ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Less important to whom?
I think this right will be exercised a lot. Many people who have been fighting as activists and those sitting on the sidelines will be exercising the right.
There are reasonable state interests in not allowing closer than first cousins to be involved in sexual relations, especially if one grew up around the other, related to either undue influence in the relationship (real grooming) or there is a chance of offspring with birth defects (for 1st level relations, it can be close to 40% or more), or both are concerns.
I don't really see any reason not to allow case by case bases of marriage between siblings, even blood siblings, if they weren't raised together, since there is little likelihood of undue influence on the relationship.
There are state interests involved in limiting number of legal spouses as well.
They don't involve tradition, "think of the children" with no science to back up any harm to children, or random possibilities of an unknown future, nor should the argument involve "the people voted for this" (since most of these laws were put in place by legislatures).
It will revolve around how legal marriage works and protects the spouses from other legal family members, society (in some ways) and each other.
The arguments prior to any court challenge should include looking for ways to actually change some marriage laws to accommodate multiple spouses in a marriage
As with any SC battle, such cases would be decided on their own arguments, both for and against, not mainly on previous cases.
In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.
They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.
I don't know what you're writing has to do with that point.
That's what I find entertaining about all of this. More and more straight people are saying no to marriage and yet all the while gay people want in on the fun of marriage. I have a feeling the trend will find its way among gay people before long and when it does all I will be able to do is laugh.
Marriage isn't becoming less important though, not to many people. There are people who want to be married, even if they aren't currently married. There are those who don't think marriage is important, as there always have been such people (the group getting larger or smaller at various times in history), but that doesn't mean it isn't important to many other people.
There is no reason to not give them the right, even if they never exercise that right.
You are making a lot of assumptions here that don't really support reality, history. While there is currently an increase in those who don't want to ever get married, it is not a significant increase. And many of those still support others getting married, they just don't feel it is right for them. There is no telling how many more or fewer people will feel this way in the future. But this trend has nothing to do with same sex couples who are fighting for their right to marry, homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been fighting for the removal of gender/sex restrictions on marriage, whether all, most, or even just some or a few same sex couples in the future decide to get married.
And it isn't just or even mainly liberals who are against marriage. The majority of those that I've seen against legal marriage are libertarians. There are also some religious fundamentalist groups who are against legal marriage as well, believing that the religious marriage is what counts.
The culture of a country is whatever is it at the current time. It's not some principle that you might think is important or what other people might find important, nor is it a goal that you or someone might have. Giving women certain rights has changed the culture of the country and the government in expected and unexpected ways both good and bad.
Assumptions that don't exist? I think you are either living in a bubble, or not willing to see reality.
The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families | Pew Research Center
The transformative trends of the past 50 years that have led to a sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race, according to a new Pew Research Center nationwide survey, done in association with TIME, complemented by an analysis of demographic and economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau
So since you've thought about it, what are some examples and the reasons why they would not withstand Constitutional scrutiny given this decision?
Your assumptions are that this is somehow a trend that is definitely going to continue or that is bad at all. The "traditional" family, the nuclear family, is actually a relatively new family form. Many societies have had extended families as the "traditional" family model.
Originally Posted by katiegrrl0
Less important to whom?
I think this right will be exercised a lot. Many people who have been fighting as activists and those sitting on the sidelines will be exercising the right.
The number of people who are excited does not lessen the impact on the nation. This has been one of the most talked about issues for years. People who usually are not political or deal with social issues have spoken on this issue. Almost everyone I would venture to say has an opinion.I have no doubt there are same sex couples who are excited they can exercise their freedom to marry in any state they chose. However, this is a very small percentage of the population.
The concept marriage has altered statistics show this. No wait has the meaning changed of course not the value may be a better term. Easy divorce has changed this. Is it a bad thing? No it's not bad. Why should people live with someone they have grown to dislike. The nature of people has changed we are an instant gratification society. If the marriage gets boring I am out of here. Yet the new laws make the nation freer and we as humans have grown whether we like it or not. The US is different today.What the general population is demonstrating is that concept of marriage has less and less meaning to them. Facts and polls demonstrate this to be true.
