Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk
incest = gay marriage?
really Joe?
|
Did I say they were equivalent? I think it is very different. Just as many think that a homosexual marriage is very different from that of the historical definition of marriage. At the same time, however, I simply assert that the ability for any State to legally prohibit such a union is highly questionable in light of the SC's rationale for invalidating DOMA.
The legal basis for homosexual marriage is that we cannot deny two consenting adults the right to enter into the contract of marriage. Even if a legislative body properly enacts such a denial through the appropriate legal process, the denial of the right to marry between two consenting adults is an unconstitutional denial of their equal protection under the law and due process rights. How is such a contract between two consenting siblings any less a denial of the same?
Based on the DOMA ruling, incestous, polygamous and other contractual unions between consenting adults cannot rely on the "b/c the majority of us don't like it" or even, I would suggest, "b/c we think it unhealthy". One of the arguments for traditional marriage was the "health and well being" of the American family structure. In striking down the argument - rather than recognizes an overriding societal concern held by the majority as a legitimate and appropriate legislative goal - the Court said such arguments do not outweigh the right of consenting individuals to enter into contracts, and gain the benefits of such a contract, that are granted under a marriage contract.
To be clear (1) I do not oppose homosexual marriage; and (2) I think incestous marriages are in no way equivalent of homosexual marriages. I am only highlighting the effects of judicial activism in the DOMA ruling. IMHO,by removing the definition of "marriage" from the appropriate policy making body, the SC has created a situation in which, only through base hypocrisy, can it legally uphold a State's prohibition agains incestous marriages.