Gay Rights vs. Rights of polygamist, incestous couples, etc.`

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Since we have had spirited debate in the Dont Ask Dont Tell thread I thought I would through a topic out there that some of my law school buddies and I have discussed.

Since Lawrence v. Texas arguable asserted that the Constitution protects homosexuals from so called "morals legislation" ie; laws whose primary basis in grounded in morality...should this protection be applied to other classes arguably oppressed by morals legislation such as polygamist and persons who choose to marry closely-related parties? Does the government have a stronger rationale for prohibiting these parties from exercising their freedoms than they do in regulating homosexual behavior?

[bigwakes]

persons who choose to marry closely-related parties?

I thought that was legal in Kentucky.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

In some states they are yet the rule is not universal. For example in TN you cannot marry closer than 1st Cousins.

[Oh Shoot]

In some states they are yet the rule is not universal. For example in TN you cannot marry closer than 1st Cousins.

What's TCA number on that?

What's the penalty for doing it?

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

I thought that was legal in Kentucky.

I thought it was standard practice.

- OS

[MikePapa1]

I think you'll see that come. If gay marriage is a matter of "equal protection" then why not multiple "marriage?" I can see intellectual reason it should not. Unfortunately, our founders set up a system of governance based on ordered liberty, where responsibilities were just as important as rights. We've strayed far from that origin.

[McAllyn]

Don't know the law on it, but the only issue I see is the scientific proof that when close blood relatives procreate, there is a high chance of... issues with the child. "But What About the Children?!?" I don't have an issue with polygamy, some dude wants to deal with more than one wife, best of luck to him, and let him know Zoloft comes in Economy size buckets.

Mac

[strickj]

I think it's just plane silly to think that the word "marriage" or the lack there of, will keep one from mating or to have children with a relative or several women at once.

The Government should not be involved with any marriage.

Edited October 20, 2010 by strickj

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

What's TCA number on that?

What's the penalty for doing it?

- OS

I am not sure on what the criminal result would be if any. I know the marriage itself is prohibited under TCA 36-3-101 and the result of that is the marriage would be void. Which places it in a similar position to a homosexual marriage. Therefore arguably states who allow homosexual marriages should also allow incestuous marriages unless the state can show a compelling reason why this is different.

[MikePapa1]

36-3-101. Prohibited degrees of relationship. —

Marriage cannot be contracted with a lineal ancestor or descendant, nor the lineal ancestor or descendant of either parent, nor the child of a grandparent, nor the lineal descendants of husband or wife, as the case may be, nor the husband or wife of a parent or lineal descendant.

[/size]

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I think you'll see that come. If gay marriage is a matter of "equal protection" then why not multiple "marriage?" I can see intellectual reason it should not. Unfortunately, our founders set up a system of governance based on ordered liberty, where responsibilities were just as important as rights. We've strayed far from that origin.

Don't know the law on it, but the only issue I see is the scientific proof that when close blood relatives procreate, there is a high chance of... issues with the child. "But What About the Children?!?" I don't have an issue with polygamy, some dude wants to deal with more than one wife, best of luck to him, and let him know Zoloft comes in Economy size buckets.

Mac

As far as scientific proof it is my understanding there is an increased chance of birth defects but not to the extent that was popularized years ago. Also considering this is arguable a protected right then it shouldnt be allowed to violated unless the difference was pretty significant. I mean we allow women to smoke/drink while pregnant.

I think it's just plane silly to think that the word "marriage" or the lack there of, will keep a one from mating or to have children with a relative or several women at once.

The Government should not be involved with any of it.

I am glad to hear you are uniform in your beliefs. I just through this out because I find many people who are even pro-gay marriage tend to be somewhat put off by the ideas of incestuous marriage and polygamy though theoretically there appears to be little difference in them from a governmental interest standpoints. The only real class of consensual sexual behavior that would still be prohibited is statutory rape laws since the issue there is whether the minor could really "consent".

[Mark A]

My feeling is once that door is kicked open it is going to be kicked WIDE open...

[bigwakes]

I like Phill Valentine's take on the subject. If gay marriage is O.K. Where does it end....cousins....multiple wives....pets? It's leaves all of morality open to any liberal judge that happens to be sitting behind the bench at the time.

