Man, man. Woman, woman. You don’t have to go and do all kinds of biological analysis to figure it out. You just have to look. Macro vs. micro.
Genuine (but admittedly leading question): Are cousin marriages (contracted in States where such are legal) recognized as marriages in States where cousin marriage is not permitted?
That presupposes that it’s a belief. You asked for a secular reason. You got it.
You’re just underlining that your argument really just boils down to “it’s OK if they’re homosexual”.
It is not nearly as cut and dry as you think
I am not an expert on marriage law in every state. I think so. But I don’t think it’s “automatic” - I think each state decides whether to recognize it individually.
Maybe some marriage attorney can pipe in to verify.
I provided cites showing the law had religious roots, refute them please before you dismiss them.
I don’t read Terr as saying anything that controversial. Leaving aside the bigotry aspect for a second, the government achieves goals through imperfect methods all the time.
So once the government is in the business of deciding what types of unions it gives special recognition, it has to draw the line someplace, and unions between a single man and a single woman broadly capture the aspects of unions that the government wants to promote. Taking homosexuality out of the equation for a bit, it would still make sense for a state to recognize heterosexual civil marriage in order to promote various ends (childbirth and rearing, family bonds, etc.), even if a lot of heterosexual couples can’t conceive. The government doesn’t have to advance every one of its ends with laser precision. And in that world, I don’t doubt that the state could draw the line there, and not recognize, say, polygamous unions.
It is a little weird in this context, since marriage is, generally, an issue of state law, and DOMA is Federal law. Specifically, it prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. It isn’t difficult to see the discriminatory purpose there. But it isn’t clear to me that Federal marriage laws are just a non-starter, and so long as that’s the case, Congress will have to draw the line somewhere*.
I don’t read Terr as saying more than that, and it sounds like he doesn’t think the government should be involved in recognizing unions at all.
*I vehemently disagree that the line should be drawn there, and I’m fully in agreement that the law exists largely to gain power from ignorant religious voters, but I don’t think the idea of the government limiting the types of unions it recognizes is totally nuts. Though in the case of DOMA, the idea of Congress singling out same-sex marriages for discriminatory treatment is totally nuts, and probably unconstitutional.
Wait you are on the second page of a DOMA discussion and you don’t understand half of what the law does?
Sigh. I have no idea what its roots are - I never cared enough about DOMA to research that. You asked for (and I quote here) “secular purpose”. Not anything about roots.
You managed to say it better than I did.
Either that or recognize anything at all. “Marriage” of any group of individuals, limited only by age (because of consent issues).
Yes but it is of little use if you don’t understand the effect.
They didn’t want no queers coming down from Hawaii and getting that power of attorney stuff, cuz a gay guy gotta buck up and realize he can’t say good bye to his die’n partner.
Half if the law is to prevent the equal protection laws from applying how they yes apply to a marriage to your first cousin by default.
You forced me to do some research. You’re wrong. Here’s an example:
Cousin Marriages: No. Kentucky won’t recognize these marriages even if legal in another state.
Common Law Marriages: No. Kentucky does recognize common law marriages legalized by another state.
So - cousin marriages from other states are not recognized. Common law marriages are, even though Kentucky doesn’t have one.
Do you know how bigoted it is to compare gay marriage to incest?
Can someone show evidence that the federal government’s recognition of marriage contracts is solely for the purpose of promoting
and not for any other purpose? Like predictable transfer of assets upon death, medical decision-making, etc?
Can someone show evidence, adjusted for income and race, that children are better off, in the US in 2012, in a “traditionally married” household than in other types of households?
Also, in what way does preventing marriage contracts between homosexual people promote
?
Not that it matters, but the IRS has a long-standing policy of determining tax rates, in part, on whether or not you fuck someone regularly.
By the way, for those who have the mistaken impression that states are required to recognize other states’ first cousin marriages: I did some more digging.
Arizona law:
Arizona Revised Statutes Section § 25-112:
Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by Section 25-101.
Arizona Revised Statutes section § 25-101
A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void.
So we’re moving goalposts from “what possible secular purpose could it have” to “is it solely for this purpose”?
But would that actually apply to homosexual or lesbian siblings or even their parents? The biological reasons don’t apply. For that matter Oedipus should be allowed to marry Jocasta if she has reached menopause or had her tubes tied.
If the biological reasons don’t apply, then aren’t these limits arbitrary and capricious.
. That was unintentionally unfair and overzealous of me. I did not intend to move the goalposts of the OP’s question.
In light of the one secular reason you have provided, namely that the state has an interest in promoting
can you show evidence, adjusted for income and race, that children are better off, in the US in 2012, in a “traditionally married” household than in other types of households?
All I have to show you to support my contention is that children are better off, in general, in a “traditionally married” household than outside of one. That’s kinda obvious, isn’t it? Single parent households, for example, whether unmarried or divorced, are notoriously bad for children’ (or is it children’s?) upbringing. And there are a LOT more of those than of “unconventional marriage” ones.