Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[kaz]

And still you dance around the question. As long as there are rights benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage, my legal marriage should be treated exactly like yours is under the law. 1st cousins can't marry in NY, but if they marry in HI and move to NY, they are still married. It should be the same for my legal marriage.

That doesn't seem like a question, it seems like a statement.

You danced around the same question six or seven times. I've no reason to believe you'd answer it now.

Maybe you weren't clear enough in the question. My view on gay marriage I have said repeatedly redundantly thorough the conversation. My view:

1) Government does not belong in marriage
2) I would not add gay marriage to marriage because I see no need for it other than liberal desire to be validated by the collective and expanding the number of married people is not moving us towards eliminating it. I would also encourage straight couples to get a church wedding and not a government marriage.

However, if gay marriage is passed Constitutionally, by the legislature, I consider it to be pretty low on my list of government atrocities.

If it is decreed unconstitutionally by the courts, then it's a criminal action and the judge(s) who decreed it should be charged for crimes against the people and spend their life in jail.

DOMA was clearly constitutional by the full faith and credit clause, so you have no right to having gay marriage performed in one State recognized by another unless they chose to recognize it.

The 14th amendment didn't apply. It's not a game and it has nothing to do with what you want. Anyone who meets the basic criteria of age and so forth can enter into one man/woman marriage, whether they are straight or gay. That easily passes the equal treatment test.

I've made all these points clear, and if they aren't answering your question, you aren't making your question clear. Last time I tried, you responded I'm wrong, that isn't what the law says. So, my dear, I don't know what you're asking and that's on you, not me. If in the light of this summary you want to ask again, I'll try to answer.

 

[Seawytch]

The simple fact is that my legal marriage should be treated no differently than your legal marriage under the law. As long as you're entitled to "stuff" that comes with legal marriage, I am too.

You're still legally married, right? No "church only" marriage for you? No, that's just for the gays or those that come after you, right?

 

[Seawytch]

In the decade we've been having the discussion about whether or not to let gays in the pool, I've not seen a single piece of legislation introduced ANYWHERE that would do as Kaz would like seen done. Now why is that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you "think" is not the law. By law I'm legally married and by law your marriage is recognized in all 50 states.

I see, I misunderstood the question, I thought the question was regarding my view, not if I could explain to you what the law says. So my view is what I was giving you.

I'm glad you were able to look it up on your own.

And still you dance around the question. As long as there are rights benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage, my legal marriage should be treated exactly like yours is under the law. 1st cousins can't marry in NY, but if they marry in HI and move to NY, they are still married. It should be the same for my legal marriage.

How do you explain Social Security?

 

[hazlnut]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

Wrong -- the argument usually involves a man marrying a duck or a horse. Animals that can't consent.

Wrong #2 - very few of you are that articulate.

I think many tea baggers like to stay away from the "leads to incest" argument because... Well, we've all seen Deliverance.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

This is where you people fall right off the stupid wagon -- marriage means something different to a Jew, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Mormon, an Agnostic and Atheist. Marriage is defined differently by almost everyone.

It's about giving benefits to one class born a certain way while denying them to another class.


Lastly, I happen to agree with the "could lead to polygamy" argument and I have always believed that is why the LDS church supported prop 8, to create the perfect test case--which would lead to a new (old) tradition of polygamy in this country.

I'm not sure why we puritans banned polygamy, it is after all 'Traditional' marriage.

Incest on the other hand has serious health and breeding implications -- does incest exist in any species?

 

[Seawytch]

I see, I misunderstood the question, I thought the question was regarding my view, not if I could explain to you what the law says. So my view is what I was giving you.

I'm glad you were able to look it up on your own.

And still you dance around the question. As long as there are rights benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage, my legal marriage should be treated exactly like yours is under the law. 1st cousins can't marry in NY, but if they marry in HI and move to NY, they are still married. It should be the same for my legal marriage.

How do you explain Social Security?

Explain it how? What about SS do you need explained?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And still you dance around the question. As long as there are rights benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage, my legal marriage should be treated exactly like yours is under the law. 1st cousins can't marry in NY, but if they marry in HI and move to NY, they are still married. It should be the same for my legal marriage.

How do you explain Social Security?

Explain it how? What about SS do you need explained?

You can be legally married in California, move to Texas, and be denied Social Security survivor benefits because Texas doesn't recognize you as being married.