Your assumptions are that this is somehow a trend that is definitely going to continue or that is bad at all. The "traditional" family, the nuclear family, is actually a relatively new family form. Many societies have had extended families as the "traditional" family model.
In case you misread or misunderstood what I wrote I will say it again for you: I don't accept the slippery slope arguments which are very common in SCOTUS dissents. They rarely ever turn out to be the case. Most often they are just vitriolic rants from the losing side. The most recent tantrums and illogical arguments from this week are a perfect example.
It's a retreat, a de-evolution into the clan model.
The number of people who are excited does not lessen the impact on the nation. This has been one of the most talked about issues for years. People who usually are not political or deal with social issues have spoken on this issue. Almost everyone I would venture to say has an opinion.
The concept marriage has altered statistics show this. No wait has the meaning changed of course not the value may be a better term. Easy divorce has changed this. Is it a bad thing? No it's not bad. Why should people live with someone they have grown to dislike. The nature of people has changed we are an instant gratification society. If the marriage gets boring I am out of here. Yet the new laws make the nation freer and we as humans have grown whether we like it or not. The US is different today.
Please provide any data you have that it won't continue.
I'm really lost on what you are trying to debate. I'm beginning to think you don't know as well.
If you think that Scalia's vitriolic dissent was becoming of Supreme Court Justice and was founded in logic....then I think it speaks clearly as to what constitutes a "dim bulb".
If you don't like rules within a country, why would you not seek to change them? If you don't like the way people are treated within a country, why would you not seek to change that? That is the entire reason our country exists, because some people did not like something about the country and sought to change it. That doesn't mean that change cannot be an advancement for the country as well.
Of course people have been made aware of the issue. That has been the plan. It's one of many wedge issues that by themselves are important to a few, but carry the water for the larger agenda.
I think it's possible a "tolerance" level to these changes may be reached, if not already. I will be interesting to see if that is true.
The fact that the US is being made different today could be a catalyst for push back.
When have they not ended up being the case (the slippery slope argument)? Corporations became people, abortions became easier and easier to get, and with each decision we push farther away from the constitutional model and toward the Ayatollah model.
Considering the lawless disregard of the Constitution the majority's exercise of judicial fiat involved, I think Justice Scalia's comments were, if anything, too moderate. He would have been nothing but truthful if he had called Kennedy an unprincipled liar and a disgrace to the Court. And Scalia's arguments were very solidly founded in logic, as were Justice Thomas's. I doubt you've read Obergefell, and I am sure you would not understand the legal issues raised in the dissenting opinions if you had. Having read your posts, I'm not the least surprised that you would accept Kennedy's high-sounding, incoherent gibberish as legal reasoning.
Obergefell is a direct attack on both democracy and the freedom of religion. Its sloppy, emotion-driven gobbbledygook has a special appeal for the witless. That includes most of the millions of pseudo-liberal lumps in the lumpenproletariat who are now taking up space in this once-great nation. Like their president, they care only about getting theirs, and they do not give a tinker's damn about this country, its Constitution, or the rule of law. The thought that a million American men have died to defend the rights of a such a bunch of simpering pajama boys is disgusting.
I don't believe the Bible is anything more than words written by men a long time ago, men who believed they were speaking for God, but didn't know anymore than the rest of us what God or any higher power really wants, thinks, believes.
riiiiiiiiiight....because expansion of rights is so consistent with middle eastern politics.
So, can't back up your statement then about the slippery slope argument used in dissents? And yes, "rights" are determined by the Ayatollahs. Ours were by Constitution, rather than the will of nine black robed authorities, WERE. Not any longer. And when even the Chief Justice notes the condition, it's silly to hide it from yourself.
Hmmmmmm lets see.....gay marriage more likely in a middle eastern country or the position of anti-gay bigots more consistent with a middle eastern country? Ding Ding Ding....what is your answer Clownboy?
No, I said it is funny that you don't see the obvious contradiction in your supposition about liberals "not caring" about marriage...... while expanding the right to marry. You can characterize your overlooking your contradiction as "interesting", but apparently it is not "interesting" enough for you to explore.Interesting, isn't it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?