What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It's an at risk GOP incumbent saying it. I hope to FSM it's just him trying to crank up the machine and put pressure on the old coot, to help him personally get the morons out in November.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Until SCOTUSBlog runs with it, I'm not going to take it seriously.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Didn't Obergefell make this marriage legal?

http://fxn.ws/2IsfgRx
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

joecct said:
Two consenting adults.
Click to expand...

Well, if the woman has to consent then it's not the Bible.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

"Misty Velvet Dawn" would make a great soap scent name.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

French Rage said:
"Misty Velvet Dawn" would make a great soap scent name.
Click to expand...

Among other things.
 
joecct said:
Why? Honestly. What is the current standard? My understanding is that 2(?) consenting adult people have to profess love for each other.
Click to expand...

I'm out of the closet myself. I do not have a partner. But if I did, all the law states is that government can't forbid me from marrying him. Obergefell didn't say I could marry my brother.

But keep swinging Joe, maybe you'll give us a cold.
 
ShirtlessBob said:
I'm out of the closet myself. I do not have a partner. But if I did, all the law states is that government can't forbid me from marrying him. Obergefell didn't say I could marry my brother.

But keep swinging Joe, maybe you'll give us a cold.
Click to expand...

Again Bob - why not if you both willingly consent? What is wrong with it?
 
joecct said:
Why? Honestly. What is the current standard? My understanding is that 2(?) consenting adult people have to profess love for each other.
Click to expand...

One, a law against incest doesn't discriminate against a protected class, so there is no Equal Protection issue.

Two, while marriage itself is a fundamental right, states have an interest in preventing the sorts of genetic and mental health issues that arise from incestual relationships.

Three, love has never been a requirement for marriage.
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

There’s also a legitimate public health interest in preventing incestuous relationships that result in children. Loosely related risks also exist for polygamous marriages. Though, I suppose maybe to a lesser extent.

There are no such risks in gay marriage.

But uno has the real reason, they aren’t a protected class.

Edit: I see uno covered all of these in his post. Oops.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

dxmnkd316 said:
Loosely related risks also exist for polygamous marriages.
Click to expand...

Wha?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top