- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 10,660
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Oh, and you referring to page 13 "A second principle" is not even the right page -- that sentence starts on page 18
Yes. I know.
They specifically work like that. Over-broad rulings can have ripple effects over other laws.
There is something seriously wrong when we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent siblings from marrying. That is the road this court has set us on.
This one was not "overly broad".
No "defeat" admitted.
You were unable to support your claim that the ruling specifically allows incest marriage and could provide a citation.
Must be a liberal mentality, make a claim, don't support and instead of admitting the claim was unsupported claim "victory".
>>>>
Sure it is, because the basis for his argument is any two people.
No, it isn't.
The Court would have to know what the state considers its state interests are in denying incestuous relationships the right to marry before they can simply strike down those bans.
If Kennedy wanted to exclude any two people who are related he would have done so.
What state interests outweigh Kennedy's argument about a federal constitutional right that has to be applied to all states?
There is something seriously wrong when we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent siblings from marrying. That is the road this court has set us on.
They do not apply to other cases, other issues that are not brought up to them.
But they specifically do. That is why the cases are referenced back to in new cases that have similar facts.
No, they don't.
But they do. That is the whole point of referencing the other cases.
No, no they don't.
They have no obligation to mention potential future cases in any ruling they make.
I did.
Miserably.
But they do.
You did finally say something correct when you said they are not obligated to. Sadly, nobody argued they were. So you won that argument against literally nobody arguing against you.
The SCOTUS did not legalize incestuous marriage with this decision, no matter what you may believe.
Their argument was made broadly enough to easily cover incest marriage.
The same is true for incest laws, they must be challenged first.
Good thing for incest couples that this ruling argues for incest marriage to be legal.
You meant yes. This ruling absolutely allows for incest marriage.
Because it doesn't.
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?