I have been wondering about this myself, but not enough to start a thread.
I know several hetero couples in long term, committed relationships who avail themselves of domestic partner healthcare. With both Scotus rulings this week I have wondered if this will disappear from employer healthcare options.
After all they can sign up for an ACA policy or get married, just like everyone else now…
I said nothing about any obligation and nothing about pretending anyone has a rational argument. I’m suggesting that if you interact on a regular basis with someone who is still opposed to gay marriage, you certainly could take an approach of “neener neener neener”. And if you do, well, I’m not going to judge you or sneer at you. After all, while I’m passionately pro gay marriage, I’m a married straight man myself, so the issue certainly doesn’t carry the same personal weight for me as it does for many.
But you could also take an approach of taking the moral high ground, realizing that they are upset, and continuing to show them, both with reasoned words and (if you are gay, and particularly if you are gay and married) by example, why this ruling is so clearly correct.
Bigotry has lost one big legal battle, but it still has an unfortunate amount of power, and the way to decrease that bigotry, imho, is not by compromising (because we are right and they are wrong) but it’s also not with mockery and derision.
First off - hurrah for marriage equality. I do have some questions about the decision, though. I read through it but I simply don’t have the wherewithal to fully parse it - the depth and breadth of my ignorance is just too great. For those in the legal profession:
Do the principles invoked in the decision open the doors for siblings marrying each other? Presumably, the rights invoked for allowing marriage of same sex couples can be invoked for marrying siblings, am I wrong? How about for mother/father-adult child couples? Are there any in-principle distinctions between gay marriage and incestuous marriage of adults insofar as the decision is concerned.
The reason I ask is that this is something that will be asked by opponents of marriage equality and it would really be nice to have an answer.
Employers will have to offer equal benefits to all married couples. So if they have been offering benefits to married hetero couples, they will have to offer the same benefits to married GLBT couples.*
And yes, in many states (29, I think) GLBT people can get married, but could also be legally fired for doing so. That’s referred to as “Married on Sunday, fired on Monday”. Google it. Or see www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2015/03/09/106966/infographic-legally-married-and-legally-fired/ for more info.
Are there any in-principle distinctions between straight marriage and incestuous marriage of adults (of opposite sex)?
Yes. The traditional definition of marriage as defined by the framers exclude incestuous marriages. But the use of traditional definitions is a principle we can no longer afford ourselves (unless I’m mistaken).
Possibly some states could have poorly-written, gender-differentiated laws that say things like “marriage between an uncle and a niece, or an aunt and a nephew is not allowed”. So technically, an uncle marrying his nephew or an aunt marrying her niece would not be prohibited.
But it’s likely that in such states, clerks would refuse to issue a marriage license, despite what the law says.* And such states are likely to change those laws quite quickly if needed.
Judges in a local court might still enforce this prohibition, even if the law doesn’t actually prohibit it. Even though the reason for the prohibition (genetic risks to children) doesn’t apply.**
** This might be used as a tax avoidance dodge. Many states allow spouses to inherit without paying estate taxes. So by marrying your surviving parent, a family fortune could be passed down through the generations, evading estate taxes. For example, after Henry Ford died, his wife Clara could have married their son Edsel. Then when Clara died, Edsel could have married his son Henry II, who would inherit when he died – all without paying taxes.
In Perez v Sharp, one of the cases often cited during the same sex marriage debate, the money quote was:
“Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.** There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means**”
Bolding mine. The social objective to prohibiting incestuous marriages is different than the social objective to prohibiting same sex marriage. In fact, the conservative argument against SSM was that the couples could not (naturally and unassisted) procreate whereas the argument against incestuous marriages is generally that such couples CAN procreate.
But throughout the SSM debate, I usually answered “But what about THIS type of marriage?” questions by saying “Why not?” isn’t a good enough reason to change things. If they wanted to debate polygamy or incest or marrying cats then they needed to come up with a strong positive argument about why we SHOULD allow it. Of course, none of them wanted to do that; they just wanted to move the argument off of same sex marriage by ways of some boogeyman that they figured I’d say “Golly no!” about.
It still doesn’t give me any in-principle objections to incestuous marriages.
