Max Fischer

Thank you for keeping things in perspective. We should ignore and downplay historic domestic Supreme Court rulings that could make us forget we live in a dangerous world. We should never let the discussion of these issues overcome the gripping fear and paralyzation the terrorist crave. If we demonstrate the the US can walk and chew gum at the same time, the terrorists win. We look forward to the next Bills win so you could give us some perspective by posting the horrible things that have happened to remind us of what's really important. You don't know what inherent means? You seem to miss the obvious quite often. As in -- Perhaps you don't believe gay couples should have same (inherent) rights as straight couples? Do you believe interracial couples should have the same (inherent) rights as straight couples?

Equal protection is a right under the constitution, it's inherent and not "created." You might ignore something you don't believe, but it's still there. Perhaps you don't believe gay couples should have same rights as straight couples? Do you believe interracial couples should have the same rights as straight couples?

Retarted? Are you in 2nd grade? You seem to get angry over facts.

Your argument assumes that the equal protection act does not prohibit the laws in question. I disagree and so does the Supreme Court. There is no slippery slope when it comes to basic human rights. The "times" caught up to what has always been correct. The "times" did not make slavery wrong, it was always wrong. The "times" did not make a ban on interracial marriage wrong, it was always wrong. Their are countless other examples, it's what makes our system work. Sometimes bills are passed, sometimes courts make decisions, but in the end, it's about getting to the right decision.

i don't know the arguments against first cousins marrying (I made a few guesses) and I keep asking you to explain them. This YOUR question and you have repeatedly ignored requests for information. You seem perfectly comfortable making judgments without reviewing the evidence.

You continue to ignore that protecting slavery was the motivation for Southern secession. Thus, the trigger for Civil War. Mind boggling. BTW, which respected historians agree with you? I can't think of one that's not a slavery apologist.

Kennedy said no such thing. Instead, it could be the dissenters and their supporters continue to hide behind the multi-generational excuse of unsupportable and when convenient, strict constructionalism to mask their personal biases when common sense dictates that the ConstitutIon protects basic freedoms, especially those under the Bill of Rights. See the 150 years for indisputable proof.

We assume you did a little bit of research to learn this was NOT an ISIS flag? Before the hysteria continues you might want to check the hysterical truth.

Man you really like the straw man approach. Seek professional help. I am clearly saying that there has to be a complaint - an injury - before there can be a remedy. Your example is without facts. Please provide an example whereby a marriage license fee is blocking a couple from marriage? Is ther ONE legal example? However, if for example, there is fee that could be a clear and unreasonable impetiment to marriage, then yes, it would unconstitutional. So far, I am not aware that has happened recently. If you say there is no clear scientific basis to bar cousins from marriage, then they should be allowed to marry anywhere. From what I understand, the science is not clear but I don't know that for sure. I assume the other reason it's banned is "we think it's creepy." Again - I have not addressed nor been asked about incest.

Are you the North of the South? :-) Sorry, I know what you're trying to say but the analogy is hard to follow and apply to the Civil War. How about this? Your next door neighbor likes to hold dog fighting in his yard. It's loud, bloody and immoral (but legal on his property and only his property because it's grandfathered). You don't like it, you tell him you don't want him dog fighting and do everything you can to make sure he doesn't do it on other property in the area. Moreover, when injured dogs escape you help them get free, but the police tell you you have to send the dogs back to die a horrible death. Your neighbor starts to feel pressure from the neighborhood to stop dog fighting and in retaliation he builds giant fence and moat around the property that is not only an eye sore and drives down the property of your home but it's Illegal. You begin to fight about the fence etc but it's really about the dog fighting. At first you say just take down the Fence and keep the dog fighting but he refuses because he believes it's the only way to keep his dog fighting. You then say, !@#$ it, not only am I going to get his fence ripped down, I'm going to get a ban dog fighting, which the root cause of the conflict. The neighbor may forever hate you but hopefully his kids will see that he was an immoral dog fighter and not sing his praises about protecting his property. Not sure that works but trying to be more clear on cause and effect.

