"Inartful wording..."
- Thread starter horselips
- Start date
- Status
"So if you want civil unions that define such processes without the word marriage, then get the state out of granting marriages and have only contracts that define such rights and abilities for couples."
To be honest, the only just ruling would have been to strike down all levels of governmental recognition of marriage, and replace it with a parallel "union" structure with whatever rules and restrictions they please. Marriage now becomes a private or religious construction, and the unions, being wholey state creations, would be fully subject to discrimination arguments with regards to their reach (bar it from bestowing benefits differentially that are constitutionally protected). As we learned on Thursday, however, the court now lacks the authority to significantly impact policy (hence why they could not rule against gay marriage on Friday)
We all know that if the court had ruled against gay marriage, they would have been ignored by much of the country, and the march to impose it on the remainder would not cease. Given how insular Washington is, this makes a potential gun case highly dangerous for us, since the court would likely believe the vast majority desire restriction (and that perception of majority seems to be coloring their decisions of late)
TCB
To be honest, the only just ruling would have been to strike down all levels of governmental recognition of marriage, and replace it with a parallel "union" structure with whatever rules and restrictions they please. Marriage now becomes a private or religious construction, and the unions, being wholey state creations, would be fully subject to discrimination arguments with regards to their reach (bar it from bestowing benefits differentially that are constitutionally protected). As we learned on Thursday, however, the court now lacks the authority to significantly impact policy (hence why they could not rule against gay marriage on Friday)
We all know that if the court had ruled against gay marriage, they would have been ignored by much of the country, and the march to impose it on the remainder would not cease. Given how insular Washington is, this makes a potential gun case highly dangerous for us, since the court would likely believe the vast majority desire restriction (and that perception of majority seems to be coloring their decisions of late)
TCB
Evan Thomas
Inactive
"Impose it??" If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, no one is going to force you to do so.
I agree with you about the "parallel process" thing; as Glenn said, it would be fine if the state got out of the marriage business altogether, so that marriage became a purely religious ceremony, like a bar mitzvah, which conferred no state benefits at all, and any couple who wanted the state benefits which are now attached to marriage would have to file separately for a civil union.
Given that the traditional, one man/one woman definition of marriage is fundamentally based in religion (hence the frequent use of "God-given" in this context), getting the state out of the marriage business would make sense on the basis of the separation of church and state, which certainly is enshrined in the Constitution. However, that's not the way this has gone, and one could make the case that it would impose an unnecessary level of bureaucracy on what has traditionally been a one step process.
Last edited:
In looking at the SCOTUS ruling in the ACA case and Gay marrage case, I think that the court will have a hard time when it comes Bigamy, Polygamy and Polygentry cases not to mention Gay incestious marrage for that matter, due to these rulings. If groups of people are considered a person (corporation)for the purpose of voting/election rights, and marrage is not limited to the traditional one man to one woman any more, then there is no limiting reasoning that would stop such happenings that I can see. Can corporations marry corporations?
Specifically on the issue of this ruling of Gay Marrage, with every state having to recognise every other States marrage licenses now. I see no reason why doctors licenses, lawyers licenses, or Concealed Carry Licenses would not also be 50 states legal.
I do agree with the desenting Justices in both of these cases, this is legislating from the bench 100% by un-elected officials. The 10th Amendment no longer exists.
Currently there are 4 members of the Supreme Court that are over 80 years old, maybe its time to start thinking about impeaching the Supreme Court. The Constitution says judges "shall hold their Offices during good behaviour,"
A case of dementia could be made because their reasoning is flawed.
Specifically on the issue of this ruling of Gay Marrage, with every state having to recognise every other States marrage licenses now. I see no reason why doctors licenses, lawyers licenses, or Concealed Carry Licenses would not also be 50 states legal.
I do agree with the desenting Justices in both of these cases, this is legislating from the bench 100% by un-elected officials. The 10th Amendment no longer exists.
