Same sex marriage legal impact

[SCFinfan]

Not sure why you are playing dumb on this, but I guess I'll spell it out:

The Supreme Court has determined that homosexual activity is protected under the Constitution.  They have made no such finding with regard to incestuous sexual activity.  Therefore, any comparison between homosexual marriage and incestuous marriage is inherently flawed; one is the expression of a constitutionally-protected relationship, while the other is an expression of one that is outlawed.

Marriage remains an open question. Marriage is what we're talking about here. Not sex in a vacuum. What I am saying is quite simple. If your state constitution is going to define marriage as "between two consenting adults" and nothing more, you've just imploded whatever defense you had against allowing incestuous unions from marrying.

For example, consider the following.

1. State A has no law against incest between adults.
2. But no constitutional enshrinement of incestuous marriages.
3. State A defines marriage as between two consenting adults.
4. An incestuous couple apply for marriage.

What then?

Now, let's get after your statement that the comparison is inherently flawed. Sure, one can be criminalized, and the other not, but it would seem as though you're just shooting yourself in the foot if you're going to say

1. Marriage is between 2 consenting adults.
2. But not incestuous adults.

Without giving a reason why, other than "the Court's fiat."

Sure, the states can still criminalize it, but before long, this will get brought before the Court. What will the Court do? Are they going to strike down incest laws? Or are they going to strike down common sense?

Neither is a very desirable predicament. I suggest we stop heading in that direction by sticking with civil unions and nothing more.

[Spider-Dan]

Marriage remains an open question. Marriage is what we're talking about here. Not sex in a vacuum. What I am saying is quite simple. If your state constitution is going to define marriage as "between two consenting adults" and nothing more, you've just imploded whatever defense you had against allowing incestuous unions from marrying.

I believe that, in another thread, you stated that it was not reasonable to believe that two people getting married would not have sex.  Therefore, incestuous marriages would be de facto outlawed, since incestuous sex is.  Gay marriages would have no such restrictions.

For example, consider the following.

1. State A has no law against incest between adults.
2. But no constitutional enshrinement of incestuous marriages.
3. State A defines marriage as between two consenting adults.
4. An incestuous couple apply for marriage.

What then?

In a state where incest is legal, under what grounds would you portend to deny a brother and sister the ability to marry?  It's still a marriage between a man and a woman, right?  So as long as it's not a gay incestuous marriage, they aren't "redefining marriage" as you say.

Given that marriage has involved family members for longer than it hasn't (should we even mention the Bible?), I don't think the whole "redefinining marriage" schtick really even applies here, anyway.

1. Marriage is between 2 consenting adults.
2. But not incestuous adults.

Without giving a reason why, other than "the Court's fiat."

1. It is legal to own a plant.
2. But not certain plants.

I mean, come on.  Incestuous sex is illegal, so incestuous marriage is illegal.  This is not some crazy maze of logic.

edit: one other note:

Sure, the states can still criminalize it, but before long, this will get brought before the Court. What will the Court do? Are they going to strike down incest laws? Or are they going to strike down common sense?

Neither is a very desirable predicament. I suggest we stop heading in that direction by sticking with civil unions and nothing more.

Once again, you have misapplied your logic; in order to "stop heading in that direction," we would need to outlaw gay sex, not gay marriage.

To borrow your argument:  if gay sex is legal, then why shouldn't incestuous sex be?  So instead of bothering with outlawing homosexual marriage, we should be working on outlawing homosexuality itself, which would not only necessarily eliminate the problem of gay marriage, but also take us off of the slippery slope that inevitably must lead to fathers marrying their daughters (or sons, for that matter).

Of course, the pesky Constitution has already thrown a wrench into that plan... which explains why we are here today, trying to outlaw gay marriage instead.

[Spider-Dan]

As for the kind of "legal impact" we can expect, here's a sample (emphasis mine):

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html

Couple fight gender-neutral language in wedding license
By Jennifer Garza
jgarza@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Sep. 16, 2008 | Page 1A

Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride.

To the state of California, however, she is either "Party A" or "Party B."

Those are the terms that have replaced "bride" and "groom" on the state's new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

"We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."

In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. "Bride" and "groom" became "Party A" and "Party B."

Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

Bird's father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville's Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

"I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with 'Party A' and 'Party B,' " he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. "If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time."

So far, however, officials with conservative legal foundations, gay groups and the state say they are unaware of anyone else making a similar stand.

And Rachel Bird described her position as "personal – not religious."

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," she said.

To some, the couple's stand may seem frivolous. But others believe "bride" and "groom" are terms that are too important for the state to set aside.

"Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. "This debunks that argument."

But those who favor the gender-neutral language say it is fair and treats all citizens equally.

"These are legal forms meant to uphold the law, changes that were meant to accommodate all Californians, which includes gays and lesbians," said Ed Bennett, president of the Sacramento Stonewall Democrats.

Bird and Codding said they didn't intend to become part of the culture debate. They didn't know about the change when they applied for their marriage license in August. When they saw the terms, Codding wrote "groom" next to "Party A" and "bride" next to Party B and submitted their license. On Aug. 16, they married at her father's church.