Are the fees discriminatory? Are they an undue burden? You'd need to look at the facts to determine if the fees are an unreasonable impetiment to a basic right. Are there examples of marriage fees that people cannot afford? I don't know, this is your example but I've never heard anyone express concerns about the fees. Unlike, say, the poll taxes and ID requirements, and of course, the question as to whether non-first cousin consenting adults can marry. Cousins - this is your question. I don't know the laws in those states, I don't know why certain classes of cousins are not allowed to marry, but I assume it's science based, right? However, I'm pretty sure that in most of the world is much more accepting of the practice. Why I don't know. If arguments against are not science based (ie possible harm to child), then I'd guess that a couple could have a case based on equal protection. Note to those who may set up a straw man attack re: incest, I have only addressed the cousin question. As for "never a 14th question" - the SCOTUS majority disagreed with your opinion.

Go to library and pick up a book. No matter how you slice it, the civil war was ultimately fought because of slavery. States rights were used as the basis to protect the South's perceived right to own and expand slavery. There were no other significant reasons for secession than to preserve slavery. The union did not want the South to cecede, so they fought. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Do you always set up straw men? How is a fee discriminatory if it not considered an undue burden? Whether you like or not, common sense is used by all judges to make the determination. For example, there was plenty of evidence to demonstrate poll tax and other methods were used to specifically prevent ceRtain people from voting. I assume you have read the history. As for cousins, what is the argument against marriage? Is it science based or do we just think it's wrong? Did you two go to school to set up straw men to make an argument? I never said incestuous relationships we're ok and never addressed father/daughter. Just stop. He asked about first cousins but I don't know the arguments in those cases. Do you?

Read the opinions. Not agreeing with it is your opinion but fact is, it's the 14th is the basis for the new law of the land.

I see troll is code for not belonging to this lemming club where everyone has to agree with you. Otherwise, you are branded an idiot, a moron or a troll. Nice job message board cowards. The club motto must be "Run Away". You havent grasped logic and deduction. Just as hominem attacks on what confuses you. BTW, there is no flaw in what I wrote and countless respected historians have said.

Now you're talking.

You should have just said I was right. Your last post made no sense.

Typical bull **** from a message board coward who can't make a logical argument. It's not my fault you two can't stand up to a challenge.

Sorry about. Change "outcome" to "means" and it's the same. I see you get frustrated when challenged with facts.

Ah, just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean "his opinion has nothing to do with the actual Constitution." That's your opinion, it's not fact. Very few matters are expressly stated in the constitution. That's why we have courts, and judges of all stripes use their brains to determine what they believe is right. The document was written by humans, and to be interpreted by humans. Otherwise, we would just use a computer to search terms.

The right to marry is in the 14th amendment. Undue burdens are a basic legal definition. You seem smart enough to not employ 2nd grade arguments.

See the 14th Amendment. Better yet, read Kennedy's opinion. He does a good job of explaining it. While you're at it, read Loving vs Virginia and let us know where they're wrong.

Do you believe that gay and interracial marriage are basic right under the constitution? Poll tax is undoubtedly unreasonable and reasonably argued by the Supreme Court. I have the same concerns about photo ID simply because there is insignificant evidence that it's necessary and can impede voting. Whether there is the evidence that ID impedes marriage I do not know. Same for common law, I would lean toward a recognition of common law marriage but I don't know enough about the arguments for and against. I would say the burden of proof would have to be on those trying to restrict the recognition

You are confusing basic rights (are you allowed to marry) with a few reasonableness questions. I do think common law will be challenged and I'm curious about the legal restrictions (property, health, insurance, kids, etc). I think fees are a reasonablness question and whether there is sufficient evidence that fees are indeed a barrier to marriage (doubtful). Haven't heard about the photo ID issue but again, why does the law exist and is it a barrier to marriage? As for cousins, I always thought that was a medical issue but if not sufficient scientifIc proof it's harmful, then an argument could be made they have the right. Anything else? Tell me again why you don't think interracial and gay marriage is not a basic human right? That's a weak cop out. You don't think interracial marriage and dozens of other logical and basic human rights are protected by the Constitution? Either you do or you don't. To hide under the "constitution is silent" argument has been a long standing crutch that has been steamrolled by common sense for generations. Ah, the "you idiot" argument. Took you long enough. The Supreme Court (and history) says otherwise.