Currently there are 4 members of the Supreme Court that are over 80 years old, maybe its time to start thinking about impeaching the Supreme Court. The Constitution says judges "shall hold their Offices during good behaviour,"
A case of dementia could be made because their reasoning is flawed.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
In some countries, the protocol is for two marriages. One is a civil marriage, which could as easily be called a "union." That's the one that is recorded by the civil authorities. The other is the chrch wedding, to sanctify the marriage in the eyes of whatever god the couple recognizes. (I don't recall whether the civil or church marriage comes first, nor do I know if it matters.)Vanya said:
It seems to me that's the route this country should take. Call ALL civil unions "unions," and require a civil ceremony in order to have legal recognition of the "union." Call unions performed in churches "marriages," and leave it up to the churches whether or not to perform same-sex unions.
This whole question is a personal dilemma for me. I'm a justice of the peace in my state. Although JPs have a few other powers, the one most often exercised is to perform marriages. It's a four year term, corresponding with the term of office of the President. When I was sworn in most recently, I asked if I would be required to perform same-sex marriages (which violate my religious beliefs). I was told that I was not required to do so.
More recently, I've been reading information suggesting the opposite, so I asked the appointing authority again. And the new answer is, "If you don't want to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple, just tell them you're not available on that date." In other words, as a JP I am now legally required to violate my religious beliefs. And that's actually probably a correct view. After all, if I had a case before a court, I would not want a Catholic judge to decide against me because I'm a Protestant.
But it's a dilemma. The unofficial advice from the appointing authority is to lie, which in itself is a violation of my religious beliefs. Most likely, I'll have tp give up the JP appointment and become a notary public, which carries most of the other duties a JP is authorized to carry out. I'm also an ordained minister, so I'll still be able to perform marriages that don't violate my religious beliefs.
Not necessarily. They can stop at this ruling, wash their hands of it, and refuse to hear any of the follow-up cases.
Which is exactly what they've done to us since McDonald, even as lower courts thumb their noses at the decision.
I don't, either. But it's not up to me. Who's it up to? This court. It doesn't really inspire optimism.
That's a bit of a stretch, especially without a formal diagnosis.
In the grand scheme of things, where does this leave us? At this point, I'm going to say we don't need to bring any more 2nd Amendment cases before SCOTUS.
We need Kennedy on our side, and it doesn't appear we have him. The same Justices who dissented in Heller and McDonald are the ones swaying him to their corner now.
Sorry if that sounds bleak, but we need to be realistic. It took an incredible amount of time and effort to convince five Justices that the 14th Amendment incorporated a fundamental, enumerated right. Four of them refused to agree and still claim the 2A has nothing to do with individual rights.
Yet the same court will jump at the opportunity to incorporate rights that appear nowhere in the Constitution. We cannot count on them to be predictable, consistent, or fair at the moment.
You really don't think this was imposed over many states despite their legislative objections?
"I agree with you about the "parallel process" thing; as Glenn said, it would be fine if the state got out of the marriage business altogether, so that marriage became a purely religious ceremony, like a bar mitzvah, which conferred no state benefits at all, and any couple who wanted the state benefits which are now attached to marriage would have to file separately for a civil union.
Given that the traditional, one man/one woman definition of marriage is fundamentally based in religion (hence the frequent use of "God-given" in this context), getting the state out of the marriage business would make sense on the basis of the separation of church and state, which certainly is enshrined in the Constitution. However, that's not the way this has gone, and one could make the case that it would impose an unnecessary level of bureaucracy on what has traditionally been a one step process."
Then why wasn't this the pursuit of the plaintiffs? Because it was never about rights, it was about the forced recognition by a community of the lifestyle of a tiny fraction in opposition to long standing (is 'always-standing' a term?) norms. That is why the next battle will be about forcing houses of worship to comply or lose tax exempt status.
TCB
"Not necessarily. They can stop at this ruling, wash their hands of it, and refuse to hear any of the follow-up cases.
Which is exactly what they've done to us since McDonald, even as lower courts thumb their noses at the decision."
Yup, each subsequent deferral diluting the initial finding until none is left in the places that remained opposed initially. Effectively an un-ruling.
Which is exactly what they've done to us since McDonald, even as lower courts thumb their noses at the decision."
