Heyworth: Gay Marriage will lead to marrying horses

[bench]

How are you right? Absolutely NO connection.

Face it, you tried to be a smart-ass, and got your ass handed to you.

Actually, there is one potential connection, and though it's tenuous and somewhat mythical, I think you in particular might be interested. Hint: Greek in origin, it's half-man, half-horse, and all gay:


^THIS REALLY SHOULD BE YOUR NEXT AVATAR

Don't even deny it. If the slippery slope from gay marriage ever reaches its promised denouement in the stables, you know damn well you'd marry Centaur A-Rod in a heartbeat. It'd be Churchill Downs-meets-Clash-of-the-Titans every night at your house. He's a man! He's a horse! Doesn't look like he's hung like one, though—no discernible penis whatsoever. Very disappointing. Better luck next time.

[JoltinJoe]

First off, show me ONE instance where a human LEGALLY married an animal.

Go ahead, and do it.

Second, the leap from going between two consenting adults of opposite sex to two consenting adults of the same sex is VERY SMALL. Anything thing else is a HUGE, HUGE leap.

you are smarter than this, T-man.

Let's not use bestiality. Let's use bigamy, or marriage to a first cousin.

Once a court holds that there is a consitutionally protected right to marry in accordance with your preference, how do you legally draw the line at gay marriange? If my preference is to marry my first cousin, don't I now have that right? If I want to have several wives, how does the state say no to my preference?

This is why I believe and argue that it is up to state legislatures to define "marriage." Legislatures can legally draw distinctions based on their understanding of what is valid public policy and which relationships should be legally sanctioned, and which should not. They make their distinctions based on perceptions of whether a sanctioned relationship is beneficial to society.

And this is why I have often said that while I have no beef against gay marriage, I think it is a legislative rather than judicial issue.

[dbackjon]

First cousins: Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal.


http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SO, some already do. Next

[dbackjon]

As far as bigamy, this presents a greater challenge to our current legal system, even at a state level.

Gay marriage simply changes the law from two consenting adults of opposite sex to two consenting adults. Legally, a very, very small change.

Bigamy/polygamy introduces a third or more member to the equation. Challenges:

DO all parties have to consent? I.e. - can Joe marry Wendy, then if he marries Sally, does Wendy have to consent? What is the legal relationship between Wendy and Sally? If Joe dies, are Wendy and Sally still married? What if Joe marries Wendy, then marries Sally. Sally then marries Mark. Are Mark and Joe married?

Say Joe is married to Wendy and Sally. Joe dies. Do both get survivor benefits, or is it first come, first served?

[OL FU]

North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal.


http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mountaineers, Moonshine and marrying cousins - it all fits together nicely

[JoltinJoe]

First cousins: Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal.


http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SO, some already do. Next

I think you missed the point.

The issue isn't whether some states allow marriage between first cousins.

The issue is whether the laws which outlaw marriage of first cousins are unconstitional.

[OL FU]

I agree with Joltin' Joe that it should be a legislative issue. However I really think anyone that uses the potential of legalized bestiality or polygamy to argue against gay marriage is really stretching it. I understand that sex between the same sexes freaks some people out, but I know way to many life long gay partners (married and otherwise) who have wonderful relationships to ever consider arguing against their abilty to be happy in a legally binding relationship.

[JoltinJoe]

As far as bigamy, this presents a greater challenge to our current legal system, even at a state level.

But isn't that a legislative judgment? If everyone had a constitutional right to marry according to their preference, it would be unconstitutional to draw that distinction.

[dbackjon]

As far as bigamy, this presents a greater challenge to our current legal system, even at a state level.

But isn't that a legislative judgment? If everyone had a constitutional right to marry according to their preference, it would be unconstitutional to draw that distinction.

Not arguing against that - just pointing out the complex legal issues that would arise.

[dbackjon]

As far as bigamy, this presents a greater challenge to our current legal system, even at a state level.

But isn't that a legislative judgment? If everyone had a constitutional right to marry according to their preference, it would be unconstitutional to draw that distinction.

Not arguing against that - just pointing out the complex legal issues that would arise.

[travelinman67]

I agree with Joltin' Joe that it should be a legislative issue. However I really think anyone that uses the potential of legalized bestiality or polygamy to argue against gay marriage is really stretching it. I understand that sex between the same sexes freaks some people out, but I know way to many life long gay partners (married and otherwise) who have wonderful relationships to ever consider arguing against their abilty to be happy in a legally binding relationship.

The legal extrapolation argument is not attempting to equate same-sex marriage with polygamy or bestiality. It's merely the statement that once the original intent of marriage, a creation of a binding contract between two people of opposite sex who join primarily for the purpose of procreation, is eliminated as a defining element of a "marriage", then the door is open for other classes beyond "same-sex" couples to seek inclusion within the definition: Polygamy and bestiality are just examples of other classes. Once the opposite gender element is eliminated, judicially, exclusion of other classes would arguably be unconstitutional.

The solution is to allow non-hetero relationships to be bound with civil unions, then legislatively codify equivalent rights afforded to those in civil unions.

My assertion has been that the LGBT activists would not be satisfied with the civil union solution as their intent is not to have a legally recognized relationship with the same rights provided to "married" couples, but rather to re-define "marriage" to erase the historical tradition of procreating couples. As Jon and I have debated many times, my opposition to much of the "liberalization" of relationship law is not an opposition to same-sex relations, but an absolute opposition to a political movement driven by an intent to devalue the hetero relationship, destroy organizations and religious groups who oppose same-sex "marriage", and seek punitive sanctions and reparations against anyone (or group) who opposes them even when said actions result from religious beliefs: A policy directly in contradiction with the movement's stated purpose of expanded diversity and acceptance of alternative lifestyles and beliefs.

I do agree with Jon about one principal issue re: this debate. I cannot support ANY religious group which excludes from membership or participation any person solely for being LGBT. Thankfully, most modern Christian faiths now have either "reconciled" in part or whole, and despite the denial of a "sanctified" marriage, allow LGBT to be members or, minimally, worship and receive ministerial benefits. In those cases, however, when a religion rejects reconciliation (i.e., holds LGBT as an unforgivable sin), then IMHO, that religion must either be bound to provide "healing" ministry to the LGBT, or genuinely be labeled as non-mainstream, and definitely non-Christian: Exclusion/Non-recognition is not an option for ANY Judaic, Islamic or Christian faith.

[D1B]

First off, show me ONE instance where a human LEGALLY married an animal.

Go ahead, and do it.

Second, the leap from going between two consenting adults of opposite sex to two consenting adults of the same sex is VERY SMALL. Anything thing else is a HUGE, HUGE leap.

you are smarter than this, T-man.

Let's not use bestiality. Let's use bigamy, or marriage to a first cousin.

Once a court holds that there is a consitutionally protected right to marry in accordance with your preference, how do you legally draw the line at gay marriange? If my preference is to marry my first cousin, don't I now have that right? If I want to have several wives, how does the state say no to my preference?

This is why I believe and argue that it is up to state legislatures to define "marriage." Legislatures can legally draw distinctions based on their understanding of what is valid public policy and which relationships should be legally sanctioned, and which should not. They make their distinctions based on perceptions of whether a sanctioned relationship is beneficial to society.

And this is why I have often said that while I have no beef against gay marriage, I think it is a legislative rather than judicial issue.

A refreshing and honest appeal to critical thinking and laws created by mankind.