Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Quantum Windbag]

My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.

When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.

Kent Greenfield - Boston College

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

 

[idb]

Couldn't any law defining rights or governing actions be argued to be a 'slippery slope'?

If you have to register and micro-chip your dog what's to stop registration and micro-chipping of your family?

 

[J.E.D]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

 

[J.E.D]

Couldn't any law defining rights or governing actions be argued to be a 'slippery slope'?

If you have to register and micro-chip your dog what's to stop registration and micro-chipping of your family?

That's to logical for these nutjobs.

 

[dilloduck]

All slippery slope arguments are suspect because we can stop the slide at any point. It does however open up debate on other issues when one issue is settled so to speak.

 

[Plasmaball]

i'd care but i don't. freedom of choice is a wonderful thing

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... if dem gays get the right to marry...

... den dem polygamers gonna want the right to marry...

... an' den all Hell gonna break loose...

... an' den ya won't know who's daddy's who...

... like in Indiana where dey say Hoosier daddy...

... dis world gettin' weirder an' weirded."

 

[Cookie]

If the purpose of marriage is to create a new family among consenting adults, then marrying someone who is already a family member doesn't make sense. As to polygamy, go ahead and make it legal. In polygamist marriages now one one husband and wife are "legally" married and the rest of the wives are spiritually married. Who the heck really cares?

But wait a minute ... this is really a Martin-Zimmerman thread, right? You want use to call someone racist or talk about the right to self-defense, right? This has got to be a SYG thread, right? Because no one would respond to it unless it was.

 

[Clementine]

i'd care but i don't. freedom of choice is a wonderful thing

You mean unless we would like to choose not to purchase health insurance.

I don't care what consenting adults do and if people want to make their relationship permanent and get tax breaks, etc..., then they should. How about we make it federal law that we can have only one spouse, not related to us and both parties must be of legal age? I know now teens can get married with parental consent, but we should change that, too, just so no one can marry their cousin or underage person just because the parents give consent.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

 

[PratchettFan]

My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.

When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.

Kent Greenfield - Boston College

Having any state approved marriage is equally a slippery slope. Once you allow one group the freedom to do something you open the door for others to do so as well. Personally, I don't think it is the place of the state to tell anyone who they can marry or how many can be in that marriage. So long as the state is in the marriage business, it should not discriminate.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Why are their claims inferior to different sex marriages?

 

[The Rabbi]

My guess is that the normal suspects won't do any research before they comment on this.

When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, “don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

For the intelligent people, Greenfield is a liberal law professor that actually supports same sex marraige.

Kent Greenfield - Boston College

Having any state approved marriage is equally a slippery slope. Once you allow one group the freedom to do something you open the door for others to do so as well. Personally, I don't think it is the place of the state to tell anyone who they can marry or how many can be in that marriage. So long as the state is in the marriage business, it should not discriminate.

Are you in favor of the state bein gin the divorce, alimony, custody and inheritence business? Because all of them are related.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Why are their claims inferior to different sex marriages?

Because traditional marriage serves a useful function to society as a whole. Gay marriage serves no such function.

 

[Plasmaball]

i'd care but i don't. freedom of choice is a wonderful thing

You mean unless we would like to choose not to purchase health insurance.

I don't care what consenting adults do and if people want to make their relationship permanent and get tax breaks, etc..., then they should. How about we make it federal law that we can have only one spouse, not related to us and both parties must be of legal age? I know now teens can get married with parental consent, but we should change that, too, just so no one can marry their cousin or underage person just because the parents give consent.

i disagree with mandating to buy health insurance, but thats not the samething. Nobody is telling you that you must marry the same sex.

Well.....The people against samesex marriage are telling gays that they can marry, just the opposite sex. So your argument is a fail.

i dont care if you wanted to marry your cousin. It doesnt effect me nor bother me.

 

[J.E.D]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Next.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody - not same-sex marriage proponents, not the SCOTUS - is trying to redefine marriage as anything that anybody wants. What an utterly ridiculous claim. What supporters of same-sex marriage want is to have gay marriages, unions, recognized and respected like those of opposite-sex marriages. To go from that to, "Now people will legalize bestiality, marry their siblings and practice legal pedophilia", is just fucking stupid.

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Next.

Homosexuality was illegal. Activists agitated to change it.
Next.
Are you really that thick?

 

[Katzndogz]

Why do we want to be such a denerate people?

 

[idb]

Do you honestly believe that there are not people out there who want incestuous marriages? Polygamous marriages? And so forth? Why will their claims be inferior to those demanding same sex marriages? Once the precedent is established that marriage can mean whatever anyone wants, then that has to go for everyone. There is no limiting principle.

Why are their claims inferior to different sex marriages?

Because traditional marriage serves a useful function to society as a whole. Gay marriage serves no such function.

"A useful function to society as a whole"?
Are you a communist?