Yup, each subsequent deferral diluting the initial finding until none is left in the places that remained opposed initially. Effectively an un-ruling.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Corporations do "marry" corporations. They do it all the time and have been doing it for hundreds of years. It's called a merger (or sometimes it's an acquisition).bandaid1 said:
No, they are very different things.bandaid1 said:
- A marriage license issued by a State is an authorization for two people to enter into a contract of marriage in that State. Once that contract of marriage is entered into, if done so legally and not under circumstances which make it voidable (e. g., fraud), the two people have acquired a particular status, i. e., as a lawfully married couple -- the state of being married to each other.
- Once two people have lawfully contracted marriage in State A and thus acquired the state of being a married couple, it has long been the case that those two people will almost always be recognized as being legally married to each other in every other State. So they will be considered to be a married couple by State B.
- But any consequences of being recognized as married by State B will be decided under the laws of State B. For example:
- If you and your spouse remain residents of State A but have investments in State B, your liability for State B income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State B.
- If after having been married for a while and living in State A (which is a community property State) you and your spouse move to State B (which is a common law marital property State), respective rights in property acquired after the move will be determined in accordance with the law of State B, even though the marriage was contracted in State A and even if respective rights in marital property acquired before moving from State A continue to be determined in accordance with the laws of State A.
- If you and your spouse remain residents of State A but have investments in State B, your liability for State B income tax on those investment would be determined based on (1) you and your spouse being a married couple; and (2) the tax laws of State B.
- Once two people have lawfully contracted marriage in State A and thus acquired the state of being a married couple, it has long been the case that those two people will almost always be recognized as being legally married to each other in every other State. So they will be considered to be a married couple by State B.
- But if two unmarried people secure a marriage license in State A, they could not take that license into State B, and use it to enter into a marriage in State B. And that is pretty much universal with regard to licenses.
- A license to do something in State A is in general not recognized as a license to do that thing in State B.
- So if you are licensed in State A as a physician, a lawyer, a contractor, or anything else for which a license is required, you can't expect to be able to go to State B and be a physician, lawyer, contractor or anything else for which a license is required.
- The act of contracting marriage, which a marriage license authorizes two people to do, is a single act. Once it is performed, it's done; and the parties have acquired a certain status. That status is reflected in a marriage certificate.
- On the other hand, the practice of law or medicine or working as a contractor or barber or any of any number of things generally requiring a state license, is an ongoing activity.
- Driving is an exception. It's an exception because States have agreed among themselves to honor each others driver's licenses.
- A license to do something in State A is in general not recognized as a license to do that thing in State B.
Last edited:
Tom- Back when the Courts were founded, the average life expectancy was around 40 years old. With 4 members over the age of 80, senility is a factor. Justices are not immune from the affects of aging and the courts have no systemic way to deal with judges with age-related cognitive problems except delegating their Article III authority to a younger law school graduate clerks. Which is what I can only suspect is occurring.
If you look at the Alzheimer's Association, about 13 % of Americans over 65 have Alzheimer's and nearly half ( 50%) of those 85 and older develop it or suffer from dementia. I think Congress SHOULD mandate annual physical and mental heath exams of all Federal Judges and submit a report to the Speaker of the House and Majority / Minority leaders in the Senate and the President. The argument that Congressmen and Senators do not have to get annual physicals doesn't wash, they are elected to a term and can be replaced at the end of it. Federals Judges are not elected and they serve for life. This is why I say that they should be required to have annual physical with mental health status exams are in order to remain on the bench. Since the Justices like those mandates in the ACA we should help them with a annaul exams mandate.
Frank-"A license to do something in State A is in general not recognized as a license to do that thing in State B.
So if you are licensed in State A as a physician, a lawyer, a contractor, or anything else for which a license is required, you can't expect to be able to go to State B and be a physician, lawyer, contractor or anything else for which a license is required."
I understand the general context that you are putting forward, however just like VA doctors are not required to obtain a state license in the state they are working in, nor are military doctor or lawyer required to either, so long as they primarily work on federal lands, there are exceptions (Civ Hum Cases) These exceptions mean that there is a way around these rules. Once a damn is cracked, its easiers to tear dowm.
