"Some siblings report that they have been able to get a marriage license in places like the US based on the ignorance of the authorities, such as the siblings being born in different states or countries and/or not having a shared parent listed on their birth certificates. However, if the laws of that location do not recognize sibling marriages as valid, or if consanguinamory is illegal in that jurisdiction, a marriage license is a potential piece of evidence that can be used in criminal prosecution, and that’s sad.
If siblings want to get married, they should be free to marry. Inequality, based on prejudice, is counterproductive. All over the world, there are siblings living as spouses; there always has been, some with the knowledge and support of friends and family, some hiding the full nature of their relationship. Sooner or later, full marriage equality will be in place in more progressive places, allowing siblings to marry without discrimination or fear of prosecution. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later."
My point on these straw man arguments is that this ruling doesn't make a case for or against incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, or marriages between a person/animal/thing that cannot consent and yourself. It never did and never will.
This ruling changes the definition of marriage, opening the door to consider all of those variables stated above as viable marriage formats.
Meh, I don't see it. Its a leap from two partners to more than two. There's a rational basis to prohibit incestuous relationships. Someone might sue, but I don't think they'd get very far.
20 years ago no one thought suing for gay marriage would get far either and here we are.
The rational basis for making incestuous marriages illegal has been genetic issues with offspring. With birth control, abortion and prenatal testing many or most of those issues are not valid. Besides you could have an incestuous couple that can't or do not want to have children and permanently remedy that possibility. Why should they be denied marital happiness?
"Some siblings report that they have been able to get a marriage license in places like the US based on the ignorance of the authorities, such as the siblings being born in different states or countries and/or not having a shared parent listed on their birth certificates. However, if the laws of that location do not recognize sibling marriages as valid, or if consanguinamory is illegal in that jurisdiction, a marriage license is a potential piece of evidence that can be used in criminal prosecution, and that’s sad.
If siblings want to get married, they should be free to marry. Inequality, based on prejudice, is counterproductive. All over the world, there are siblings living as spouses; there always has been, some with the knowledge and support of friends and family, some hiding the full nature of their relationship. Sooner or later, full marriage equality will be in place in more progressive places, allowing siblings to marry without discrimination or fear of prosecution. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later."
My point on these straw man arguments is that this ruling doesn't make a case for or against incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, or marriages between a person/animal/thing that cannot consent and yourself. It never did and never will.
This ruling changes the definition of marriage, opening the door to consider all of those variables stated above as viable marriage formats.
Meh, I don't see it. Its a leap from two partners to more than two. There's a rational basis to prohibit incestuous relationships. Someone might sue, but I don't think they'd get very far.
Before today, I would've have agreed with you somewhat. After today, you would be so very very wrong about that. Door's been opened WIDE by SCOTUS and nothing will be denied.
(06-26-2015 09:34 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: I don't think the door is open to marriage with children and animals as neither can give consent.
But the door is wide open to sibling marriage, marriage between parents and adult children, cousin marriage and polygamy.
I would expect polygamists to test the water first. There is no reason why their form of marriage should be illegal at this point if they are all consenting adults. Any excuses such as inheritance issues etc can be solved with a simple will and paternity with DNA testing.
How was the 'door not open' to straight, incestuous marriage' before this ruling?
It may have been legal in some areas but certainly was taboo.
It shouldn't be now if they are consenting adults and love each other.
"Some siblings report that they have been able to get a marriage license in places like the US based on the ignorance of the authorities, such as the siblings being born in different states or countries and/or not having a shared parent listed on their birth certificates. However, if the laws of that location do not recognize sibling marriages as valid, or if consanguinamory is illegal in that jurisdiction, a marriage license is a potential piece of evidence that can be used in criminal prosecution, and that’s sad.
If siblings want to get married, they should be free to marry. Inequality, based on prejudice, is counterproductive. All over the world, there are siblings living as spouses; there always has been, some with the knowledge and support of friends and family, some hiding the full nature of their relationship. Sooner or later, full marriage equality will be in place in more progressive places, allowing siblings to marry without discrimination or fear of prosecution. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later."
My point on these straw man arguments is that this ruling doesn't make a case for or against incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, or marriages between a person/animal/thing that cannot consent and yourself. It never did and never will.
Did the voices in your head tell you it's a straw man?
(06-26-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote: As a foot note on all the arguments against the ruling: The majority of SCOTUS Justices disagree with you and, chances are, they know more about the Constitution than you ever will.
That being said, I'm enjoying the show.
Oh so sorry Mr. Legal Expert. Why don't you go find me the passage in the 14th amendment guaranteeing the right to gay marriage. Or, STRAIGHT marriage for that matter.
(06-26-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote: As a foot note on all the arguments against the ruling: The majority of SCOTUS Justices disagree with you and, chances are, they know more about the Constitution than you ever will.
That being said, I'm enjoying the show.
Oh so sorry Mr. Legal Expert. Why don't you go find me the passage in the 14th amendment guaranteeing the right to gay marriage. Or, STRAIGHT marriage for that matter.
I'm not legal experts. Our legal experts have already made their arguments and the highest court has made their ruling.
Polygamy IS marriage. Has been from the beginning of history. This gay thing is something that was just made up. There is no basis to deny an actual by god marriage any longer.