Also, the bolded quote refers to male-female marriages and not just any marriage. (I think that was the intended meaning)
Personally I don’t have any in-principle objections to incestuous marriages, other than the exceedingly weak one many homophobes have about gay marriage - I find it a bit squicky. The genetics issue can be at least partially addressed with modern birth control. Tax dodges can be regulated out of existence.
Minors must be protected of course, but consenting adults? Eh, knock yourself out with your vaguely creepy and as likely as not somewhat dysfunctional relationship. At any rate social taboos ( innate or otherwise) being what they are I have to assume demand would be very low indeed.
I feel much the same about polygamy, only that one does have somewhat more significant structural problems that would need to be addressed in terms of property division among others.
Just wanted to mention one thing: I’ve seen the Freepers’ heads explode before, but what’s going on now is truly a supernova.
Can you give us some examples/links?
I thought as much, but wasn’t sure how it played out legally. Especially with health insurance, since that’s has so much legal rigmarole attached to it, I’m surprised that any of it works at all.
And this is where things are going to start getting ugly. People legally required to update their W-4s, and then legally fired because this brought their orientation to light. (yes, I know it doesn’t necessarily make it obvious, but once you start filling out your emergency contact information and set up you insurance benefactors, it’d be pretty clear)
Because the prohibition on incestuous marriage is based on a compelling state interest, namely preventing damage to family cohesion, the abuse of the legaly privileged family bond, the genetic health risks, and the misuse of the process in ways such as t-bonham’s Ford heirs example. An “important social objective” and a “reasonable means” to that end. Civil laws need not be based on some sort of transcendent principle.
The incest taboo derives from the survival imperative of not creating unnecessary frictions within the family group, of having different families in the community bond to each other and not encapsulate in themselves, and avoiding adverse health effects. These remain largely in effect in modern societies. The reasons for not allowing same-sex unions (the need to reproduce more field hands and that your offspring were your retirement plan), not so much.
Does this mean that therefore we can’t absolutely say “incestuous marriage will never EVER be normalized, it’s fundamentally impossible”? Well, sure. But it’s just extraordinarily unlikely in our lifetimes.
The bolded part also covers the prohibition against polygamy quite well.
I think it’s against the rules of this board to directly link to another message board.
However, if you go to their main News/Activism site, then the SCOTUS key word, almost every single thread for the first two pages is a rant complaining about the decision. And some go on for hundreds of posts.
It’s not just the volume. It’s what they’re saying. Of course there’s a lot of anger. But there also an amazing amount of grasping at straws hoping to find some way to get around the decision. These include:
– secession
– constitutional amendment
– impeaching the liberal justices for various absurd reasons then either revoting or retrying the case
– stopping all state marriage licensing and forcing everyone who wants to get married to go through a religious body
– just ignoring the decision and hoping nobody will notice
This commenter from Breitbart (found via the Little Green Footballs site) was almost poetic in his rage:
*IT’S MARTYR TIME, CHRISTIAN BROTHERS!
I’m the owner of a business in the wedding services industry. I WILL NOT provide services to mentally ill, sexually dysfunctional, vagina-phobic anus/rectum-philes and penis-phobes who want to pretend they’re “married”. If they want to marry a member of the opposite sex as many sexually dysfunctional, vagina-phobic anus/rectum-philes and penis-phobes have done in the past, I will gladly provide them service.
My heresy will inevitably result in the hate-filled, bigoted and fascist Gaystapo or the state’s attorney general initiating religious persecution against me. I will not appear at any legal hearings inquisitions by my persecutors as this would be an admission that they have the moral authority to deprive me of my 1st and 13th Amendment rights. This will result in a default judgement against me entailing a massive fine and perhaps even jail time. A lien will be placed on my home and eventually the Gaystapo’s minions of fascist tyranny will come to take possession of it. I can promise you this: They will be met with a fusillade of full-metal-jacketed lead. As Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death!”** I would rather die with my bleed-out cooling the hot, spent cartridges from my still smoking hot barrel knowing I’ve taken out some of the fascist enforcers tyranny than to cower under the jack-boot of SCOTUS and the Gaystapo**, and I will dispatch as many of their enforcings minions to Hell before they murder me.
*:eek::eek::eek:
Oh yeah, there’s a lot of that on FR too: People saying basically that they plan to murder any officials who get in their way of continuing to discriminate against gay people.
Ah, yes-Those that proclaim that that are prepared to die for their beliefs…when what they really mean is that they are prepared to murder for their beliefs.