If you look at the Alzheimer's Association, about 13 % of Americans over 65 have Alzheimer's and nearly half ( 50%) of those 85 and older develop it or suffer from dementia. I think Congress SHOULD mandate annual physical and mental heath exams of all Federal Judges and submit a report to the Speaker of the House and Majority / Minority leaders in the Senate and the President. The argument that Congressmen and Senators do not have to get annual physicals doesn't wash, they are elected to a term and can be replaced at the end of it. Federals Judges are not elected and they serve for life. This is why I say that they should be required to have annual physical with mental health status exams are in order to remain on the bench. Since the Justices like those mandates in the ACA we should help them with a annaul exams mandate.
Frank-"A license to do something in State A is in general not recognized as a license to do that thing in State B.
So if you are licensed in State A as a physician, a lawyer, a contractor, or anything else for which a license is required, you can't expect to be able to go to State B and be a physician, lawyer, contractor or anything else for which a license is required."
I understand the general context that you are putting forward, however just like VA doctors are not required to obtain a state license in the state they are working in, nor are military doctor or lawyer required to either, so long as they primarily work on federal lands, there are exceptions (Civ Hum Cases) These exceptions mean that there is a way around these rules. Once a damn is cracked, its easiers to tear dowm.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
They aren't ways around the rule. They are narrow situations in which the rule does not apply. In the case of the government or military doctor, he is not practicing medicine in the general public.bandaid1 said:
In the case of lawyers, again, military lawyers are not practicing in the general public. It has also always been the province of courts to decide who is authorized to appear before them, and a court may, but is not required to, allow a lawyer not licensed in the jurisdiction to appear in a specific case (on a motion pro hac vice).
Vanya
No, it's not a given. Marriage is a social institution created by societies to govern/form/protect the creation of the next generation and the handing of property down through generations and across families. All societies have a different historical take on marriage (sometimes societies are polyandrous or polygamous for example), but these fundamentals of purpose apply pretty consistently. For a religion or a society to say that one man/one woman (or one man/4 women or one woman/four men) is a "God given" standard is one thing. It would be similar to a society saying that there are 'unalienable rights' such as the right to self-defense. To say that marriage is based on religion is a bridge too far. Even in atheist Communist Russia, the state had rules governing marriage.
Society has an interest in marriage and maintaining social stability by regulating social relations. Marriage and the orderly dissolution of marriage, if required, would be important areas of regulation.
The argument for gay marriage would be that it creates social stability by allowing same-sex couples to combine property and pass it on in a stable way that reflects the common desire of the couple. Additionally, it allows the couple to enjoy common benefits (such as health insurance, or legal power of attorney) that they should enjoy as a committed couple. If a couple wishes to unite treasure and mutual compassion that should be encouraged.
Children and gay marriage seems to be a bit of a muddle. Gay couples can adopt in some areas (now all areas, I suppose) and that seems to be generally functional. Probably, in the end, the pros and cons for an orphan being raised in a same-sex household will be about the same list of pros/cons as being and orphan sent to live with a bachelor uncle or a spinster aunt.
The area where gay marriage veers away hardest from traditional marriage is in the realm of child creation and the relationship between the parents and the child. Patently, child conception is unfeasible for a same sex couple w/out the addition of a third party of some stripe--surrogate parents or sperm donors, etc. The state's historical role in regulating child rearing functions in relation to marriage (consanguinity, paternity, bigamy, etc) is about to get a bunch weirder by allowing that a gay couple is married. How will paternity work for the child of donated sperm, if the gay couple breaks up? Can the mother (or both mothers) sue for support from the donor? Or from the state?
I don't have answers nor an opinion. I just guess that by filing any social pairing under the same header as that of the historical marriage, the state's interest in regulating child-related rights/responsibilities is going to undergo some changes.
Exec summary: Marriage is a social relationship whether defined in any particular form by a religion or not. The state has an interest in the relationships involved in this institution as it involves (at root) cross-generational social stability and rights/duties. Throwing gay marriage into the same chum bucket with traditional marriage will have unexpected questions being raised.
