Skip to comments.
Charge: Father, Daughter Married (Is it Okay With Sandra Day O'Connor?)
Mobile Register ^
| 07/25/03
| KAREN TOLKKINEN
Posted on 07/25/2003 10:39:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 201-205 next last
To: GraniteStateConservative
I didn't say that. I quoted another Freeper. Check with them.
141
posted on
07/25/2003 1:26:22 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
To: GraniteStateConservative
Well, I'm outta here for two weeks. (many will be happy about that)
Have fun. Regards
142
posted on
07/25/2003 1:27:51 PM PDT
by
Protagoras
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
To: Hank Rearden
Alabama?
You sure??
Dang.... I thought it was about
Arkansas!
143
posted on
07/25/2003 1:34:48 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
To: Jeff Gordon
What's the big deal. I seem to remember that one of the good guys in the Old Testament was having sex with his daughters and was doing it with God's approval. I think you remember wrongly.
After Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, Abraham's nephew Lot was without a wife (for she looked back) and his two daughters were without their future husbands (They thought the angels were joking)
Anyway, Pop got boozed up and the girls were all sad for they thought they'd NEVER get married now, so they each lay with Lot in his drunked up state and each got pregnant.
From these two incestuous unions came Amnon and Moab; the start of the line of Moabites and Ammonites; neihter bunch much good for anything.
[around Genesis 18-19-20 area]
144
posted on
07/25/2003 1:45:13 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
To: dubyaismypresident
"I'd love to hear how the Supremes can uphold this (anti-incest)law..."From the article: "Incestuous marriages are forbidden in all states, in part due to fears about genetic mutation."
In Lawrence, the rights of two individuals to enter into a private and intimate relationship were defined. Incest laws protect the rights of innocent individuals, the possible offspring of the relationship.
In some States, in order for first cousins to marry, they must first prove that there are no possibilities of an issue from the marriage.
The SCOTUS decision in Lawrence vs. Texas addressed a very specific point, it did not create the sort of slippery slope we are so fond of predicting here in FR.
To: Luis Gonzalez
The SCOTUS decision in Lawrence vs. Texas addressed a very specific point, it did not create the sort of slippery slope we are so fond of predicting here in FR. Yes they did say, and said explicitly, it does not create that sort of slippery slope but the reasoning, those firm principles upon which it rests are not terribly firm. Ultimitately it creates a constitution that says whatever the judge says that it says.
Heck you probably could have overturned the Texas law based on 14th Ammendment but they over reached and that will come back to bite us.
146
posted on
07/25/2003 1:50:46 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(This tagline has been deleted by the Moderators)
To: Luis Gonzalez
From the article: "Incestuous marriages are forbidden in all states, in part due to fears about genetic mutation." So they will go with "compelling state interest" as their reasoninh, which means whatever 5 of 9 say it does.
147
posted on
07/25/2003 1:52:14 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(This tagline has been deleted by the Moderators)
To: dubyaismypresident
I truly doubt it.
There's a sea of difference between two consenting, unrekated adults, and incest.
And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation.
To: dubyaismypresident
"...but the reasoning, those firm principles upon which it rests are not terribly firm."You may not like the reasoning, but the reasoning was firm.
There was obviously no compelling State interest in keeping sodomy illegal for a small minority of the population, and legal for the vast majority.
The State on one hand, recognized the right of some citizens to engage into what Texas defines as "deviant sexual intercourse", but not others.
To: Luis Gonzalez
And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation.It might not be easy to prove their is a high enough risk of genetic mutations. See some of the posts on this thread. Plus, does that mean their is a ``compelling state interest'' in eugenics?
To: Luis Gonzalez
And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation. What if the father got a vasectomy(sp?) or if she was barren?
151
posted on
07/25/2003 2:00:05 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(This tagline has been deleted by the Moderators)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Does that mean that the Lawrence vs. Texas decision does not apply to state laws in which sodomy is illegal for all? It hasn't been practiced that way.
To: Elsie
I think you remember wrongly Hmmm. Father and daughters have sex. Daughters get pregnant. Sounds like incest to me.
God had been watching Lot's back in numerous ways just before this act of incest. Why would God allow this incest to occur if He did not approve? He certainly did not hesitate to protect Lot earlier.
Yes, Moabites and Ammonites turned out to be some real bad dudes but so what? The kids of many biblical non-incestuous unions turned out bad too. Cane was one of the first of many such examples.
To: Luis Gonzalez
There was obviously no compelling State interest in keeping sodomy illegal for a small minority of the population, and legal for the vast majority. The State on one hand, recognized the right of some citizens to engage into what Texas defines as "deviant sexual intercourse", but not others. I would have bought that reasoning, heck even agreed with it. I already said the Texas and 3 other states laws could be struck down via the 14th Ammendment. The court went quite a bit further than just striking it down based on disperate treatment between heterosexual and homosexual couples engaging in sodomy.
154
posted on
07/25/2003 2:02:39 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(This tagline has been deleted by the Moderators)
To: Luis Gonzalez
"The State on one hand, recognized the right of some citizens to engage into what Texas defines as "deviant sexual intercourse", but not others"All states define incest as devient sexual intercourse.
155
posted on
07/25/2003 2:04:09 PM PDT
by
cake_crumb
(UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
To: nickcarraway
Does that mean that the Lawrence vs. Texas decision does not apply to state laws in which sodomy is illegal for all? I do not believe that is true.
156
posted on
07/25/2003 2:04:17 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(This tagline has been deleted by the Moderators)
To: JennysCool
LOL, well after all, isn't Alabama the beginning of Appalachia?
157
posted on
07/25/2003 2:04:46 PM PDT
by
Mark17
To: dubyaismypresident
"What if the father got a vasectomy(sp?) or if she was barren?"What if the father had married his son?
158
posted on
07/25/2003 2:06:11 PM PDT
by
cake_crumb
(UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
To: cake_crumb
What if the father had married his son? I hadn't even thought about that one. I would suspect if they want to be true to Lawrence v. Texas then it would be ok.
159
posted on
07/25/2003 2:08:31 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(This tagline has been deleted by the Moderators)
To: Luis Gonzalez
And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation. If papa is shooting blanks no genetic mutation is possible. The very week argument of "compelling State interest" evaporates. I assume that even you would not object to an incestous marriage where one or both parties are sterile.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 201-205 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson