Consenting adults

One thing I don't get is when these same-sex marriages bans are struck down as unconstitutional, using the same arguments that overturned bans on interracial marriages, why do so many SSM advocates disagree when someone says that this same reasoning applies to all marriages involving consenting adults, including plural marriages and adult incest?

It reminds me of people who support interracial marriage but think the same arguments don't apply when it comes to same sex relationships.

 

Care to show me some examples?

Generally the persons raising the issue of incestuous and plural marriages are vehemently opposed to SSM- and raise those issues as part of the opposition.

I will tell you what I tell them- if they want to go to court- like gay couples have- and sue arguing that they should be allowed to marry also- then I support their right to sue.

But those are different issues- with different legal issues- and I am not going to waste my time arguing one way or another.

Like I said- the issue is usually nothing more than a variation of 'if gays can marry then a man should be allowed to marry his horse'

 

If marriage is a fundamental right, why should each individual group of consenting adults have to sue in order to "receive" that right? If the same logic against interracial bans applies to same sex marriage bans, shouldn't it have been recognized as such after Loving v. Virginia? Wasn't the argument that gays need to sue separately just a form of passive aggressive advocacy of discrimination against gay and lesbian couples?

 

That is the way our court system works. The state interests in denying interracial couples, same-sex couples, incestuous couples, etc. from marriage may very well be different. Thus the issues will necessary differ in each case. The courts, however, can only rule on what is at issue in a particular case--otherwise they would be overstepping their powers. Same-sex marriage bans, when at issue, will thus only effect same-sex marriage bans. Anything else is not at issue. That is why Loving v. Virginia did not result in the repeal of bans on first-cousin marriages, same-sex marriage, or any other restrictions. It really is quite simple.

 

Why did you just ignore my post?

Why did the Lovings have to sue in order to have their rights protected?

Because unless they sued- the law didn't recognize their rights.

Same issue for same gender couples.

Same gender couples sue for exactly the same reasons as the Lovings did- to get the court to overturn laws that discriminate against their right to marry.

 

So are you saying SSM wasn't an equality issue until a certain number courts recognized it as such?

 

How about polygamy?

What if I wanted to marry both my ladies?

 

No. You are not understanding the legal definition of "issue." An issue is the disputed point of law (or facts) in a case. In Loving v. Virginia, the issue was interracial marriage bans. Those bans were the disputed point of law. Court rulings only apply to the issue, thus the repeal of interracial marriage bans only applied to interracial marriage bans. Same-sex marriage bans and incest bans are both different issues, thus the court is powerless to rule on those issues unless they are actually brought before the court.

The court can only strike down laws as unconstitutional that are brought before it.

 

Obviously, that goes without saying. But the way you're interpreting it seems to imply those laws didn't violate people's constitutional rights prior to the court saying it did. When a court strikes a law down, they're saying it was always invalid from its inception. People were right to say that same sex marriage bans were just as unconstitutional as interracial marriage bans even before the courts started to recognize it as such, no?

 

If all three of you are consenting adults, I see no reason why not.

 

Yes, but that is a different question than you asked before. Your assertion that a case striking down one type of marriage ban should strike down all types of marriage ban remains false. Only the ban in question (at issue) can be adjudicated.

 

maybe they do apply.

 

But where does it stop?

Cousins?

Sisters?

Animals?

Furniture?

Where do you draw the line?

 

It's simple. A gay man is not deprived of equal rights to marry a woman...

 

Adult humans.

 

But if you had a choice between the genders the same would be true and you would have a greater choice thus more liberty.

 

I support both SSM and polygamy marriages, but ideally I am for an abolitionist approach. Ban marriage for all! Legal marriage that is.

 

When or IF, someone files a case to marry their sister we will all watch the case to see what happens...just as we are for the same sex issue. There are many cases or people having multiple wives and the issues mostly involve problems with liscencing and rights under marriage law...not whether they can get married in the first place.

 

If you think all of the above are consenting adults.....well we have a different issue here.

- - - Updated - - -

But every man is deprived of equal rights to marry a man. And every woman is deprived of equal rights to marry a woman.

At least in those states which make such marriages illegal.

 

I don't support the ideas, but I agree the government should get out of it. My understanding of government involvement was so they could stop interracial marriages. Return it to the churches. Allow the legal concerns to be drafted by contract.

 

Contracts are provided for by law. Government passes laws. Therefore government cannot be divorced from marriage any more than any other contract which, by the way , marriage already is.

 

I think his argument is to make it so "marriage" isn't automatically a legal contract anymore, although I'm not sure whether he's saying it should be replaced by civil unions or if he's saying everybody should draw up their own contracts with no predefined uniformity between relationship contracts.

 

Many of us believe that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. What about preserving the things that are good about society?

 

why is one man and one women good? Why is it better that any other combination? Who decides what is good? ...

 

Marriage was a concept for a couple to be not only committed to each other, but for a family unit. Copulation that leads to children. Marriage as as old as written history, and then some.

Let me ask you this.

Does marriage define love?

Other than legal considerations of estate, end other matters that can be rectified by contract, why does it matter?

Marriage is already no longer what it used to be. What about those who see this as another assault on what marriage means to them?