them, that government has the Constitutional authority to control our health care system, that government can regulate political speech going into elections, that non-US citizens not in the United States have Constitutional rights and that foreign law has weight in the American Judicial system.