(06-26-2015 09:34 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  I don't think the door is open to marriage with children and animals as neither can give consent.

But the door is wide open to sibling marriage, marriage between parents and adult children, cousin marriage and polygamy.

I would expect polygamists to test the water first. There is no reason why their form of marriage should be illegal at this point if they are all consenting adults. Any excuses such as inheritance issues etc can be solved with a simple will and paternity with DNA testing.

How was the 'door not open' to straight, incestuous marriage' before this ruling?

I want to marry my lawnmower.

Don't be a bigot. Mowaphobes. All of you.

(06-26-2015 09:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:34 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  I don't think the door is open to marriage with children and animals as neither can give consent.

But the door is wide open to sibling marriage, marriage between parents and adult children, cousin marriage and polygamy.

I would expect polygamists to test the water first. There is no reason why their form of marriage should be illegal at this point if they are all consenting adults. Any excuses such as inheritance issues etc can be solved with a simple will and paternity with DNA testing.

How was the 'door not open' to straight, incestuous marriage' before this ruling?

You're the legal expert, you tell us.

(06-26-2015 09:37 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I want to marry my lawnmower.

Don't be a bigot. Mowaphobes. All of you.

Can your mower give consent?

What I'm really looking for is the details of the ruling. If the ruling was done on 14th Amendment grounds, then does that create a de facto 'protected class' status for LGBT persons in other areas, for example?

(06-26-2015 09:37 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I want to marry my lawnmower.

Don't be a bigot. Mowaphobes. All of you.

I know of at least 3 SR posters who'll deny you that right.

(06-26-2015 09:38 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:37 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I want to marry my lawnmower.

Don't be a bigot. Mowaphobes. All of you.

Can your mower give consent?

Yes. But it merely identifies as an inanimate object. And who are you to tell it what it can/can't be?

(06-26-2015 09:38 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What I'm really looking for is the details of the ruling. If the ruling was done on 14th Amendment grounds, then does that create a de facto 'protected class' status for LGBT persons in other areas, for example?

It was on 14th amendment grounds.

(06-26-2015 09:38 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:37 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I want to marry my lawnmower.

Don't be a bigot. Mowaphobes. All of you.

Can your mower give consent?

Doesn't matter. SCOTUS will just insert language into the Constitution, like they did today and yesterday, and all will be right with the world.

Polygamy, incest, etc. have been shown to do noticeable physical and mental harm to those exposed to it. Children and animals cannot give consent. However, the long term effects of gay marriage on those exposed are inconclusive at best, and gay adults are obviously capable of consenting to marriage. Hence it makes little sense to keep it banned imo.

(06-26-2015 09:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:34 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  I don't think the door is open to marriage with children and animals as neither can give consent.

But the door is wide open to sibling marriage, marriage between parents and adult children, cousin marriage and polygamy.

I would expect polygamists to test the water first. There is no reason why their form of marriage should be illegal at this point if they are all consenting adults. Any excuses such as inheritance issues etc can be solved with a simple will and paternity with DNA testing.

How was the 'door not open' to straight, incestuous marriage' before this ruling?

Because today a behavior became equal protection for the first time. I don't see how there can be laws against much of anything anymore. Isn't alcoholism a disease? DUI and public intoxication laws would violate both equal protection and the ADA now it seems.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(06-26-2015 09:41 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Polygamy, incest, etc. have been shown to do noticeable physical and mental harm to those exposed to it. Children and animals cannot give consent. However, the long term effects of gay marriage on those exposed are inconclusive at best, and gay adults are obviously capable of consenting to marriage. Hence it makes little sense to keep it banned imo.

Again, it doesn't matter. The door's been open and you (generally speaking) can't deny anyone any kind of marriage. At all.

(06-26-2015 09:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:34 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  I don't think the door is open to marriage with children and animals as neither can give consent.

But the door is wide open to sibling marriage, marriage between parents and adult children, cousin marriage and polygamy.

I would expect polygamists to test the water first. There is no reason why their form of marriage should be illegal at this point if they are all consenting adults. Any excuses such as inheritance issues etc can be solved with a simple will and paternity with DNA testing.

