The Democrat Thread

[Soxbadger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/g...kusaolp00000592

 

This has always been one of my favorite counter-arguments.

[StrangeSox]

Windsor really opened the floodgates. I wonder if it will ever even make it to the supreme court at this point if all of the lower courts are issuing similar rulings.

[cabiness42]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/g...kusaolp00000592

 

This has always been one of my favorite counter-arguments.

 

I don't know if anybody will have the drive to pursue it, but of course there really isn't any more constitutional ground to ban polygamy than there is same-sex marriage.

[StrangeSox]

There's no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from two-person marriages. There is a rational basis for having marriage be a two person arrangement from a civil perspective.

[Jenksismyhero]

There's no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from two-person marriages. There is a rational basis for having marriage be a two person arrangement from a civil perspective.

 

And what's that?

[StrangeSox]

There's nothing irrational about deciding that a certain civil status can only be conferred on two people. Much of existing law and private policies surrounding legal marriage would have to be reworked to allow for more-than-two-people legal marriages. SS survivors benefits, power of attorney, health insurance policies for you and your spouse, visitation rights and rights to information at hospitals, etc.

 

I don't personally care, and just because something meets a rational basis doesn't mean it's good or correct policy. But there's an obvious difference between a civil arrangement of two people that excludes certain consenting adults and a civil arrangement that's open to any two consenting people but is limited to two.

[cabiness42]

There's nothing irrational about deciding that a certain civil status can only be conferred on two people. Much of existing law and private policies surrounding legal marriage would have to be reworked to allow for more-than-two-people legal marriages. SS survivors benefits, power of attorney, health insurance policies for you and your spouse, visitation rights and rights to information at hospitals, etc.

 

I don't personally care, and just because something meets a rational basis doesn't mean it's good or correct policy. But there's an obvious difference between a civil arrangement of two people that excludes certain consenting adults and a civil arrangement that's open to any two consenting people but is limited to two.

 

There are still several laws that exclude certain consenting adults. Those should all be done away with, right?

[StrangeSox]

Possibly. Can you present a rational basis* for keeping them? So far, SSM opponents haven't been able to articulate any rational basis argument, which is one reason they have been losing in court pretty routinely.

 

 

*though IIRC several of the recent SSM rulings have risen it above a rational basis standard

[Jenksismyhero]

There's nothing irrational about deciding that a certain civil status can only be conferred on two people. Much of existing law and private policies surrounding legal marriage would have to be reworked to allow for more-than-two-people legal marriages. SS survivors benefits, power of attorney, health insurance policies for you and your spouse, visitation rights and rights to information at hospitals, etc.

 

I don't personally care, and just because something meets a rational basis doesn't mean it's good or correct policy. But there's an obvious difference between a civil arrangement of two people that excludes certain consenting adults and a civil arrangement that's open to any two consenting people but is limited to two.

 

So we shouldn't change law because it'll require some work? Wasn't there quite a bit of law that needed to be changed to allow same sex marriage?

 

[cabiness42]

Possibly. Can you present a rational basis* for keeping them? So far, SSM opponents haven't been able to articulate any rational basis argument, which is one reason they have been losing in court pretty routinely.

 

 

*though IIRC several of the recent SSM rulings have risen it above a rational basis standard

 

Just wanted to get you on the record as allowing marriages between siblings and parents/children.

[StrangeSox]

So we shouldn't change law because it'll require some work? Wasn't there quite a bit of law that needed to be changed to allow same sex marriage?

 

No, not really. Just change "one man and one woman" to "two consenting adults" and everything else remains exactly the same.

 

I don't care one way or the other about a polygamy ban, but I think proponents of one have a much stronger legal argument than anti-SSM people do. But the reality is that the two don't really share that much in common other than both being about marriage.

[StrangeSox]

Just wanted to get you on the record as allowing marriages between siblings and parents/children.

 

Many states allow first cousin marriages. Albert Einstein indulged. But one issue is that the immediate-family incestual relationships are often f***ed up power/control situations, especially if you're talking about cross-generational. That's my issue with polygamy as well. It brings into question how much consent really is there.

 

Either way, my point was to highlight the legal standards that actually have to be met for a law. SSM bans fail these legal tests repeatedly. "Ew, it's icky" isn't actually a rational basis that justifies some discriminatory practice.

Edited June 9, 2014 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

There's nothing irrational about deciding that a certain civil status can only be conferred on two people. Much of existing law and private policies surrounding legal marriage would have to be reworked to allow for more-than-two-people legal marriages. SS survivors benefits, power of attorney, health insurance policies for you and your spouse, visitation rights and rights to information at hospitals, etc.

 

I don't personally care, and just because something meets a rational basis doesn't mean it's good or correct policy. But there's an obvious difference between a civil arrangement of two people that excludes certain consenting adults and a civil arrangement that's open to any two consenting people but is limited to two.

 

It is done in the cases of inheritances all of the time.

[StrangeSox]

It is done in the cases of inheritances all of the time.

Sure, but what comes to mind is the messy, broken "separate but equal" "we'll just give them Civil Unions and it'll be exactly the same" attempts that have been tried for SSM. We saw over and over again that it wasn't really separate but equal because the rest of the systems relied on civil marriage and how it was defined. Allowing same-sex marriage in Illinois on June 1st didn't require any sort of additional restructuring of government and private policies and definitions. At worst, maybe some forms had to be rewritten to be non gender-specific. After the Wisconsin law was struck down, clerks could immediately begin issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples without having to worry about any other potential issues. The same couldn't be said for expanding marriage behind two people.

