# Louisiana approves ban on gay marriage by 78 percent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120 "2004-09-20T12:22:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/81 "2004-09-21T20:55:29Z")
But in those cases the government at least advances a, debatable, state interest in its “discrimination”. But I’ve yet to see any state interest in denying equality in the case at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/82 "2004-09-21T21:15:12Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > From the _Loving_ decision, I read it as being a settled matter that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and, as such, does not need to be “created.” The _Loving_ decision settles the matter that state recognition of marriage may not be denied on account of race. You do not, I assume, question the power of states to forbid marriage between a brother and sister, even though marriage is a “fundamental right.” There is no federal case law that supports the “right” to same-sex marriage. If you say you have this right – exercise it. Enter into a same-sex marriage, and let’s see how you fare asserting federal privileges associated with it. File a joint tax return. See how far you get. By the way - the Declaration of Independence is not a source of substantive rights. If you have no corresponding remedy in law, then it’s not a right. It’s a wish. It’s a want. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/83 "2004-09-21T21:20:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > TYou do not, I assume, question the power of states to forbid marriage between a brother and sister, even though marriage is a “fundamental right.” I would question the power of the state here. Unless, of course, it is actually a crime for siblings to have sex. And even then, that law would be based on very poor science. It is easy to identify people who are allowed to marry and have children, and yet have a \*\*higher \*\*probability of producing children with genetic defects than do any random set of brother/sister siblings. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/84 "2004-09-21T21:42:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I would question the power of the state here. Unless, of course, it is actually a crime for siblings to have sex. And even then, that law would be based on very poor science. It is easy to identify people who are allowed to marry and have children, and yet have a \*\*higher \*\*probability of producing children with genetic defects than do any random set of brother/sister siblings. Very well, question away. The fact remains that every single state in the union forbids such marriages. And every single state criminalizes sibling sex, too. The idea that such pairings are automatically a genetics hazard may well be poor science - in fact, I grant that it is. But there is no rule that restricts legislation in this arena to that which is supported by good science. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/85 "2004-09-21T21:45:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And every single state criminalizes sibling sex, too. Really?? I wonder if such laws would hold up in court if challenged, as in _Lawrence_. Do you think it would? Probably doesn’t come up as an issue very often… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/86 "2004-09-21T22:20:14Z")
I agree that the language of _Lawrence_ practically invites an incestuous adult couple to challenge their convictions. For the moment, however, these statutes remain good law. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/87 "2004-09-21T22:29:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that the language of _Lawrence_ practically invites an incestuous adult couple to challenge their convictions. Well, that’s really no more than what I meant when I said “I would question the power of the state…” Clearly a law on the books is a law until it is struck down. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/88 "2004-09-21T22:45:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that the language of _Lawrence_ practically invites an incestuous adult couple to challenge their convictions. Sorry, but that’s just sky-is-falling material for the Scalia set. The _Lawrence_ majority very carefully pointed out that striking down the Texas sodomy statute did not open the door to a parade of horribles: > [@](#): > > The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Recall also that _Lawrence_ depended in large part on the holding in _Romer v. Evans_ that “animosity towards the class of persons affected” was not a constitutionally permissible reason for anti-homosexual legislation. There is no such equivalent for siblings. C’mon, **Bricker**. You know darn well that a challenge to incest laws is d.o.a. Why pretend otherwise? Can’t you criticize _Lawrence_ on its own terms without resorting to such absurdities? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/89 "2004-09-21T23:00:43Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Recall also that _Lawrence_ depended in large part on the holding in _Romer v. Evans_ that “animosity towards the class of persons affected” was not a constitutionally permissible reason for anti-homosexual legislation. There is no such equivalent for siblings. There is no rational reason for the state to forbid adult incest between persons whose union does not create a genetic risk. Is there? The holding in _Lawrence_ was not premised solely on a finding of animosity towards the class of persons affected – and, indeed, given the visceral reaction many people seem to have to incestuous relationships, “animosity” may not be a wholly inaccurate term to use here in any event. I agree that the majority in _Lawrence_ carefully distinguished their hold – no one can claim that the case is directly on point with respect to incest. But the reasoning applied in _Lawrence_ can absolutely be applied to incestuous relationships of the adult variety. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/90 "2004-09-21T23:05:22Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Sorry, but that’s just sky-is-falling material for the Scalia set. The _Lawrence_ majority very carefully pointed out that striking down the Texas sodomy statute did not open the door to a parade of horribles: Recall also that _Lawrence_ depended in large part on the holding in _Romer v. Evans_ that “animosity towards the class of persons affected” was not a constitutionally permissible reason for anti-homosexual legislation. There is no such equivalent for siblings. > > C’mon, **Bricker**. You know darn well that a challenge to incest laws is d.o.a. Why pretend otherwise? Can’t you criticize _Lawrence_ on its own terms without resorting to such absurdities? Why? The only justitfication for incest laws is the famous “ick” factor that is often used to describe anti-gay laws. Why is incest assumed to be a “sky is falling” scenario? ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/91 "2004-09-21T23:09:51Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > That’s the most absurd statement since **FriendOfGod** left us. Including the collected works of **Lolo** and **JackDeanTyler**. > > What in the Name of All that’s Holy do you think the courts **are**? Perhaps one of the 13-year-olds here could explain to you about the three branches of government in the American system. > > In addition to which, show me **where** in the Tenth Amendment **one word** is said about **rights**. The Ninth Amendment governs unenumerated **rights** ; the Tenth, **powers**. I rather think that James Madison and the First Congress and the State legislatures of 1788-89 had a passable acquaintance with the English language that included the differences in meaning between those two words – granted that much of the political-arguing public doesn’t seem to have grasped it yet. > > Geez, Louise! I have no objection to your taking a different point of view than I – but I do expect that you either argue from common ground, like the text of the Constitution, or redefine what words you plan on going Humpty Dumpty about. > > :mad: I do not offer this with the slightest shard of sarcasm. :hug: Some will hold onto their prejudices no matter how well reasoned and patient you are. I give you immense credit for all you for all you do in attempting to enlighten those who would rather stay in the darkness of their caves. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/92 "2004-09-21T23:25:26Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > C’mon, **Bricker**. You know darn well that a challenge to incest laws is d.o.a. Why pretend otherwise? Can’t you criticize _Lawrence_ on its own terms without resorting to such absurdities? On the contrary, **Bricker** previously claimed a challenge to consensual adult incest charges based on _Lawrence_ was [exactly what he would do if he were counsel to the people discussed in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=273211). Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/93 "2004-09-21T23:26:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Why? The only justitfication for incest laws is the famous “ick” factor that is often used to describe anti-gay laws. Why is incest assumed to be a “sky is falling” scenario? Becase opposion to incest is as near to unanimous as it is possible to get. Let’s not pretend that the law is oblivious to public opinion or the personal beliefs of the judges who enforce it, okay? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/94 "2004-09-21T23:32:06Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > On the contrary, **Bricker** previously claimed a challenge to consensual adult incest charges based on _Lawrence_ was [exactly what he would do if he were counsel to the people discussed in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=273211). Sure, just like I routinely challenge the constitutionality of punitive damage laws on behalf of clients I represent as defendants in lawsuits. But I don’t pretend that such challenges are anything other than d.o.a., and I do not believe for a moment that Bricker actually thinks the incest challenge had the slightest chance of succeeding. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/95 "2004-09-21T23:41:34Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Becase opposion to incest is as near to unanimous as it is possible to get. Let’s not pretend that the law is oblivious to public opinion or the personal beliefs of the judges who enforce it, okay? We’re arguing different things. I’m coming from “what should be” in this case, not from “what is”. There certainly is a time and place for each type of argument. But I would like to see the actual argument offered by a judge in upholding incest laws. I wonder what actual logical twists would be used. It would probably boil down to “there are some things that society simply cannot allow.” And I would challenge your statement wrt reality if we were talking about cousin incest (illegal in some states) as opposed to sibling or parent/child incest. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/96 "2004-09-21T23:48:15Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Sure, just like I routinely challenge the constitutionality of punitive damage laws on behalf of clients I represent as defendants in lawsuits. But I don’t pretend that such challenges are anything other than d.o.a., and I do not believe for a moment that Bricker actually thinks the incest challenge had the slightest chance of succeeding. > [@Bricker](#): > > it’s an almost guaranteed shot at a state supreme court hearing, and a better-than-your-average-trial-issue’s chance for US Supreme Court cert. Admittedly this isn’t the same as a final verdict in his favor, but he laid out the specifics of his case on page two of that thread and seemed to believe it had a good chance of succeeding using the _Lawrence_ rationale. The quote above certainly doesn’t look like he believes it to be a d.o.a. arguement. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/97 "2004-09-22T00:49:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But I would like to see the actual argument offered by a judge in upholding incest laws. Easy. Even ignoring the functionally unanimous support for anti-incest laws, try this: (1) Nothing in the Constitution, any statute, or the common law expressly or impliedly protects incest. (2) Hundreds of years of completely uninterrupted legal authority say it’s illegal. Those laws have always been enforced too (quite unlike sodomy laws). (3) Incest laws are clearly not motivated by animosity towards close family members. (4) Genetics concerns provide a rational basis for prohibiting incest. (5) Families. You gotta admit, incest isn’t exactly the greatest thing ever for healthy family life. Seriously, you think incest and homosexuality are even remotely comparable, legally speaking? Come on now. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/98 "2004-09-22T00:50:17Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Admittedly this isn’t the same as a final verdict in his favor, but he laid out the specifics of his case on page two of that thread and seemed to believe it had a good chance of succeeding using the _Lawrence_ rationale. The quote above certainly doesn’t look like he believes it to be a d.o.a. arguement. He may be right, in that it is the kind of issue courts like to take up just so they can issue opinions that say “Are you fucking crazy?” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/99 "2004-09-22T00:56:34Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Seriously, you think incest and homosexuality are even remotely comparable, legally speaking? Come on now. Are you joking? Except for #4, all of those arguments can be and \*\*are \*\*used against homosexual marriage. And #4 has been shown to be a significant exageration. The increased proability of genetic problems is tiny. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120/100 "2004-09-22T02:07:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Are you joking? Except for #4, all of those arguments can be and \*\*are \*\*used against homosexual marriage. So what? Since when am I (or the law) required to concede an argument on one issue merely because I (or the law) accept it on a completely different issue? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/louisiana-approves-ban-on-gay-marriage-by-78-percent/265120.md?page=6)