We are talking about an ATTRACTION, not just the behavior. You can't seem to see past that. You can't have the behavior without the attraction. What you are claiming is that more people will be attracted to their siblings, simply because they allow marriage when they are adults, regardless of how they educate people on the matter. That is a HUGE assumption, sorry. We are talking about legalizing MARRIAGE between relatives, NOT opening the flood gates and allowing and encouraging incest in all aspects of life. I did say in the my first post of this nature, that incest is different from homosexuality because of the reproduction issue. Aside from that, where is the harm and suffering to others? Even if your assumption is true and more siblings have sex, who does it harm? Who suffers other than their potential offspring? I mean, I think it would be obvious that if this happened there would have to be regulations and the reproductive issue would have to be overcome. The act of marriage in itself is irrelevant to most of that, however.
Here's the thing with tradition. Let's look at real tradition that holds true and is constant with all life. Evolution, both biologically and simple change over time are both evident undeniable aspects of reality. When people talk about "ancient" human customs, they aren't even the looking at the tip of the iceberg. In the early stages of life, there was no such thing as sexual reproduction. All species produced asexually. Over millions and millions of years some populations evolved the ability to reproduce both sexually and asexually. Sexually became better for genetic diversity and eventually took over in most life forms. There are still asexual organisms on earth today. Now it seems logical to believe that in the early evolutionary stages of sexual reproduction there was a point when the genders were almost identical, before they really became defined. At that point, every creature was essentially a homosexual. Obviously that long predates humans and all hominid ancestors, but if you trace your ancestors far back enough, you will learn that homosexuality is in your roots, one way or another. If you go back further you will find that your ancestors essentially "fucked themselves". You could pretty much credit masturbation and homosexuality for our existence today. This is why judging or restricting rights of people because of an attraction is ludicrous. Times change, things evolve, people change. There's no reason any individual should promote the restriction of the rights of another if it doesn't cause harm to others. That is a core belief of mine and it won't change regardless of how taboo or "unacceptable" a current form of attraction or behavior is perceived in mainstream society. It really is about religious oppression. They really don't like it when people don't conform to their way of life. I vote for live and let live. You can't control everything.
People throw around the word "rights" with such recklessness. I'll ask the question that was asked of Ted Olson in the hearing, and then clumsily danced around: When did same sex marriage become a "right"? 2000 years ago, 200 years ago, or five years ago? I have the "right" to do all sorts of odd stuff, but the question is much more narrow. The question is, whether or not our Constitution should concern itself with such things at all. Governments discriminate all the time. Governments regulate how humans, and their natural rights, interact with each other in a society. That's what they do. That that's why including the bugs and worms that crawled out of the ooze into the conversation is just so much wasted time. Societal tradition IS a Constitutionally valid reason to keep a man-woman definition of marriage. Both sides in the Prop 8 trial conceded that they could not predict the sociological effect of allowing same sex marriage. So, in the absence of any contrary evidence, maintaining the status quo would seem to me a fairly safe and reasonable thing to do. But if a democratic process wants to choose to try something else, I'm fine with that too. Both sides in court were asked why marriage is "traditionally" a male-female relationship, and both concede it was probably created from a basic division of labor. You can make an argument that society's desire to recognize gay marriage outweighs tradition, but ignoring tradition is obtuse. There's a real-live reason why it became traditional in the first place - because society progressed under that framework. If a majority chooses to try something else, that's fine. But dismissing tradition as something merely quaint misses the point entirely.
The problem with the maintain the status quo argument is that the status quo is already changing. Till death do us part? Not really any more.
no, the logic of the argument for one applies to the other. the basis of laws are that they are written broadly and logically, and the only broad and logical position is that the government cannot restrict any marriage. the moment you start creating restrictions, you are acknowledging that the government has the right to do so, and once you acknowledge that right you have no basis to criticize when they create a restriction just because you don't like it.
here i go. (i feel like a preschooler at a nursing home). what's the point then? cause what it looks like you're saying is you support rules and "tradition" because they create tension and ideas to change them. maybe i'm wrong in that interpretation. that thought process is not progress, imo...that's just reinforcing a "safe" boundary and making opponents jump it. what's so unsafe about this anyway? are people going to die because we legalize the right to marry whoever we choose?
slavery was a tradition in the south, anti-semitism was a tradition in germany, sodomy between students and teachers was a tradition in ancient greece, ritual sacrifice was a tradition in aztec society, women not being able to leave the house without the company of an escort used to be a tradition... tradition is meaningless and changes with the values of the culture.
...we hold these truths to be self evident, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... unless of course your idea of happiness is icky to me.
also, all this crap about a precedent being set with the federal goverment taking over etc. same line of crap used by 'non-racists' that were against civil rights legislation
The point is that we're not discussing an issue floating in a vacuum. We're discussing a real-life policy in a Constitutional context, and the issue - specifically - is whether there is a reasonable policy reason for restricting the definition of "marriage" to man-woman. 2000+ years of tradition is one of the several reasonable reasons. This didn't come out in the argument at the Court, but same sex marriage side would no doubt agree. Which is why they spent most of their time arguing for a higher level of scrutiny than just "reasonableness." Not all change is progress, and not everyone's concept of progress is the same. My idea of progress on this issue would be for government to be out of the marriage business altogether. Because government does nothing efficiently, and marriage is no exception. As we're seeing. Or, allow the policy to evolve through a democratic process. As we're seeing. If there were a new vote in California tomorrow, polls suggest that Proposition 8 would be repealed. Stretching the United States Constitution to accommodate an interest group isn't necessary. Nor is it progress.