 

[Asclepias]

If you draw the line at "consenting adults" then you are fine. Its nobodies business at that point. If someone wants to take on hearing 5-6 women in his ear 24 hours a day then he is a better man than me. He should get a medal in that case! If you want to take the chance your kids come out with medical issues due to marrying your sister have at it as long as i don't have to pay for it. Other people really need to step back and ask themselves some questions.

1. Is this affecting my immediate life?
2. is a child being sexually molested?

if the answer to any of those questions are yes then it is just possible that its your business to get involved.

 

[Seawytch]

How do you explain Social Security?

Explain it how? What about SS do you need explained?

You can be legally married in California, move to Texas, and be denied Social Security survivor benefits because Texas doesn't recognize you as being married.

And that's where the next court challenge will come from. DOMA Section II.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explain it how? What about SS do you need explained?

You can be legally married in California, move to Texas, and be denied Social Security survivor benefits because Texas doesn't recognize you as being married.

And that's where the next court challenge will come from. DOMA Section II.

So you can't explain it.

By the way, that law has already stood a few challenges.

 

[FA_Q2]

Incest on the other hand has serious health and breeding implications -- does incest exist in any species?

We do not do screening for genetic traits that are FAR more likely to manifest in genetic problems than incest so your point is moot.

Banning incest is no different than banning gays.

 

[RKMBrown]

To say we're in this together somehow trying to end discrimination is preposterous, we're not. Also, you make repeating my position, end marriage, as some sort of insight. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean to me exactly.

1) Government does not belong in marriage

In your opinion, why doesn't Government "belong in marriage?"

You Appear to have a STRONG desire to have our government regulate against gay marriage. But you say Government does not belong in marriage. I suspect you mean government does not belong in YOUR marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

You can be legally married in California, move to Texas, and be denied Social Security survivor benefits because Texas doesn't recognize you as being married.

And that's where the next court challenge will come from. DOMA Section II.

So you can't explain it.

By the way, that law has already stood a few challenges.

What do you want explained? It remains to be seen whether Federal benefits will still be extended to couples who marry in one state and move to another.

Name the cases that withstood a challenge.

 

[FA_Q2]

To say we're in this together somehow trying to end discrimination is preposterous, we're not. Also, you make repeating my position, end marriage, as some sort of insight. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean to me exactly.

1) Government does not belong in marriage

In your opinion, why doesn't Government "belong in marriage?"

You Appear to have a STRONG desire to have our government regulate against gay marriage. But you say Government does not belong in marriage. I suspect you mean government does not belong in YOUR marriage.

I am not kaz but I hold a similar view (though I support gay marriage until that is done) so I will give you my version of this problem.

What right does the government have in moving societal burdens (aka: taxes) from me to a single person because I have made a decision to marry or have children. What right does government have in determining the ‘benefits’ that I derive from that union. IOW, why are they even involved in that contract. Simply put, I should have the right to enter into whatever contract I want with another consenting adult. That could mean that there is a ‘standard contract’ that I can sign with a loved one that would giver her the ability to make some of the common decisions that are shared in a marriage or other things that come with that union (like the results of divorce for instance) but really the state has no interest in that contract. They are not a party to it and should not be dictating the details or the stipulations in it. Right now, because the state has determined to give certain goodies like tax monies from single people to the married, they determine all kinds of things with my marriage such as the sex and number of people I can be married to. Why?


The state has no right to regulate MY relationships or to steal from you in order to pay for those relationships. The same goes for deciding to have children, own a house or do a million other things. As soon as you give the state the right to get in your relationship, you give them the POWER to dictate the terms of that relationship and that is simply unacceptable. The state DOES NOT BELONG in my bed, may marriage or any other personal contract that I want to make with another consenting adult. THAT is my responsibility and mine alone. There should not be one single ‘benefit’ to marriage outside of those that I wish to interject through a consensual contract or other entities wish to convey through other, normal contract (like an insurance company including family members).

NOTE:
By the way, all of this assumes that you have dropped the asinine concept that marriage is solely a religious institution because I, and I believe others here, have been quite clear that we are NOT talking about the ceremony of marriage but the civil contract that is a marriage license. The religious institution is utterly meaningless as far as the state goes and really that is the only side to marriage that should exist.

 

[RKMBrown]

What right does the government have in moving societal burdens (aka: taxes) from me to a single person because I have made a decision to marry or have children. What right does government have in determining the ‘benefits’ that I derive from that union. IOW, why are they even involved in that contract. Simply put, I should have the right to enter into whatever contract I want with another consenting adult. That could mean that there is a ‘standard contract’ that I can sign with a loved one that would giver her the ability to make some of the common decisions that are shared in a marriage or other things that come with that union (like the results of divorce for instance) but really the state has no interest in that contract. They are not a party to it and should not be dictating the details or the stipulations in it. Right now, because the state has determined to give certain goodies like tax monies from single people to the married, they determine all kinds of things with my marriage such as the sex and number of people I can be married to. Why?


