Skip to main content

View Diary: The Week in Marriage Equality: Bostic vs Schaefer and its aftermath (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think that they will make that stick. (7+ / 0-)

    It's the basic Orwellian concept of turning notions of rights upside down that fascinates me.

    They have previously tried the gambit that gays and lesbians had the same right to marriage as everybody else, they just had to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

    •  I've encountered this on other sites (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AJayne, sfbob

      I always used to point out that the straights getting to marry who they loved and gays or lesbians not getting to marry who they loved was NOT equality.    That shut most of them up.

      •  I think I have figured out... (0+ / 0-)

        how not to fall into certain...traps.

        Some of them are easy to deal with...

        Q: "If we give gays the right to marry each other what's to stop the courts from allowing adults to marry children?"

        A: "Marriage requires consent. Under other laws children by definition cannot give consent." (This works with the "marrying their dog or their computer" crap too. No consent=no marriage.)

        Q: "If we give gays the right to marry each other what's to stop the courts from allowing multiple marriages?"

        A: "Consent of the person not entering the additional marriage(s) and confusion about how to deal with dividing property in case there is no will. It's one marriage at a time per customer here."

        And now the less obvious one:

        Q: "If we give gays the right to marry each other what's to stop the courts from allowing someone to marry their brother or sister or parent?"

        A: "It's not just because in-breeding is a bad idea. It's because if someone is your brother, sister or parent, there's already one legally-recognized relationship. Once you have one legally-recognized with some person you can't then get a second one." (Note: there are complexities involved in states that permit first cousins to marry but in most of those states the laws require that at least one be above a certain age and/or be medically determined to be incapable of procreating.)

        •  My response to these "slippery slope" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sfbob

          type-arguments is a variation on something Bill Maher said: "When we granted women the right to vote, we just couldn't stop ourselves, so now squirrels and philodendrons have the right to vote, too.  Oh, wait . . . "

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site