Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

Yep. You obviously fail to understand his federalism argument. As multiple users have endeavoured to explain in depth in that thread in the LGBT forum you have mysteriously failed to reprise your role in.

It did no such thing! You do not understand the ruling. It merely stated that state power, while subject to constitutional guarantees, was superior to Congressional power- and creating "two tiers" of marriage is illegal. In a case which AFFIRMED equality for same-sex couples. The federal government's decision to discriminate was shot down. But Kennedy clearly stated that state definitions of marriage are bound by the US Constitution.

The fact you are so convinced of your delusional position is going to make the upcoming SCOTUS ruling declaring that states rights do not trump individual rights so much sweeter. Your tears will sustain us

 

Are you not paying attention? That wasn't me who said that. That was Judge Feldman who made those statements.

 

You clearly are quite adamant about discriminating by gender in marriage contracts, but you are unable to support your fixation with any rational excuses for doing so.

Again, your prejudice is still encoded in the laws of Islamic and many third-world nations, but those with a Christian heritage, and especially advanced, "first world" nations, have made great progress: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguay, parts of Mexico, most of the United Kingdom, and most of the United States (32 U.S. states and the District of Columbia allow and fully recognize same-sex marriages.)

Treating American couples applying for a marriage license equally, without regard to their genders (m/f, m/m, f/f), is the reality you are going to have to come to grips with. Some government bureaucrat fussing over the crotches of every couple that applies for a license is increasingly regarded as an unnecessary imposition.

I just don't see that progress being reversed.

 

Don't worry, once the supreme court gets ahold of it, it will only be legal in 12 states.

 

BTW, to the idiots who think that the Supreme Court denied the appeals of those who oppose gay marriage, that's exactly the opposite.

The ones who WON in the appellate courts wanted the Supreme Court to take up the case. And the Supreme Court denied it. They denied it because they don't have disagreement in the lower courts. But they will, and when they do it's going to be ugly for the homosexuals and their supporters.

You folks are going to have to move to a state that protects gay marriage if you want to have the benefits as such.

 

Did you know that the several States ratified Article 4, Section 2 in their capacity as States?

 

Please wallow in that fancy if it affords you a modicum of comfort.

 

Did you know that Article 4 Section 2 has nothing to do with what you're claiming it does?

Clause 1: Privileges and Immunities

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities". The seeming ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations. Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally. Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states.

Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include

protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty ... the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State.

Most other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and immunities

 

It's not a fancy. It's an honest reading of the DOMA decision.

The CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court (5-4) had ONE conservative vote against DOMA. But in his reasoning, he did so because DOMA, a federal law, was superseding a State law. The State of NY and 11 others chose, through the will of it's populous, to provide protections for same-sex marriage. And Kennedy argued that a Federal Law cannot supersede that law. But he implied over and over and over again that it is the State's right to define marriage.

And as much as you don't like that, it means that the States that choose NOT to provide protections to homosexuals have the right to do that as well.

You folks are going to be EXCEEDINGLY disappointed. And I'm going to laugh my ass off.

 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. It says what it means and means what it says. There is no basis to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States in public Acts; it is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws.

 

What part of "that theory has NEVER been endorsed by the Supreme Court" do you not understand?

Do you think the Conservative Supreme Court is going to overturn 200 years of precedent and constitutional interpretation to support gay marriage? That's just delusional as hell.

 

What I really hope is that the Supreme Court doesn't take up the case until Ginsburg dies/quits after Obama leaves office and we put another conservative on the Supreme Court making it 6-3. Homosexuals won't have a chance in hell of getting gay marriage legalized if that happens.

You guys better hope that the Supreme Court goes ahead and takes this issue up.

 

It isn't a theory, but a rational choice of law in Any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States and under the authority of the several States.

Article 4, Section 2 is part of our supreme law of the land as established by Article 6.

 

Yes but it doesn't mean what you claim it means lol

 

Yes, it does. That is why I claim it; unlike those of the opposing view.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Gender is not a recognized class of Persons and citizens in the several States.

 

Quite clearly did

 

They already got ahold of it. They upheld every appellate courts ruling to overturn the bans, and refused to grant a stay on their decisions.

Only in some bizzaro alternate reality can you interpret that as being good for your argument.

 

There doesn't need to be disagreement in the court for them to hear a case. If they were going to overturn appellate ruling they would have. They are not going to, which is why they didn't.

Only in some bizzaro alternate reality does that hide well for you n

 

I'm going to enjoy watching you cry when they crush your dreams lol

- - - Updated - - -

No you didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

No they didn't.

 

Why didn't they overturn the appellate rulings?

 

already addressed

 

Where did you address the supreme court specifically NOT overruling the appellate ruling or granting a stay?

 

already addressed and refuted in this thread and several others

 

I accept your concession.

 

If that's a concession then you've conceded basically every argument you've ever made.