Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Tick tock...tick tock...
Time is running out, fundies.
Tick tock...tick tock...
Time is running out, fundies.
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.
The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Hmmmm - did a bunch of posts from this thread get banninated? Or perhaps a technical glitch? Or is my mind playing tricks on me?
In any case, I think some discussion about plural marriage got lost somewhere. For me, the difference between gay marriage and plural marriage is that marriage between two mutually consenting adults is already clearly established in our current legal system. Given that we have "couples marriage," the laws cannot allow some couples to get marriage licenses but not others. Just as you can't allow white couples to marry but not interracial couples, you also can't allow heterosexual couples to marry but not homosexual couples. All couples must be treated equally before the law. If plural marriage is ever allowed (and I'm pretty doubtful), then all triples or quads (or whatever the new limit is) would still have to be treated equally - you couldn't allow marriage of one man to two women but not the reverse, for example. The key is not in what is and is not allowed, but in whether that standard is applied equally to all citizens regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Hmmmm - did a bunch of posts from this thread get banninated? Or perhaps a technical glitch? Or is my mind playing tricks on me?
In any case, I think some discussion about plural marriage got lost somewhere. For me, the difference between gay marriage and plural marriage is that marriage between two mutually consenting adults is already clearly established in our current legal system. Given that we have "couples marriage," the laws cannot allow some couples to get marriage licenses but not others. Just as you can't allow white couples to marry but not interracial couples, you also can't allow heterosexual couples to marry but not homosexual couples. All couples must be treated equally before the law. If plural marriage is ever allowed (and I'm pretty doubtful), then all triples or quads (or whatever the new limit is) would still have to be treated equally - you couldn't allow marriage of one man to two women but not the reverse, for example. The key is not in what is and is not allowed, but in whether that standard is applied equally to all citizens regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
But Lynah, you are thinking all Supreme Courty, taking into account that actual 14th and 5th Amendments. Numerous federal courts have shown that to be true.
Righties, on the other hand, are thinking about what gives them the willies. Their slippery slope angle with plural marriages is just a bluff. Do you think the righties would sit still for one woman, Hispanic at that, having ten husbands? No. But the political side of that one could be fun. As long as the laws permitted all comers to have multiple partners, there's no reason they couldn't put a limit on the number of partners you could have. Or maybe they could give everyone a point limit and assigning points to non suspect classes, such as hotness. Everybody could be limited to 100 points, and hotties could be worth, say, 40. If a guy (we'll use men because it makes more sense that way) had two hotties and the others weren't keeping up with the cooking, cleaning, baby-raising, and income-earning, he could create some cap space by divorcing one hottie and marrying 4 or 5 grinders. Who's to say marriage can't be both constitutional and fun.
But Lynah, you are thinking all Supreme Courty, taking into account that actual 14th and 5th Amendments. Numerous federal courts have shown that to be true.
Righties, on the other hand, are thinking about what gives them the willies. Their slippery slope angle with plural marriages is just a bluff. Do you think the righties would sit still for one woman, Hispanic at that, having ten husbands? No. But the political side of that one could be fun. As long as the laws permitted all comers to have multiple partners, there's no reason they couldn't put a limit on the number of partners you could have. Or maybe they could give everyone a point limit and assigning points to non suspect classes, such as hotness. Everybody could be limited to 100 points, and hotties could be worth, say, 40. If a guy (we'll use men because it makes more sense that way) had two hotties and the others weren't keeping up with the cooking, cleaning, baby-raising, and income-earning, he could create some cap space by divorcing one hottie and marrying 4 or 5 grinders. Who's to say marriage can't be both constitutional and fun.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Yep. Though it could happen now legally through a series of contracts among the parties. "Legally", is suppose, John could marry Carol, while Ted wed Alice, but they'd all be part of a big corporation/trust that shared assets and spouses. If Carol wanted out because she did not stand John (or Ted) anymore, then she'd leave the corporation with some sort of financial settlement (by selling her shares back to the corporation at current values). If somebody wants in to the "clan", they buy in.
This is not for everyone. But I betcha a good lawyer and some $$ could make it happen and it would stand legal scrutiny.
Yep. Though it could happen now legally through a series of contracts among the parties. "Legally", is suppose, John could marry Carol, while Ted wed Alice, but they'd all be part of a big corporation/trust that shared assets and spouses. If Carol wanted out because she did not stand John (or Ted) anymore, then she'd leave the corporation with some sort of financial settlement (by selling her shares back to the corporation at current values). If somebody wants in to the "clan", they buy in.
This is not for everyone. But I betcha a good lawyer and some $$ could make it happen and it would stand legal scrutiny.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Waiver wire. Do you want irrevocable waivers or the right to put him/her on waivers with right of recall?
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Alaska's gay marriage ban struck down .
And our Governor says he's going to defend it.
Alaska's gay marriage ban struck down .
And our Governor says he's going to defend it.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Does he have a choice?
unofan
Well-known member
Yes. They have discretion to appeal or not to appeal.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Yes
And the odds of prevailing in an appeal is the same as sighting Russia from Wasilla?
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Considering we're in the 9th Circuit, I'd say yeah.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
There are places (and parties; well, a party) where you gain short term political advantage by being on the wrong side of history.
There are places (and parties; well, a party) where you gain short term political advantage by being on the wrong side of history.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
At a waste of state money while in a budget crunch.
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Cmon Mississippi, I got a lot of money on you being last, don't let me down!
Cmon Mississippi, I got a lot of money on you being last, don't let me down!
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
The funniest part of the decision is the fact that it took two days !!! Arguments on Friday, decision on Sunday, marriage license applications being accepted today. Alaska has a 3 day waiting period so by Thursday we'll have ceremonies.
The funniest part of the decision is the fact that it took two days !!! Arguments on Friday, decision on Sunday, marriage license applications being accepted today. Alaska has a 3 day waiting period so by Thursday we'll have ceremonies.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
It may be. The 5th circuit (MS, LA, TX) is still dominated by GOP nominees (15-12 with 2 vacancies if Wikipedia is to be believed). The 11th (AL, GA) is 10-9 Dem with 1 vacancy.
However, the fightin' 8th (ND, SD, NE) is 11-4 GOP (and one of the 4 was appointed by LBJ and is 95, and so is probably a knuck on gay marriage), so the bigotry award might go to the prairie states.
It may be. The 5th circuit (MS, LA, TX) is still dominated by GOP nominees (15-12 with 2 vacancies if Wikipedia is to be believed). The 11th (AL, GA) is 10-9 Dem with 1 vacancy.
However, the fightin' 8th (ND, SD, NE) is 11-4 GOP (and one of the 4 was appointed by LBJ and is 95, and so is probably a knuck on gay marriage), so the bigotry award might go to the prairie states.
Last edited:
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Absolutely!
The State, Parnell and the AKGOP really, believes the issue will be heard "En Banc" and that "there is a likelihood that a Circuit split will develop." And that a stay should be issued in order to "avoid chaos in Alaska marriages." As in, "there's gay people marrying and that scares us."
Parnell is basically signing his way out.
- Status