My argument is not predicated on the DM knowing everything, nor does it even remotely imply that the DM would know everything.
What I'm pointing out is that you're drawing an analogy between a scenario in which a DM is either unaware of or has forgotten about the rulebook explicitly saying "you can do XYZ", and a scenario in which a law that had explicitly not been understood to apply in the manner being championed
should be read as covering it (arguing that gay marriage must have been "in theory protected" under law despite the fact that at the time in question, not only was it considered legally valid to discriminate against people for being gay, being gay was treated as a crime worthy of prosecution in and of itself). My point is that those are very different situations that are not analogous.
You wanting to believe that you said something clever will not change that.
Because RFMA is predicated on the logic of Obergefell, that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was licensed and performed out-of-State. Overturning Obergefell would mean that that conclusion is declared legally invalid, that the state does not in fact required to license same sex marriage or to recognize such marriages as lawful.
Consequentially, this invalidates the RFMA, which codifies that same conclusion: all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages (I.e., to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was licensed and performed out-of-State). Which is to say, that if Obergefell is determined to be invalid, then so too is the legislation that can be summed up as "what the Obergefell ruling said".
This isn't a difficult concept. If the SC rules, "No that ruling was wrong, states are not required to marry gay couples or recognize marriages between gay couples", that carries the impact of overturning the law saying that "states are required to marry gay couples and recognize marriages between gay couples". You might as well be asking why overturning Roe let states pass anti-abortion legislation, how the the ruling of the Dred Scott case overturned the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
You not liking the conclusions and wanting to think you're clever for disagreeing with them because you were fed strawman characterizations of the rulings by ideologues with an axe to grind, and which conspicuously omit that the ruling was explicitly a
compromise position that tried to find a middle ground between competing interests, all to better spin it as ridiculous to people like yourself, does not mean that the arguments are shit.
That they don't make sense to you purely a function of you being too lazy to actually do your research and learn about the cases - much less develop an informed opinion on them - and having a chip on your shoulder that consistently results in you doubling down whenever someone tells you that your position is neither well informed nor well reasoned.
It's no surprise that they don't make sense to you, because you're arguing from a false premise after getting the basic facts wrong. You're doing the functional equivalent of arguing that 2 + 2 = 1 because you insist that the plus sign must actually be a division sign, and then refuse to listen to anyone when they point out that the equation is explicitly addition rather than division and that you simply misread it. Moreover, you're further insisting that it doesn't make sense for it to be addition because then the answer wouldn't be 1...when everyone's trying to explain to you why the answer is actually 4 in the first place.
That's the thing. US courts
don't recognize it as such, though indications are that that is now changing, with New York being the first state to make declawing illegal just five years ago. So
in that state, they are protected from being declawed under law. It is not the case in Illinois, for instance, where declawing is still legal. If at such time that declawing a cat becomes recognized by the courts as animal abuse, then that becomes a landmark case that reinterprets declawing as necessarily abuse, and protects
future cats from being declawed
moving forward. It did not protect cats from being declawed before then, because whether or not we would call it abuse today, it was not recognized as such in the past.
See again, my points about laws
changing and about how protection under the law only applies
after the law and courts recognize the issue as something to forbid, not before.
As another example, you might look at the concept of marital rape, which the law treated as a contradiction in terms until the 1970s. Before then, you were not legally protected from marital rape. This is not a difficult concept.
Because, in no uncertain terms, you're simply wrong. It
cannot be interpreted either way. That's a foundational principle of our legal system. I literally just explained this to you. Something is not illegal until the law declares it to be so. That's
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." An action cannot be criminally punished if it was not considered a crime when the action was committed.
The corollary to this is that - because something something being protected under law means that what it protects against is illegal (see again discrimination against protected classes) - it is not protected
until the law declares it to be so. If tomorrow, for some reason, the law were to say that the very act of keeping pets constituted animal cruelty, that would mean that animals were protected from being kept as pets
from that day forward. It This does not mean that animals were in theory always protected from being pets but the act of keeping pets was never legally challenged. Protections apply from that point forward, not retroactively. That is not negotiable. And if you cannot understand something so simple, then frankly you have no business opining on the subject.
www.aol.com
www.google.com
www.google.com