 

Which, again, isn't an argument one way or the other about whether polygamy should be illegal. Just pointing out the clear distinction.

[cabiness42]

Many states allow first cousin marriages. Albert Einstein indulged. But one issue is that the immediate-family incestual relationships are often f***ed up power/control situations, especially if you're talking about cross-generational. That's my issue with polygamy as well. It brings into question how much consent really is there.

 

Either way, my point was to highlight the legal standards that actually have to be met for a law. SSM bans fail these legal tests repeatedly. "Ew, it's icky" isn't actually a rational basis that justifies some discriminatory practice.

 

You can find lots of hetero- and homo-sexual marriages where there are tons of questions about how much consent is really there. That argument wouldn't hold up in court when trying to defend polygamy or incest.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

You can find lots of hetero- and homo-sexual marriages where there are tons of questions about how much consent is really there. That argument wouldn't hold up in court when trying to defend polygamy or incest.

 

It wouldn't hold up in court that older siblings and parents can easily groom children for abuse?

 

Since you don't think the consent issue is significant, should I assume you are in favor of removing any restrictions on close-family incestual marriages?

[StrangeSox]

You can find lots of hetero- and homo-sexual marriages where there are tons of questions about how much consent is really there. That argument wouldn't hold up in court when trying to defend polygamy or incest.

 

I am not familiar with any actual legal challenges or legal arguments against incest and polygamy bans. I was just throwing some stuff at the wall.

 

But the main point is that just because one form of discrimination or restriction doesn't meet rational basis (or intermediate scrutiny, depending on which ruling you're looking at) doesn't mean every other restriction must also fall.

[cabiness42]

I am not familiar with any actual legal challenges or legal arguments against incest and polygamy bans. I was just throwing some stuff at the wall.

 

But the main point is that just because one form of discrimination or restriction doesn't meet rational basis (or intermediate scrutiny, depending on which ruling you're looking at) doesn't mean every other restriction must also fall.

 

I'm not aware of any legal challenges either, but given the recent court decisions I don't see how one could fail if it were brought.

[cabiness42]

It wouldn't hold up in court that older siblings and parents can easily groom children for abuse?

 

Since you don't think the consent issue is significant, should I assume you are in favor of removing any restrictions on close-family incestual marriages?

 

Can't non-siblings/parents, who might be close friends of the family, also easily groom children for abuse? I'm just saying that once you remove one restriction on marriage, it's very hard legally to justify the rest of them. States either have the right to make restrictions or they don't. Any reason you can find to be against incestual marriage occurs (although possibly less frequently) in other types of marriages.

[StrangeSox]

It all comes down to whether or not the government can articulate an appropriate legal argument (rational basis/intermediate scrutiny/heightened scrutiny etc.) for the ban. Nothing in Windsor or any of these recent rulings that rely on it lead directly to the idea that no restriction on marriage whatsoever is constitutional.

 

What we've seen over and over in the SSM cases is that the government or the various outside groups arguing the case can't even meet rational basis requirements. It comes down to religious tradition again and again and flimsy arguments about "the children" or procreation that don't stand up to even the weakest examination.

 

eta: I would google some of the legal arguments around incest/polygamy but I'm back at work so

Edited June 9, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Can't non-siblings/parents, who might be close friends of the family, also easily groom children for abuse? I'm just saying that once you remove one restriction on marriage, it's very hard legally to justify the rest of them. States either have the right to make restrictions or they don't. Any reason you can find to be against incestual marriage occurs (although possibly less frequently) in other types of marriages.

 

Just so you're aware, this argument is identical to some arguments made against Loving.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Can't non-siblings/parents, who might be close friends of the family, also easily groom children for abuse?

 

No. Older siblings and parents live with them and are sources of authority.

 

I'm just saying that once you remove one restriction on marriage, it's very hard legally to justify the rest of them.

 

That's not true. When we dumped anti-miscegenation laws, we didn't have to get rid of age restrictions. We recognized that one restriction was stupid, while the other was important.

 

States either have the right to make restrictions or they don't.

 

So you would support a state restriction marriage based on race or religion?

[cabiness42]

No. Older siblings and parents live with them and are sources of authority.

 

 

 

That's not true. When we dumped anti-miscegenation laws, we didn't have to get rid of age restrictions. We recognized that one restriction was stupid, while the other was important.

 

 

 

So you would support a state restriction marriage based on race or religion?

 

There are plenty of non-traditional households where children are interacting with lots of people who aren't parents or siblings.

 

I support consistency. Either states have the rights to make restrictions or they don't.

Edited June 9, 2014 by HickoryHuskers

[CrimsonWeltall]

There are plenty of non-traditional households where children are interacting with lots of people who aren't parents or siblings.

 

There are some, sure. But unless you want to prevent anyone from marrying, there's no reasonable way to prohibit or discourage that. There is for close family members.

 

I support consistency. Either states have the rights to make restrictions or they don't.

 

So if the state has any power at all, it has unlimited power? Does this apply to any other area of law?

 

I'd also like your personal opinion of what restrictions, if any, you support.

Edited June 9, 2014 by CrimsonWeltall

[cabiness42]

There are some, sure. But unless you want to prevent anyone from marrying, there's no reasonable way to prohibit or discourage that. There is for close family members.

 

 

 

So if the state has any power at all, it has unlimited power? Does this apply to any other area of law?

 

I'd also like your personal opinion of what restrictions, if any, you support.

 

My point is that the "close family members" prohibition is a lazy way to get at the real problem, which is adult/child influences that may or may not be familial.

 

My personal opinion is that marriage should be eliminated. Allow consenting adults to "consumate" whatever relationships they want through legal paperwork.