[strickj]

I am glad to hear you are uniform in your beliefs. I just through this out because I find many people who are even pro-gay marriage tend to be somewhat put off by the ideas of incestuous marriage and polygamy though theoretically there appears to be little difference in them from a governmental interest standpoints. The only real class of consensual sexual behavior that would still be prohibited is statutory rape laws since the issue there is whether the minor could really "consent".

Oh, don't get me wrong! I find it all just flat out nasty.

But it's not up for me to tell someone else that their believes and/or religion are wrong when it comes to such matters....and marriage is between you and your god. Not me and my god and certainly not upto the Government.

[McAllyn]

I like Phill Valentine's take on the subject. If gay marriage is O.K. Where does it end....cousins....multiple wives....pets? It's leaves all of morality open to any liberal judge that happens to be sitting behind the bench at the time.

Who cares where it ends? Doesn't bother or even effect me in any way shape or form. My neighbor wants to marry his dog, OK by me, just keep that bitch quiet at 3AM. Awesome, I got a swear word in there by using the actual meaning of the term!!!

Mac

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Marrying pets may be justly found illegal on the grounds that the pet is not capable of giving informed consent?

Marrying inanimate property such as houses or cars might be justly found legal because informed consent is meaningless in that context?

Marriage is none of the government's biz IMO, except cases of parties not judged capable of informed consent (young humans, animals, or possibly severely mentally ill or severely retarded adult humans).

[McAllyn]

except cases of parties not judged capable of informed consent (young humans, animals, or possibly severely mentally ill or severely retarded adult humans).

Nope, they let me get hitched without a second thought. But, they were all laughing as I left the office, never knew why.

Mac

[Oh Shoot]

...

Marriage is none of the government's biz IMO, ...

Here's where it gets sticky, though.

Marriage entails a number of issues wherein the government might be forced to be involved, via forced rulings/lawsuits, whether the govt. wants to be involved or not.

Think issues of insurance, property and inheritance, child custody, and taxes, just off top o' my bean.

- OS

[strickj]

Here's where it gets sticky, though.

Marriage entails a number of issues wherein the government might be forced to be involved, via forced rulings/lawsuits, whether the govt. wants to be involved or not.

Think issues of insurance, property and inheritance, child custody, and taxes, just off top o' my bean.

- OS

OK, how about the Gov stay out of the creation and permissions of marriage?

[ftncityfatboy]

What's TCA number on that?

What's the penalty for doing it?

- OS

the penalty is ugly inbred children.....

[bigwakes]

the penalty is ugly inbred children.....

+1

[Guest db99wj]

What do they say about a Kentucky divorce? Well at least they are still brother and sister.

[Chucktshoes]

Here's where it gets sticky, though.

Marriage entails a number of issues wherein the government might be forced to be involved, via forced rulings/lawsuits, whether the govt. wants to be involved or not.

Think issues of insurance, property and inheritance, child custody, and taxes, just off top o' my bean.

- OS

Hence my belief that Gov't needs to exit the business of marriage altogether. I use the word business intentionally as outside of the religious context, the civil function of marriage is essentially a business partnership wherein two (or more in UT) people agree to cohabitate and share expenses and the raising of any children that might result. Let the state create civil domestic partnerships that perform the same function regardless of the relationships of those entering them. Might even allow for limited time contracts as well with provisions built in for the dissolution. Heinlein fans would recognize the kind of setup I am imagining here. The only real interest Gov't has in marriage is ensuring the care of minor children and the assignment of property & debts.

What does or does not constitute a "marriage" is the realm of the individual churches as long as all parties are consenting and have reached the age of majority.

[trblmkr13]

Morality should not be legislated

[Guest HvyMtl]

"Morality should not be legislated."

Whoo. Post that in a pro-choice / pro-life argument. (ducks.)

I too, believe the government should not legislate morality to a point (ie. killing is bad.)

So, if the gay or lesbian persons want to be married, why not?

Why just allow the straight people to be miserable?

The critical issue seems to be over the term "marriage" and the definition thereof.

Marriage under God (or insert religious belief here) should not be forced to include gays and lesbians, IF the belief does not condone gay or lesbian.

Marriage under government - should be fine.

Oh, and add to that long list of issues, like insurance and inheritance, the likes of illegal immigration. Sham marriages to enable citizenship should still be forbidden...

Edited October 20, 2010 by HvyMtl