Wouldn’t the court have to invalidate incest laws first? Now logically the exact same arguments used to legitimize same sex marriage would do just that, but if the court’s two recent decisions show anything they show that logic has nothing to do with it. It’s about the justices feelings.
Over the past several years, we’ve learned that families are different, that marriage isn’t about procreation and that it’s bigoted to deny people marriage based on their chromosomal makeup. By those standards, it’d be discriminatory to deny people a union simply because they share DNA.
I think they just did that.
Brown vs. Topeka wasn't just about letting a little girl go to the school her parents wanted. It was about invalidating all Jim Crow laws.
What makes homosexuals so special that they get to have their perverted marriages, but I don't get to marry my grandmother?
Yes, the incest laws would have to be invalidated first.
The way to do that is to challenge them on bring discriminatory. Incest laws were set up, primarily, to avoid the creation of children with the kinds of defects that come from inbreeding.
Which isnt an issue with same sex marriages.
Kennedy’s majority opinion, in fact, explicitly rejected the notion that marriage is for procreative purposes anyways. So we’re already most of the way there.