Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.
The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest
For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.
Kent Greenfield - Boston College
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedys opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMAs injection of inequality into the United States Code violated the liberty protected by the Constitution. The inequality part is equal protection language; the liberty wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudicesimply thinking something is ickydoesnt count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define ones own family, whats the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texass anti-sodomy law, the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life, why cant people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If its wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, dont quote me on that. The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?
The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest
For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.
Kent Greenfield - Boston College