[Mr. Silverback]

This is an absurd comparison, though that doesn't stop it from being a favorite for many. We're discussing an agreement between two consenting adults; an animal doesn't have the ability to consent. Furthermore, we don't apply any other human statutes to animals; why would marriage laws be any different?

How dare you try to interfere with someone's sex life? What business is it of government's if they do it behind closed doors? And besides, animal cruelty is outlawed by most religions, so it shouldn't be a government issue, but a religious one.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

How dare you try to interfere with someone's sex life? What business is it of government's if they do it behind closed doors? And besides, animal cruelty is outlawed by most religions, so it shouldn't be a government issue, but a religious one.

We were talking about marriage, not sex. If somebody really wants to have sex with a sheep, and it's their sheep, then again, no matter how disturbing I find it, I don't see why it's anybody else's business. We don't currently recognize any legal rights for animals, so what's to stop this from happening right now? Furthermore, how is this at all related to the California Supreme Court decision?