No, it's not a given. Marriage is a social institution created by societies to govern/form/protect the creation of the next generation and the handing of property down through generations and across families. All societies have a different historical take on marriage (sometimes societies are polyandrous or polygamous for example), but these fundamentals of purpose apply pretty consistently. For a religion or a society to say that one man/one woman (or one man/4 women or one woman/four men) is a "God given" standard is one thing. It would be similar to a society saying that there are 'unalienable rights' such as the right to self-defense. To say that marriage is based on religion is a bridge too far. Even in atheist Communist Russia, the state had rules governing marriage.
Society has an interest in marriage and maintaining social stability by regulating social relations. Marriage and the orderly dissolution of marriage, if required, would be important areas of regulation.
The argument for gay marriage would be that it creates social stability by allowing same-sex couples to combine property and pass it on in a stable way that reflects the common desire of the couple. Additionally, it allows the couple to enjoy common benefits (such as health insurance, or legal power of attorney) that they should enjoy as a committed couple. If a couple wishes to unite treasure and mutual compassion that should be encouraged.
Children and gay marriage seems to be a bit of a muddle. Gay couples can adopt in some areas (now all areas, I suppose) and that seems to be generally functional. Probably, in the end, the pros and cons for an orphan being raised in a same-sex household will be about the same list of pros/cons as being and orphan sent to live with a bachelor uncle or a spinster aunt.
The area where gay marriage veers away hardest from traditional marriage is in the realm of child creation and the relationship between the parents and the child. Patently, child conception is unfeasible for a same sex couple w/out the addition of a third party of some stripe--surrogate parents or sperm donors, etc. The state's historical role in regulating child rearing functions in relation to marriage (consanguinity, paternity, bigamy, etc) is about to get a bunch weirder by allowing that a gay couple is married. How will paternity work for the child of donated sperm, if the gay couple breaks up? Can the mother (or both mothers) sue for support from the donor? Or from the state?
I don't have answers nor an opinion. I just guess that by filing any social pairing under the same header as that of the historical marriage, the state's interest in regulating child-related rights/responsibilities is going to undergo some changes.
Exec summary: Marriage is a social relationship whether defined in any particular form by a religion or not. The state has an interest in the relationships involved in this institution as it involves (at root) cross-generational social stability and rights/duties. Throwing gay marriage into the same chum bucket with traditional marriage will have unexpected questions being raised.
d47 said:
Indeed. The notion set forth by some SSM advocates, that we can change the rationale for something, the way we think about something, without altering it is implausible.
d47 said:
Or some ways that are easy to anticipate. In my state, the offspring of a married couple are presumed to be the parents of that offspring.
Under that rule, a woman could marry another woman, bear a child against the the explicit wish of her partner, and the child would be presumed at law to be the child of that partner (a biological impossibility), including an obligation to support that child to adulthood.
Right, because natural persons are the same as artificial persons and therefore I'm going to see that analogy as valid. So if you define marriage that way, with marriage still a fundamental right, is marriage supposed to be predicated on love or not? And do you believe that homosexuals can love the opposite sex but just choose not to? Who among us is qualified to make that determination for someone else?
If anyone is free to cross-sex marry anyone else, that's sufficient to satisfy the right to marriage? It's too bad for them if they only love people of the same sex, and too bad for them if they're trying to raise a child with a partner of the same sex?
I'm curious, what would you think of a SSM amendment if it were passed/ratified? Would you consider it logically incorrect to define marriage that way, despite the amendment, or would you recognize a redefinition of the social construct of marriage? If the latter, then you can't assert that marriage is between a man and a woman, because it's only that way because of cultural bias.
While it's technically true that there are means for same-sex couples to acquire (nearly) any sort of legal right with respect to children that a heterosexual parent would automatically enjoy, is it not true that it's a lot more effort and legal hoop-jumping to execute all the powers of attorneys and directives required?
First principles: Marriage is a fundamental right (or so the SCOTUS has said, repeatedly). Marriage is (supposed to be) based on love. Love is subjective. State-sanctioned marriage is valued because it confers a package deal of social and legal benefits that are difficult to get otherwise.