How was the 'door not open' to straight, incestuous marriage' before this ruling?

It may have been legal in some areas but certainly was taboo.
It shouldn't be now if they are consenting adults and love each other.

http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/20...lings.html

"Some siblings report that they have been able to get a marriage license in places like the US based on the ignorance of the authorities, such as the siblings being born in different states or countries and/or not having a shared parent listed on their birth certificates. However, if the laws of that location do not recognize sibling marriages as valid, or if consanguinamory is illegal in that jurisdiction, a marriage license is a potential piece of evidence that can be used in criminal prosecution, and that’s sad.

If siblings want to get married, they should be free to marry. Inequality, based on prejudice, is counterproductive. All over the world, there are siblings living as spouses; there always has been, some with the knowledge and support of friends and family, some hiding the full nature of their relationship. Sooner or later, full marriage equality will be in place in more progressive places, allowing siblings to marry without discrimination or fear of prosecution. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later."

What if a 12 year old boy identifies as an 18 year old woman?

Can I marry it?

(06-26-2015 09:39 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:38 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  What I'm really looking for is the details of the ruling. If the ruling was done on 14th Amendment grounds, then does that create a de facto 'protected class' status for LGBT persons in other areas, for example?

It was on 14th amendment grounds.

Which was, in my non-lawyer grounds, the best possible ruling, if I'm reading this correctly.

They seemed to be 3 ways that the court could have ruled in favor of equality 1) "Full faith and Credit", which would have been the weakest favorable ruling. 2) "No rational basis" would have been a less sweeping ruling and 3) "14th Amendment", which could be used as a precedent in other civil rights issues.

Honestly, the desire for polygamy seems more of a natural occurrence than homosexual marriage.

On the weirdness scale, I'd put polygamy behind gay marriage. Personally I don't know how a man could handle more than one wife, but ya know.

(06-26-2015 09:42 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:41 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Polygamy, incest, etc. have been shown to do noticeable physical and mental harm to those exposed to it. Children and animals cannot give consent. However, the long term effects of gay marriage on those exposed are inconclusive at best, and gay adults are obviously capable of consenting to marriage. Hence it makes little sense to keep it banned imo.

Again, it doesn't matter. The door's been open and you (generally speaking) can't deny anyone any kind of marriage. At all.

Disagreed. The court decision uses strong language emphasizing the importance of strong family ties in same-sex couples. Such consent and family foundation is not equivalent in polygamy, incest, etc. as L&H said.

The gnashing of teeth here is stunning.

(06-26-2015 09:43 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  What if a 12 year old boy identifies as an 18 year old woman?

Can I marry it?

This made me lol

(06-26-2015 09:42 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:34 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  I don't think the door is open to marriage with children and animals as neither can give consent.

But the door is wide open to sibling marriage, marriage between parents and adult children, cousin marriage and polygamy.

I would expect polygamists to test the water first. There is no reason why their form of marriage should be illegal at this point if they are all consenting adults. Any excuses such as inheritance issues etc can be solved with a simple will and paternity with DNA testing.

How was the 'door not open' to straight, incestuous marriage' before this ruling?

It may have been legal in some areas but certainly was taboo.
It shouldn't be now if they are consenting adults and love each other.

http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/20...lings.html

"Some siblings report that they have been able to get a marriage license in places like the US based on the ignorance of the authorities, such as the siblings being born in different states or countries and/or not having a shared parent listed on their birth certificates. However, if the laws of that location do not recognize sibling marriages as valid, or if consanguinamory is illegal in that jurisdiction, a marriage license is a potential piece of evidence that can be used in criminal prosecution, and that’s sad.

If siblings want to get married, they should be free to marry. Inequality, based on prejudice, is counterproductive. All over the world, there are siblings living as spouses; there always has been, some with the knowledge and support of friends and family, some hiding the full nature of their relationship. Sooner or later, full marriage equality will be in place in more progressive places, allowing siblings to marry without discrimination or fear of prosecution. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later."

My point on these straw man arguments is that this ruling doesn't make a case for or against incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, or marriages between a person/animal/thing that cannot consent and yourself. It never did and never will.