(06-26-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote: As a foot note on all the arguments against the ruling: The majority of SCOTUS Justices disagree with you and, chances are, they know more about the Constitution than you ever will.
That being said, I'm enjoying the show.
Oh so sorry Mr. Legal Expert. Why don't you go find me the passage in the 14th amendment guaranteeing the right to gay marriage. Or, STRAIGHT marriage for that matter.
That is easy to answer.
The 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The laws that comprise this country deal with marriage. Therefore, it is applicable that this case can be argued about the 14th Amendment. The equal protections clause has been argued to marriage law in this way, and thus the 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage.
(06-26-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote: As a foot note on all the arguments against the ruling: The majority of SCOTUS Justices disagree with you and, chances are, they know more about the Constitution than you ever will.
That being said, I'm enjoying the show.
Oh so sorry Mr. Legal Expert. Why don't you go find me the passage in the 14th amendment guaranteeing the right to gay marriage. Or, STRAIGHT marriage for that matter.
I'm not legal experts. Our legal experts have already made their arguments and the highest court has made their ruling.
(06-26-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote: As a foot note on all the arguments against the ruling: The majority of SCOTUS Justices disagree with you and, chances are, they know more about the Constitution than you ever will.
That being said, I'm enjoying the show.
Oh so sorry Mr. Legal Expert. Why don't you go find me the passage in the 14th amendment guaranteeing the right to gay marriage. Or, STRAIGHT marriage for that matter.
That is easy to answer.
The 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The laws that comprise this country deal with marriage. Therefore, it is applicable that this case can be argued about the 14th Amendment. The equal protections clause has been argued to marriage law in this way, and thus the 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage.
Thank you for proving me right. As I said NOTHING in the 14th amendment addresses marriage of ANY kind.
Now, using your logic what happened today has opened the floodgates for ALL marriages. Not just gay and straight marriage.
(06-26-2015 10:19 AM)Paul M Wrote: We outlawed real marriages and just granted it to something that isn't.
SOMEONE tell me. How do you send a man and his three loves away from the court house tomorrow.
Silly to have to go through years of this again. Court should have just re-instituted polygamy today. Never should have been outlawed.
As of today, there seems to be no legal basis to deny any forms of marriage that involve consenting adults. The Equal Protection Clause is a very elastic band that allows for variations on marriage under the umbrella of equality.
(06-26-2015 10:19 AM)Smaug Wrote: The Supremes have taken Republicans off the hook on this loser position. Now, will they be dumb enough to jump back on it? Probably.
Well now that you got your gay marriage, are you going to champion polygamous marriages now? Or, are you going to go the hypocritical route and deny those who want polygamous marriages.
(06-26-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote: As a foot note on all the arguments against the ruling: The majority of SCOTUS Justices disagree with you and, chances are, they know more about the Constitution than you ever will.
That being said, I'm enjoying the show.
Oh so sorry Mr. Legal Expert. Why don't you go find me the passage in the 14th amendment guaranteeing the right to gay marriage. Or, STRAIGHT marriage for that matter.
That is easy to answer.
The 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The laws that comprise this country deal with marriage. Therefore, it is applicable that this case can be argued about the 14th Amendment. The equal protections clause has been argued to marriage law in this way, and thus the 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage.
They used the same interpretation as was used in Loving vs. Virgina. There was little doubt of the outcome IMO. Though I was a little surprised that the ruling was so close. I felt that it would easily be 7-2.
(06-26-2015 09:16 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote: How long before gay couples begin forcing ministers to marry them against their will? If no other reason, just to cause a ruckus. It's coming. BAKE MY PIZZA YOU HOMOPHOBE.
(06-26-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote: As a foot note on all the arguments against the ruling: The majority of SCOTUS Justices disagree with you and, chances are, they know more about the Constitution than you ever will.
That being said, I'm enjoying the show.
Oh so sorry Mr. Legal Expert. Why don't you go find me the passage in the 14th amendment guaranteeing the right to gay marriage. Or, STRAIGHT marriage for that matter.
That is easy to answer.
The 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The laws that comprise this country deal with marriage. Therefore, it is applicable that this case can be argued about the 14th Amendment. The equal protections clause has been argued to marriage law in this way, and thus the 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage.
Thank you for proving me right. As I said NOTHING in the 14th amendment addresses marriage of ANY kind.
Now, using your logic what happened today has opened the floodgates for ALL marriages. Not just gay and straight marriage.
You are being quite dense. Do you not understand the concept of law? Apparently not. I don't know how many times I can repeat it. The amendment states...
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I will explain this again. This means that the laws must equally protect the people of this country. Marriage is written into law. Some states had banned gay marriage, others allowed it. Either way, it was decided upon by the states. That means it is commonly law in all 50 states. Therefore, any law is under the purview of our Constitution, and thus this amendment applies.
The question was, can the states banish same-sex marriage when others allow it? What argument against gay marriage can effectively give credence to marriage equality? The Court has ruled that there are no overwhelming arguments against same-sex marriage that interfere with the equal protection of the laws. The equal right, like all Americans, has now been extended to gay and lesbian Americans.
This is the same thing that happened when interracial marriage was legalized. The same arguments that were used then were used in gay marriage arguments.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2015 10:28 AM by Ole Blue.)