It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people.
The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!
I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.
On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot 1.2.14
So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.
Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues
. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry
They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues.
The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.
Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so. It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.
So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!
Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm
Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such,
kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market. It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have
low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy.
Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions (Sailer, 2004 - See more at:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf
In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships
is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it. Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless. A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear? Consider the legal and social ramifications.
Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group. We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity. Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society.
Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage. It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.
