Two big rulings coming down this week.

The only question I have on the gay marriage case, is whether they rule narrowly or go the 'full monty' and rule broadly. King v. Burwell could go either way, IMO. Even though I hope SCOTUS sides with King.

At this point I don't care which way they rule on gay marriage but if they rule it is a constitutional right to marry whoever as long as they are consenting adults then there should be no limitations on who can marry including sibling marriage, cousin marriage, or polygamy. There is no good legal argument against any of those combinations if same sex marriage is legal.

All those others should have come first. 2 men should have been the last to get recognition.

(06-22-2015 10:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  At this point I don't care which way they rule on gay marriage but if they rule it is a constitutional right to marry whoever as long as they are consenting adults then there should be no limitations on who can marry including sibling marriage, cousin marriage, or polygamy. There is no good legal argument against any of those combinations if same sex marriage is legal.

Correct.

And if churches are forced to marry gays, there could be some troubling times ahead. I don't think that's going to happen.

(06-22-2015 10:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  At this point I don't care which way they rule on gay marriage but if they rule it is a constitutional right to marry whoever as long as they are consenting adults then there should be no limitations on who can marry including sibling marriage, cousin marriage, or polygamy. There is no good legal argument against any of those combinations if same sex marriage is legal.

Absolutely incorrect, and only someone wholly ignorant of the legal implications of marriage would claim something so painfully ignorant.

Polygamy would completely change the legal concept of marriage in most every significant way possible; inheritance, rights to marital property, financial issues, paternity, etc. I know that you want to portray gay marriage as some line in the sand that, once crossed, removes all meaning from the concept itself, but that's simply not true and you look like an idiot claiming it is. How do I know this? There are dozens of nations which allow polygamy and dozens which allow gay marriage, but charting the venn diagram shows that your claim is wholly ludicrous.

Why? Because allowing two adults with matching parts to get married changes nothing quantitatively about marriage, whereas making it larger than a partnership requires a wholesale alteration of the institution and removal of the common-law origins of marriage itself.

Quote:And if churches are forced to marry gays, there could be some troubling times ahead. I don't think that's going to happen.

It won't happen. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit or two that will be paraded around as proof of religious victimization, but it's a non-starter from a constitutional perspective.

(06-23-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 10:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  At this point I don't care which way they rule on gay marriage but if they rule it is a constitutional right to marry whoever as long as they are consenting adults then there should be no limitations on who can marry including sibling marriage, cousin marriage, or polygamy. There is no good legal argument against any of those combinations if same sex marriage is legal.

Absolutely incorrect, and only someone wholly ignorant of the legal implications of marriage would claim something so painfully ignorant.

Polygamy would completely change the legal concept of marriage in most every significant way possible; inheritance, rights to marital property, financial issues, paternity, etc. I know that you want to portray gay marriage as some line in the sand that, once crossed, removes all meaning from the concept itself, but that's simply not true and you look like an idiot claiming it is. How do I know this? There are dozens of nations which allow polygamy and dozens which allow gay marriage, but charting the venn diagram shows that your claim is wholly ludicrous.

Why? Because allowing two adults with matching parts to get married changes nothing quantitatively about marriage, whereas making it larger than a partnership requires a wholesale alteration of the institution and removal of the common-law origins of marriage itself.

Quote:And if churches are forced to marry gays, there could be some troubling times ahead. I don't think that's going to happen.

It won't happen. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit or two that will be paraded around as proof of religious victimization, but it's a non-starter from a constitutional perspective.

There You go. It all comes down to that Democrat stronghold. Collecting Taxes. You Just can't let People or Families Keep What They have without the GovernMINT getting Theirs first.

Stop UCF, just stop. The idiotic ignorance is your spew.

(06-23-2015 12:33 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 10:44 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  At this point I don't care which way they rule on gay marriage but if they rule it is a constitutional right to marry whoever as long as they are consenting adults then there should be no limitations on who can marry including sibling marriage, cousin marriage, or polygamy. There is no good legal argument against any of those combinations if same sex marriage is legal.

Absolutely incorrect, and only someone wholly ignorant of the legal implications of marriage would claim something so painfully ignorant.

Polygamy would completely change the legal concept of marriage in most every significant way possible; inheritance, rights to marital property, financial issues, paternity, etc. I know that you want to portray gay marriage as some line in the sand that, once crossed, removes all meaning from the concept itself, but that's simply not true and you look like an idiot claiming it is. How do I know this? There are dozens of nations which allow polygamy and dozens which allow gay marriage, but charting the venn diagram shows that your claim is wholly ludicrous.

Why? Because allowing two adults with matching parts to get married changes nothing quantitatively about marriage, whereas making it larger than a partnership requires a wholesale alteration of the institution and removal of the common-law origins of marriage itself.

Quote:And if churches are forced to marry gays, there could be some troubling times ahead. I don't think that's going to happen.

It won't happen. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit or two that will be paraded around as proof of religious victimization, but it's a non-starter from a constitutional perspective.

You provided no argument against sibling or cousin marriage.
Your arguments against polygamy are laughable and solved with a will for inheritance and DNA test for paternity. Heck we have people everyday on the Jerry Springer Show who have paternity issues that he manages to solve in a one hour show.

The barn door opens with allowing gay marriage. So be it. But then don't tell ANYONE who they can "love" and marry as long as they are both consenting adults.

He just regurgitates this same nonsense every time the subject comes up. Not any real reason to argue with his fallacies. Just chuckle at the knucklehead.