I won't spend a lot of time here because you've obviously not spent a lot of time reading what I've said on the issue. No, tradition is not meaningless; but, yes, values DO change. And societies amend their laws to reflect contemporary values. That's exactly what we're doing with same-sex marriage. Problem solved. The Supreme Court can stay out of it.
Making the case not only solely about equal protection but with heightened scrutiny would seem, politics aside, to be a fool's errand, but of course that does not mean it was never going to happen, as it appears it has. Interesting to see what a ruling will look like if DOMA is thrown out. Almost certainly Kennedy, assuming he gives the fifth vote, will not sign on to an opinion that agrees this is a heightened scrutiny equal protection case, even if Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan go that route. Which also remains to be seen. What would be very amusing (not of course to the homosexual activists) is if DOMA were upheld, because the conservative justices would then have to find federal jurisdiction. Heh.
That's a real good point that doesn't get enough discussion. Marriage ISN'T the institution it once was, and this is the principal reason why I don't think the government should be in the business of marriage. Which is to say, if marriage was created for a reason, because it created an efficient system for division of labor. Man went out hunting; women cultivated crops and nurtured the next generation. You'd be better and beating that history to death than I would. We now have a system where marriages are weak partnerships that get broken at extraordinarily high rates. And it seems to me that this is counterproductive to the reason marriage was created in the first place. Whether we have same-sex marriage or not, that problem will still exist. Probably worse so.
But I obviously have problems with the second paragraph here. While I concede that government action often has a transaction cost and, on occasion, even a negative effect, through pursuit of bad policy, beyond the transaction cost, that does not mean that doing nothing is always the better alternative. Doing nothing in fact if carried to its logical conclusion amounts to anarchy. Not only is anarchy an unpleasant concept, it is not going to happen in the real world. Too much depends on avoiding it. I can go so far as saying that there should be some (but of coures not overriding or insurmountable) presumption in favor of individual liberty, but not where it trumps what amounts to a real societal interest under a sort of utilitarian analysis. It is unreasonable to expect government to stay completely out of the marriage business. Too much depends on recognition of the institution, including among other matters parenting and other family rights and oblgations, and property rights, not only in intestate succession but also in recognition of rights of surviving spouses. To name just a few.
The oral argument has about 30 minutes of discussion on standing that you could skip over. Listen on the train. You'll hear Justice Breyer use the term several times: "rational basis-plus." I had to scratch my head to think what that could be, because it wasn't a term I was real familiar with. I read him to mean something more than rational basis, but less than intermediate scrutiny. I Googled it. It was a standard first established in a case argued by - guess who - Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I can't find the article, but it was interesting. And it seems like that's where the liberal wing of the Court will want to go.
This is the blog article I was talking about above. So, if you're looking for how Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor are going to vote, I suppose you should bone up on Reed v. Reed.
But if government got completely out of the business of marriage, efficiencies could result. My opinion. People may consider their partnerships more seriously, and, perhaps more important for immediate concerns, those interested in the "sanctity" of marriage could have their marriage blessed by their church, synagogue, mosque or druid princess. I think of it in these terms; and maybe anyone who had an off-campus roommate in college could appreciate this: Two 20-somethings graduate from South Hampton Institute of Technology and between them they're not earning enough to move out of their respective parents' basements. Partnered together, they can afford enough to rent an apartment together. If they take their responsibilities seriously, they divide duties and expenses efficiently - one cooks, the other buys the food, one has a television, the other has a sofa. They sign a lease - an unbreakable legal obligation (presumably) - that COMPELS them to work these issues out even if they're not the best of friends. So, they alter their conduct a little more respectfully to the other partner. And if they're respectful to each other, there's also an important social bond that develops and grows, leading to MORE cooperation and MORE efficiency. Now, if they were tenants at-will, and if either of them could pick up and bolt at any time, they have no incentive to cooperate. No incentive to work toward a more efficient relationship. One dude isn't bringing anything into the partnership - doesn't shop, doesn't cook, leaves dip cups all over the house - there's no incentive for the other roommate to stick around. After two months, they're both out looking for new roommates. That serious contractual relationship - the lease - MADE them divide duties, comport themselves well, create an amicable social bond, and so forth. It doesn't always work out, but that's when our courts step in. That's a noble role for government. But, government's unserious definition of marriage, whether it be man-woman, man-man, woman-woman or otherwise - stinks. It operates inefficiently. I'm open to suggestions on how to fix it. Adding same-sex marriage into the mix can't be a solution. All that does is create more weak partnerships. Maybe we start reconsidering the practical impact of no-fault divorce; although, I don't know how you put that cat back in the bag. And the reason why I think government getting OUT of marriage is the better solution, because whatever we do next to fix things would be akin to drafting a mediocre quarterback at the top of the first round. We inevitably have to suffer years of anguish before we recognize failure.
i do agree that government should stay out of marriages. it should be between the two (or more) people involved. just like roommates are. but just because some people have failed marriages doesn't mean the opportunity for people to marry and take that next step in a close relationship should be denied because of some law. so yeah, making marriage/divorce expense-free would be a better option, imo. all i know about that is wedding costs and legal stuff for divorces probably costs a bunch..but that should all be discretionary.
