Posted on 10/31/2014 4:21:04 PM PDT by NYer
The New York state Court of Appeals has trimmed back a state law banning incestuous marriages, allowing an uncle and niece to marry one another. The decision allows the woman, a Vietnamese immigrant, to avoid deportation.
Huyen Nguyen, 34, married her 38-year-old uncle Vu Truong in 2000. She also became a conditional permanent resident of the United States.
Six years later, she applied to become a permanent resident of the United States based on her marriage to Truong, who is a U.S. citizen. Since the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the U.S. government has given preferential treatment to relatives of American citizens.
But when the Department of Homeland Security learned that the two were related, officials initiated deportation hearings instead. Judge Philip Montante Jr. ruled that their marriage was invalid due to incest, a decision upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals last year.
New York state law prohibits marriages between: “1. An ancestor and a descendant; 2. A brother and sister of either the whole or half blood; 3. An uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew.”
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals asked the state Court of Appeals a certified question about the case, Nguyen v. Holder.
On Tuesday, the court ruled unanimously that the marriage was legal, despite the statute.
Judge Robert Smith wrote in the 6-0 opinion that, while societies have opposed marriages of immediate family "since time immemorial,” there “is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages.”
"The decision in this case turned on a technicality,” Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of The Ruth Institute, a think tank dedicated to preserving marriage, told LifeSiteNews. “The woman didn't literally marry her uncle. She married her half-uncle,” her mother's half-brother.
The justices ruled that the law intended only to ban relationships of close consanguinity, and the two were distant enough to pass. Their lawyer, Michael Marszalkowski of Buffalo, argued the two were no more closely related than first cousins, “which has been allowed in New York state for well over 100 years.”
“Since it is legal in New York for first cousins to marry, the judge concluded that this marriage was legal,” Dr. Morse said.
“This doesn't really make me feel any better,” she told LifeSiteNews. “All the legal arguments and pieces are in place to remove further prohibitions on incestuous marriages. It is only a matter of time.”
In recent years courts have ruled that marriage – long the exclusive, lifelong union of one man and one woman – could be applied to same-sex couples and weakened laws prohibiting polygamy. Defenders of traditional marriage long worried its redefinition to include same-sex couples would open the door to incestuous unions, as well.
Michael Stutman, a family law expert, told the New York Post that states will see more of these kinds of cases as the family unit breaks down.
“As people are more mobile and living longer, marriages are ending and people remarry. And you get blended families with step children and half children,” Stutman said.
In a concurring opinion, three justices on the court said, while the New York law did not apply in this case, these kinds of relationships should be dealt with “in the legislative process.”
“The issue of unequal stature in a family or cultural structure may not be implicated in this case but certainly could exist in other contexts, and a number of states have retained statutory prohibitions involving such marriages," they wrote.
But marriage supporters say if the institution is unhinged from its function of uniting a man and a woman with their children, it can include any relationship status the partners themselves find worthy of public recognition.
“If government’s only interest in marriage is who loves each other, than what logical stopping point is there?” Rev. Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, told the New York Daily News after this week's ruling.
FYI, ping!
Changes nothing in Canon law but changes everything in civil law.
Didn’t the gays laugh at these predictions? Say that these shenanigans would stop only if they were allowed to be wed in holy matrimony?
Paving the way for the Musloids and Sharia Law.
Ricky, Ricky, Ricky. Keep those hands where we can see them.
Yes they did. When there are no absolutes to govern society, society becomes the absolute. Welcome to the brave new world, the killing fields are next.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=deliverance%3brocky+mountain+breakdown&FORM=VIRE5#view=detail&mid=CD6FE4133E0A7CCE303DCD6FE4133E0A7CCE303D
The North American Man Dog Love Association is about to confirm their existence as well Im told.
I guess this clears the way for George and Rhisa.
The title is somewhat misleading. Being as this is only her mother’s half-brother there is a trickier relationship.
I have come to the conclusion that the government should not be involved in marriage at all.
In a _real_ country the judges would be impeached/removed/or_hung: legislating from the bench is _not_ what judges do.
You can't really preserve that compromise while at the same time permitting same sex marriage, "since time immemorial," societies have opposed marriages of same sex couples.
OK Kiddies! How about this. Whom did Franklin Delano Rosevelt marry ? What familial relationshup was she to him ?
The whole story is misleading. A 34-year old marries her 38-year old half-uncle for the sole purpose of gaining U.S. permanent residency. I wonder if the "marriage" was even consummated?
Sounds like immigration fraud more than incest.
This should come as No Surprise.
I am wondering what ‘they’ will do when 2 men or 2 women get married just for the ‘bennies’.
Sex isn’t really necessary and it shouldn’t be the states business. WHO (in the state etal) says a marriage HAS to be consummated?
This is heading to where a bartender will be allowed to marry two of his customers for the convenience of whatever and the state ONLY having a say if one of the couple are married to someone else - Does the ‘law’ require a married couple to ‘live’ together?
Which really shouldn’t be the states business either.. UNLESS the state is paying one or both of the parties as the result of the marriage.
Of course, my personal opinion is that the State should have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with marriage in the way of permission, license etc.
Just another case of the state being able to make money off the suffering of others.
I guess the state will have to write laws to specify what makes a ‘marriable’ couple.
THEY opened this door, let the games begin.
>> this is only her mother’s half-brother there is a trickier relationship <<
Yes, indeed. A niece/nephew and FULL uncle/aunt will share ca. 25% of their DNA, whereas a niece/nephew will share only ca. 12.5% of her/his DNA with a HALF uncle/aunt.
BUT:
Two first cousins will also share ca. 12.5% of their DNA.
Therefore, the degree of “genetic inbreeding” is the same
for a niece-uncle marriage as for a marriage between two first cousins.
In other words, if a state permits first cousins to marry one another, it’s hard to find a scientific justification for outlawing a marriage between a niece and her half-uncle.
On the other hand, there may be valid religious objections. I wonder if the Bible has anything to say on the matter?
Agreed.... which is why the government ought to get out of the marriage business.
If your religion has objection then deal with it there.
I think it was the daughter of his fifth cousin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.