What possible conclusion can you reach, unless you believe in some a priori definition of (additional elements of) marriage, other than: any people who love each other should be able to marry unless there's a compelling government interest in preventing it? Not a "we don't like it" or "maybe it will result in this or that bad thing" kind of justification, but a compelling justification. If the state doesn't want to be in the business of giving benefits to married couples just because they're married, it can get out of that business, leaving marriage as, essentially, a turnkey bundle of legal agreements. The State might decide to only offer certain benefits to child-rearing couples, for example. It already does so, in some ways (see later in the next paragraph).
I don't know all the legal and financial benefits of marriage, but as far as I'm aware there are some social security implications, and there are a significant number of legal decision-sharing rights that each person can make for their spouse given the right circumstances, without a bunch of extra legal paperwork. Is it such a big deal to give gay couples those things? And various other things related to households and child welfare, like child tax credits or claiming other individuals as dependents, already exist in tax code completely separate from the concept of marriage.
All the hypotheticals about consanguinity and polyamory... prohibitions against those things are not often enforced (as long as the participants are consenting adults); they're merely taboo (the former more than the latter). What we're talking about is marriage, not the underlying relationship. If there are major problems with genetic defects from inbreeding, and we want to codify a preventative social taboo by legally restricting siblings from getting married, let's also talk about forbidding people with serious heritable diseases from marrying, too. I have a feeling there would be immediate cries of, "But that's eugenics!" And, as someone pointed out, we can't use that to justify banning same-sex sibling marriages, can we?
You can very easily differentiate marriages to non-human animals, marriages to corporations, etc, on the grounds that those are not natural persons, therefore the right to marry doesn't attach to the non-human participant(s) in those hypothetical marriage applications. I think this ruling will and should put pressure on people and the courts to reevaluate the marriage of close relatives and the restrictions against multiple simultaneous marriages or group marriages.
If anyone is free to cross-sex marry anyone else, that's sufficient to satisfy the right to marriage? It's too bad for them if they only love people of the same sex, and too bad for them if they're trying to raise a child with a partner of the same sex?
I'm curious, what would you think of a SSM amendment if it were passed/ratified? Would you consider it logically incorrect to define marriage that way, despite the amendment, or would you recognize a redefinition of the social construct of marriage? If the latter, then you can't assert that marriage is between a man and a woman, because it's only that way because of cultural bias.
While it's technically true that there are means for same-sex couples to acquire (nearly) any sort of legal right with respect to children that a heterosexual parent would automatically enjoy, is it not true that it's a lot more effort and legal hoop-jumping to execute all the powers of attorneys and directives required?
First principles: Marriage is a fundamental right (or so the SCOTUS has said, repeatedly). Marriage is (supposed to be) based on love. Love is subjective. State-sanctioned marriage is valued because it confers a package deal of social and legal benefits that are difficult to get otherwise.
What possible conclusion can you reach, unless you believe in some a priori definition of (additional elements of) marriage, other than: any people who love each other should be able to marry unless there's a compelling government interest in preventing it? Not a "we don't like it" or "maybe it will result in this or that bad thing" kind of justification, but a compelling justification. If the state doesn't want to be in the business of giving benefits to married couples just because they're married, it can get out of that business, leaving marriage as, essentially, a turnkey bundle of legal agreements. The State might decide to only offer certain benefits to child-rearing couples, for example. It already does so, in some ways (see later in the next paragraph).
I don't know all the legal and financial benefits of marriage, but as far as I'm aware there are some social security implications, and there are a significant number of legal decision-sharing rights that each person can make for their spouse given the right circumstances, without a bunch of extra legal paperwork. Is it such a big deal to give gay couples those things? And various other things related to households and child welfare, like child tax credits or claiming other individuals as dependents, already exist in tax code completely separate from the concept of marriage.
All the hypotheticals about consanguinity and polyamory... prohibitions against those things are not often enforced (as long as the participants are consenting adults); they're merely taboo (the former more than the latter). What we're talking about is marriage, not the underlying relationship. If there are major problems with genetic defects from inbreeding, and we want to codify a preventative social taboo by legally restricting siblings from getting married, let's also talk about forbidding people with serious heritable diseases from marrying, too. I have a feeling there would be immediate cries of, "But that's eugenics!" And, as someone pointed out, we can't use that to justify banning same-sex sibling marriages, can we?