On Sept. 3, the couple received a letter from the Placer County Clerk-Recorder Registrar of Voters informing them that their license did not comply with California law and that the state did not accept licenses that had been altered. The couple had 10 days to complete a duplicate form.

The couple say they have no intention of signing the forms.

"We feel that some things are worth fighting for," said Gideon Codding, 29.

Officials said the law is clear.

"I can understand their frustration," said Gloria Coutts, assistant county clerk for Placer County." But their marriage is not registered with the state."

Bird and Codding say they are trying to figure out what to do next. Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance. "I really don't know," she said.

For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.

"We feel like a a bride and groom," said Bird.

--

Yes, fake discrimination at its very finest: the daughter of a pastor refuses to sign a marriage license because it says "party A" and "party B."  But strangely enough, there is no mention of any future lawsuit against the IRS, which requires one to fill out a tax return that says "spouse."  Isn't she a wife, not a spouse?

Regardless of the outcome of Prop. 8, this story does have a happy ending (but probably not the one that fake-outrage thinly-veiled bigots desired); future marriage licenses will allow each party to circle "bride" or "groom" for themselves.  So this happy couple will be able to circle "bride" and "groom," while other couples would be able to circle "bride" and "bride", etc.

P.S. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are all for protecting traditional marriage seemingly have no problem with divorce.  If we were really interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage, divorce would be outlawed, and this article wouldn't exist because you'd both still be married to your first spouses.

But why let hypocrisy stand in the way of a good old-fashioned protest?

[StL FinFan]

It's really interesting to me that this thread showed up on the day I explained what "gay" meant to my 7 and 4 year old daughters and that it was wrong to hate or be mean to someone because of it.

[Buddhagirl]

It's really interesting to me that this thread showed up on the day I explained what "gay" meant to my 7 and 4 year old daughters and that it was wrong to hate or be mean to someone because of it.

Good for you!

[bsmooth]

Government already has taken too much control in our families. This is an example of how something seemingly harmless on the surface spills over into everyone's life. Once something becomes law it opens Pandora's box.   Legalizing same sex marriages affects every child and every family and this is what bothers Christians ... and not what goes on behind closed doors.


http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

Because so many Christians have healthy marriages that last until death? How about they worry about the staggering divorce rate in this country between hetrosexuals and the effect it has on children as opposed to how a small slice of this country's very large population getting married is someone how worse.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It's really interesting to me that this thread showed up on the day I explained what "gay" meant to my 7 and 4 year old daughters and that it was wrong to hate or be mean to someone because of it.

Tis the season where kids also get confused that the word "gay" has more than one meaning.... "Deck the Halls"  I recall giggling about that song in middle school. 

[StL FinFan]

Good for you!

Thanks.  I wanted them to hear it from me since we have gay and lesbian family members.

Tis the season where kids also get confused that the word "gay" has more than one meaning.... "Deck the Halls"  I recall giggling about that song in middle school. 

   I guess I should make sure that they understand it also means "happy". 

[Sunstroke]

You mean like when the Roman Empire enjoyed centuries of domination, then fell under the blade shortly after the emperor converted to Christianity?

I scrolled through the next two pages of this pointless debate just to see if someone was going to point this out...thanks, Spidey.

Saying something funny doesn't make you right but I guess it gives you and your cronies the feeling of victory.  Congrats to you.

Laughter is the voice of God, which would actually make them disciples, rather than cronies.

[Dphins4me]

Laughter is the voice of God

Don't use the word God on this board.  You use the correct term "omnipotent being" 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Don't use the word God on this board.  You use the correct term "omnipotent being" 

MyOmnipotentBeingWearsAHoodie doesn't have the same ring to it.  Sorry.   

[Dphins4me]

MyOmnipotentBeingWearsAHoodie doesn't have the same ring to it.  Sorry.   

  Just going off what I was told the correct term was.

[Dave Gray]

SC, I'm not even saying that incestuous marriages should be illegal.  You stating a position for me that I don't state for myself.

I'm not saying they should be legal, either.  I'm saying that it's a separate and unrelated issues.

[Frimp]

Be very careful with how you vote on Amendment 2.  Whether you're for gay marriage or against it, Amendment 2 is NOT about that.  Amendment 2 encompasses MORE than just gay marriage, and would have a SEVERE impact on MY life if passed. 

There was an ammendment on SC's ballot. It was to allow the age of consent to be changed. It is currently 16. To vote against it would leave it the same. To change it would let it be raised or lowered. Opponents of it are worried, and said that it could lower it to 14, which is true, but it wouldnt happen in South Carolina. If it could be changed, it would likely be raised to 18. I voted to change it.

[Sunstroke]

Don't use the word God on this board.  You use the correct term "omnipotent being" 

I can use the word unicorn in a sentence without believing in them as well...and please feel free to extract the wadded panties out of the crack of your self-righteous ass at any time.

Have a pleasant day!