Overturning Roe v Wade will be a precedent, it can go in many different directions.

Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...


in theory yes, sort of.

first there has to be a case work its way up the food chain to the SCOTUS. the justices didnt just pick this one out of the blue.

but the flip side is that can those other potential laws pass the state legislatures in 2023 ?
1923 perhaps but we are a different country now.
 
Walt said:
Already cases involving same sex marriage. It could happen in 2023 or 2024.
Click to expand...

We can only hope !!

MARRIAGE is a Christian institution in the West. Scripture defines it as a life-long loving monogamous relationship between one man and one woman intended for procreation. Marriage is also a sacred covenant formed between :hushand; wife and God.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Two sexual deviants like Pete Buttibutt-cheeks and his freckle -punching partner, can enter a formal Civil Union. The problem is that the rubber-stamped, $100 bureaucratic certificate, they get allows them - amongst numerous other rights that are bestowed on MARRIED couples - a legal right to adopt children.

The problem with this is that adopted infants need a normal, married mother and a father, in order to develop (physically and mentally) in a healthy, life-affirming manner.

When infants are adopted and raised by TWO lesbians or TWO gays, it inevitably fucks up their psychosocial development BIG TIME - because ,in short, such "family" units violate the divinely-ordained Natural Law - and thus, they are at high risk of becoming (sooner or later) psychiatric cases like their homosexual guardians. Why? Because parents who are male sodomites or lesbians who do - whatever sexually abnormal things it is that they do - to gratify their animal lust, are simply decadent (immoral), and perverted, hedonists.



Dachshund



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !
 
Last edited:
Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

You're an imbecile.
 
Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

Walt, do you think this is a 10th Amendment issue or a 14th Amendment issue?
 
Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

LOL.

such thought trash.

clutch your pearls, gertrude.
 
Walter, calm down and get someone to read and explain this to you.

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision — Planned Parenthood v. Casey — that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
 
Walt said:
You see, Gin Sake is actually responding to what is happening. There is no explicitly enumerated right to an abortion, or to marriage, so does that make them states rights? The Supreme Court seems to be saying yes. So will same sex and interracial marriage be the next to be struck down?

Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage) has only existed for 7 years, so it would probably be the easiest to reverse. You would think Loving v. Virginia which has existed for 55 years would be impossible to reverse, but Roe v. Wade had existed for nearly 50 years. These things can be reversed.

Two of the justices are in interracial marriage, which might make them think twice before reversing it. None are in same sex marriages.
Click to expand...

Agree, except that the matters fall under the powers of the states; not the "rights" of the states.

As for interracial marriage, since the proper definition of marriage being "one man and one woman" is not ignored, there is no justification for prohibiting it. Polygamy, polyamory, bigamy, and same-sex relationships all fall outside of the proper definition.
 
Gin Saké said:
As for interracial marriage, since the proper definition of marriage being "one man and one woman" is not ignored, there is no justification for prohibiting it.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it promise any right to marry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top