You can very easily differentiate marriages to non-human animals, marriages to corporations, etc, on the grounds that those are not natural persons, therefore the right to marry doesn't attach to the non-human participant(s) in those hypothetical marriage applications. I think this ruling will and should put pressure on people and the courts to reevaluate the marriage of close relatives and the restrictions against multiple simultaneous marriages or group marriages.
"The argument for gay marriage would be that it creates social stability by allowing same-sex couples to combine property and pass it on in a stable way that reflects the common desire of the couple. Additionally, it allows the couple to enjoy common benefits (such as health insurance, or legal power of attorney) that they should enjoy as a committed couple. If a couple wishes to unite treasure and mutual compassion that should be encouraged"
This same argument would stand for Gay incest. The reason why incest is illegal is due to the issue of genetic abnormalities mostly. However if genetic abnormalities is the reason to deny incestuous relationships then a gay incestuous relationship would not be involved under this ruling, and since we don't sterilize those with genetic abnormalities (anymore) then as you say, the benefits fit your same arguments.
The other issue also involves consent. For example what about the issue of parental consent to marry, lets say Kansas, where the parents can authorized a 15year old to get married. What if it was a consent to marry them?
This same argument would stand for Gay incest. The reason why incest is illegal is due to the issue of genetic abnormalities mostly. However if genetic abnormalities is the reason to deny incestuous relationships then a gay incestuous relationship would not be involved under this ruling, and since we don't sterilize those with genetic abnormalities (anymore) then as you say, the benefits fit your same arguments.
The other issue also involves consent. For example what about the issue of parental consent to marry, lets say Kansas, where the parents can authorized a 15year old to get married. What if it was a consent to marry them?
tyme said:
Your preference that others you disfavor should willingly relinquish their rights for something you identify as a greater good doesn't have a principled compenent that would keep it from being applied to natural persons. Indeed, natural persons are subject to all the laws you referenced.
tyme said:
Love is not a restriction on marriage in any state, and no law in question kept anyone from loving anyone else.
tyme said:
Your question assumes as true a misunderstanding of family law. It is not true that anyone is free to cross-sex marry anyone else. Note restrictions on marital status, age and consanguinity.
tyme said:
I would see even an ordinary legislative enactment of SSM by a state as entirely consistent with a state's right to legislate on the topic.
tyme said:
I think you have misunderstood legal marriage as something romantic. Are you aware of any state that require participants to be "in love"?
tyme said:
That isn't a constitutional standard.
There may be no compelling governmental interest in a 60mph speed limit. 67mph might be very safe for much of the population. That doesn't make a 60mph speed limit a violation of the federal constitution.
tyme said:
You may be right, but a federal right to state recognised incestuous marriage would most often be seen as an argument against the majority opinion.
Okay, this entire discussion should have been closed quite a while ago; because it has nothing at all to do with gun rights. I do applaud the mods here for keeping it open and allowing discussion to continue, for it is an important issue to understand. The most important thing to realize is that less than 2% of the entire population has produced a major shift in the political arena. The repercussions of this decision will reverberate through the rest of human history. This is rather ominous as far as gun rights go. I think all who are involved can agree that there is a decidedly obvious desire in the minority of the most affluent of our population to do away with the right of the citizens of our republic to own guns. Such a desire will be accomplished regardless of laws as they are written, or the belief system of the majority of the republic. Flat out telling it as it is; we are screwed. We have reached the point where you have to decide which side you come down on. Decide right now. Words as they are written mean nothing. Our future is in the hands of an elite few who decide the fate of all of us; or so they think. I believe we are capable of deciding our own fate.
This subforum isn't just about gun rights; a wide range of civil-rights and legal issues are welcome.
The Obergefell and King decisions could have consequences beyond their respective issues, and they cast doubt on how SCOTUS may interpret other cases in the future. Had this thread remained about those issues, I'd be all for keeping it open.
But we've drifted, and people are chiming in about gay marriage as a general social or moral issue. That's beyond the scope of this forum.
- Status