Well, once gay marriage is rammed through, how can they say no?I can't believe these words came out of a grown woman's mouth. That sounds like something a starry-eyed 13 year old would say about Jessica Simpson and Nick...Simpson.
Give it time. The Democrats will soon acclaim "incest" and "adult-child love" the next phase in civil rights. This was 20 years ago and look how far we've already come.
Well, once gay marriage is rammed through, how can they say no?That was the explanation 21 years ago. How prescient! Why don't people get it today? What ever happened to Avery? Was he the last Shallow North politician to have functioning synapses?
One of the two should have had a sex-change operation and then everything would be hunky-dory!
"I'd like you to meet my wife and my niece."
"Sah-Loot!"
Isn't that John's wife?
The principle established in the Texas sodomy case is that there is no state interest in sodomy. I ask, what would be the state interest in this union of a non-fecund heterosexual couple? Indeed, what is the interest of the state in marriage?
Is the state interest, as the majority in the Massachusetts supreme court gay marriage decision says, the benefits involved, i.e., is this an equal rights issue? Or, is the state interest, as the minority in that decision says, that from a union of (a presumed fecund) heterosexuals there can come children?
If the state interest is the children, then - it might be argued by social conservatives - certain restrictions might be placed on personal liberty in order to uphold the institution of marriage.
Libertarian conservatives, on the other hand, would simply argue that marriage be reserved for unions of heterosexual couples. Concern for equal rights and for privacy would then warrant a review of all the benefits - and penalities - that have been piled onto marriage, and of the behaviors involving consenting adults that have been made illegal.
Note the name "Forbes" also happens to be (what a coincidence!) John effin' Kerry's middle name.
I read recently about a state (I don't remember which) that actually has an exception to its incest laws if the couple is unable to reproduce (they are presumed to be unable to reproduce if the woman is over a certain age, and may provide evidence of sterility if the woman is below that age). Apparently the state legislature, much like Howard Dean, believed that incest laws exist only to avoid diseases that may be suffered by the product of incestuous relationships, and not because for thousands of years Western civilization has considered such relationships to be immoral. In any event, a gay couple sued, saying that if a brother and sister can marry if they prove they can't procreate, it was discriminatory to deny a marriage license to two members of the same sex, who obviously can't procreate. The courts threw out the suit, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years incestuous relationships are legitimized and raised to the level of constitutional rights due to the gay-marriage precedents.
We absolutely need a federal marriage amendment to stop judges from destroying the institution of marriage.