Every Argument made for Gay Marriage applies to Mother's Marrying Daughters who care for a Child together.
It must be time for you to exhibit your ignorance of the law again, as well as your general stupidity.
There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage (contract) law, written by the states and administered by state courts, where either same- or opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the marriage contract.
No other type of relationship is eligible to enter into the marriage contract, because the law isn’t written to accommodate any other type of relationship, including mothers and daughters ‘marrying.’
Because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, when states seek to deny gay Americans their right to marry, those states are in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
And your thread premise fails accordingly, a consequence of your ignorance and unwarranted hatred of gay Americans.
Lemme preface: Personally, I'm all for gay marriage being legalized everywhere. That said, your argument is seriously flawed.
First off, your justification for why gay marriage and incestuous marriage are different is BS. You say that incestuous marriage is different because the law hasn't been written to accommodate it. Is that not the case with gay marriage? There's only a couple states in the Union now with laws that -do- accommodate same sex marriage.
Ah, of course, in the case of homosexuals it's different because, in their case, when the law doesn't accommodate them, the law is in violation of the equal protection clause and is therefore invalid.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Only thing is, I don't see anything in that clause distinguishing the government's right to discriminate against people who are incestuous. IF equal protection under the law means the right to marry anyone of your choosing, AND the equal protection clause makes no distinction between homosexuality and incest (doesn't mention either at all, in fact), then isn't the fact that the law isn't written to accommodate incestuous marriages JUST as contrary to the Equal Protection Clause as is the fact that they aren't written to accommodate same sex marriages?
Or maybe I'm missing something. If you can find the legal distinction that makes one protected and the other not, I'm all ears.
Also, your Equal Protection Clause argument, in general, is pretty f'in weak.
First off, look at the wording: ". . . nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Notice the equal protection of the laws part shall not be denied to any -PERSON-. This is an important distinction. Person, not people. Person. Individual. Not collective.
Given that distinction, not allowing homosexual marriage actually does -not- violate this clause. Why? Simply because each individual person -does- have the same rights and protections as each other individual person.
If I'm straight, I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not blood related to myself.
If you're gay, you also have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not blood related to yourself.
See how that works? Every individual has the same option under the law. Though I agree with your ultimate point, that gay marriage should be viewed equally by the government (which, in my view, should mean that gay marriage is shown no consideration whatsoever, just as straight marriage should be shown no consideration whatsoever by the government. Not sure why Uncle Sam felt it was his duty to reward people for finding mutual attraction), your supporting arguments are invalid.
Here's an interesting thought, though. Rather than trying to tight-rope this line between love in marriage and the government's more financially vested reasoning for being involved in marriage, why don't we just stop complaining and let the growing cultural fissure just separate the concepts completely.
You can have your government husband or wife, whoever it is you choose to enter into a legal union with for tax-based reasons and financial expediency. . . basically a non-career business partner. . . someone who has nothing to do with the type of living you make, just someone with similar income and a comparable credit score to your's, with whom its convenient to trade job benefits and things of this nature.
Then you can have your husband or wife that you're tied to emotionally and romantically, the person with whom you want to form a family. Since most of the relevant rules and statutes tend to extend to step-children anyway, it wouldn't even require more paper-work.
Gay people are already doing this, and it's ******* BRILLIANT given the level of government intervention into marriage. I don't even know why they're fighting so hard to legally combine these concepts for themselves. . . in my view, the dual-marriage situation that they've stumbled upon is actually a wiser manipulation of the current statutes, more convenient than what we straights have concocted for ourselves. If I were gay, I'd be banking on a faux-straight-marriage's bene's with a military lesbian and we'd be driving past gay marriage rallies laughing our balls off on our way to the bank, my boyfriend and her girlfriend right there in tow.
Think about how awesome it'd be not to have to take finances into account when deciding who you're going to be with romantically? Get that shit sorted out with your financial spouse. . . choose your better half for love.