The state has no right to regulate MY relationships or to steal from you in order to pay for those relationships. The same goes for deciding to have children, own a house or do a million other things. As soon as you give the state the right to get in your relationship, you give them the POWER to dictate the terms of that relationship and that is simply unacceptable. The state DOES NOT BELONG in my bed, may marriage or any other personal contract that I want to make with another consenting adult. THAT is my responsibility and mine alone. There should not be one single ‘benefit’ to marriage outside of those that I wish to interject through a consensual contract or other entities wish to convey through other, normal contract (like an insurance company including family members).

NOTE:
By the way, all of this assumes that you have dropped the asinine concept that marriage is solely a religious institution because I, and I believe others here, have been quite clear that we are NOT talking about the ceremony of marriage but the civil contract that is a marriage license. The religious institution is utterly meaningless as far as the state goes and really that is the only side to marriage that should exist.

The state currently discriminates against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages. The state currently regulates marriage. You say it should be up to us to define the terms of our marriage contracts. I agree with that statement. However there are "third" parties involved. Such as insurance, and hospitals, and States, and federal tax systems, that discriminate against people who are not married. How can a contract between two people resolve the discrimination of these third parties?

We have allowed discrimination to be the law of the land. Pure and simple. Now we have to decide if the discrimination is wrongful or justified. IMO the discrimination we have allowed against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages is just plain wrong. It's wrong because discrimination is wrong. It's bigotry. It's repulsive. It's morally debasing. It's uncivilized. It's unconstitutional.

 

[FA_Q2]

What right does the government have in moving societal burdens (aka: taxes) from me to a single person because I have made a decision to marry or have children. What right does government have in determining the ‘benefits’ that I derive from that union. IOW, why are they even involved in that contract. Simply put, I should have the right to enter into whatever contract I want with another consenting adult. That could mean that there is a ‘standard contract’ that I can sign with a loved one that would giver her the ability to make some of the common decisions that are shared in a marriage or other things that come with that union (like the results of divorce for instance) but really the state has no interest in that contract. They are not a party to it and should not be dictating the details or the stipulations in it. Right now, because the state has determined to give certain goodies like tax monies from single people to the married, they determine all kinds of things with my marriage such as the sex and number of people I can be married to. Why?


The state has no right to regulate MY relationships or to steal from you in order to pay for those relationships. The same goes for deciding to have children, own a house or do a million other things. As soon as you give the state the right to get in your relationship, you give them the POWER to dictate the terms of that relationship and that is simply unacceptable. The state DOES NOT BELONG in my bed, may marriage or any other personal contract that I want to make with another consenting adult. THAT is my responsibility and mine alone. There should not be one single ‘benefit’ to marriage outside of those that I wish to interject through a consensual contract or other entities wish to convey through other, normal contract (like an insurance company including family members).

NOTE:
By the way, all of this assumes that you have dropped the asinine concept that marriage is solely a religious institution because I, and I believe others here, have been quite clear that we are NOT talking about the ceremony of marriage but the civil contract that is a marriage license. The religious institution is utterly meaningless as far as the state goes and really that is the only side to marriage that should exist.

The state currently discriminates against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages. The state currently regulates marriage. You say it should be up to us to define the terms of our marriage contracts. I agree with that statement. However there are "third" parties involved. Such as insurance, and hospitals, and States, and federal tax systems, that discriminate against people who are not married. How can a contract between two people resolve the discrimination of these third parties?

We have allowed discrimination to be the law of the land. Pure and simple. Now we have to decide if the discrimination is wrongful or justified. IMO the discrimination we have allowed against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages is just plain wrong. It's wrong because discrimination is wrong. It's bigotry. It's repulsive. It's morally debasing. It's uncivilized. It's unconstitutional.

And you cut the pertinent part of my post that deals with your entire point:

though I support gay marriage until that is done

IOW, I agree with all that so I can’t comment on this response. I assume though that you were directing that back at kaz though he has answered that supposition already when I asked it several pages ago. The answer is best summed up that he believes advancing the number of people covered under marriage moves us away from the goal: marriage removed from state control and also increases the state control over marriages in general.

I disagree with that general sentiment but I have already explained that. Also, I explained exactly how third parties would be dealt with so what is your contention with what I stated as you bring them up?

 

[RKMBrown]

What right does the government have in moving societal burdens (aka: taxes) from me to a single person because I have made a decision to marry or have children. What right does government have in determining the ‘benefits’ that I derive from that union. IOW, why are they even involved in that contract. Simply put, I should have the right to enter into whatever contract I want with another consenting adult. That could mean that there is a ‘standard contract’ that I can sign with a loved one that would giver her the ability to make some of the common decisions that are shared in a marriage or other things that come with that union (like the results of divorce for instance) but really the state has no interest in that contract. They are not a party to it and should not be dictating the details or the stipulations in it. Right now, because the state has determined to give certain goodies like tax monies from single people to the married, they determine all kinds of things with my marriage such as the sex and number of people I can be married to. Why?


The state has no right to regulate MY relationships or to steal from you in order to pay for those relationships. The same goes for deciding to have children, own a house or do a million other things. As soon as you give the state the right to get in your relationship, you give them the POWER to dictate the terms of that relationship and that is simply unacceptable. The state DOES NOT BELONG in my bed, may marriage or any other personal contract that I want to make with another consenting adult. THAT is my responsibility and mine alone. There should not be one single ‘benefit’ to marriage outside of those that I wish to interject through a consensual contract or other entities wish to convey through other, normal contract (like an insurance company including family members).

NOTE:
By the way, all of this assumes that you have dropped the asinine concept that marriage is solely a religious institution because I, and I believe others here, have been quite clear that we are NOT talking about the ceremony of marriage but the civil contract that is a marriage license. The religious institution is utterly meaningless as far as the state goes and really that is the only side to marriage that should exist.

The state currently discriminates against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages. The state currently regulates marriage. You say it should be up to us to define the terms of our marriage contracts. I agree with that statement. However there are "third" parties involved. Such as insurance, and hospitals, and States, and federal tax systems, that discriminate against people who are not married. How can a contract between two people resolve the discrimination of these third parties?

We have allowed discrimination to be the law of the land. Pure and simple. Now we have to decide if the discrimination is wrongful or justified. IMO the discrimination we have allowed against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages is just plain wrong. It's wrong because discrimination is wrong. It's bigotry. It's repulsive. It's morally debasing. It's uncivilized. It's unconstitutional.

And you cut the pertinent part of my post that deals with your entire point:

though I support gay marriage until that is done

IOW, I agree with all that so I can’t comment on this response. I assume though that you were directing that back at kaz though he has answered that supposition already when I asked it several pages ago. The answer is best summed up that he believes advancing the number of people covered under marriage moves us away from the goal: marriage removed from state control and also increases the state control over marriages in general.

I disagree with that general sentiment but I have already explained that. Also, I explained exactly how third parties would be dealt with so what is your contention with what I stated as you bring them up?

You had not stated in that particular post "why" you "support gay marriage until that is done."

My statement was just a statement expressing my view of why we should support gay marriage, and being single, and plural marriage.

Your statement that "you agree with all that"... indicates that you agree that discrimination against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages is wrongful.

Kaz apparently disagrees with the statement that discrimination against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages is wrongful. But he might be willing to remove some government regulation of marriages. He was not specific on that. But he was quite explicit in his belief that his discrimination against certain groups is justified.

 

[Seawytch]

Has there been a single piece of legislation EVER proposed that would get the government out of the "marriage biz"? Any state legislature anywhere?

 

[RKMBrown]

Has there been a single piece of legislation EVER proposed that would get the government out of the "marriage biz"? Any state legislature anywhere?

There have been a number of attempts to support civil unions. Which could be argued as either as a way to get out of the "marriage" biz or a way to expand it.. depending on your definition of get out.

 

[FA_Q2]

You had not stated in that particular post "why" you "support gay marriage until that is done."

My statement was just a statement expressing my view of why we should support gay marriage, and being single, and plural marriage.

Your statement that "you agree with all that"... indicates that you agree that discrimination against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages is wrongful.

Kaz apparently disagrees with the statement that discrimination against singles, plural marriages, and gay marriages is wrongful. But he might be willing to remove some government regulation of marriages. He was not specific on that. But he was quite explicit in his belief that his discrimination against certain groups is justified.

Point taken. You are correct – I hold the same reasons that you do for backing gay marriage as I think all discrimination would be done away with whether or not the government should be in that area or nor in the end. When it is there, it should be without discrimination until the people put government in its proper place.