Piece from Boston Globe online about Gay Marriage. What's your opinion on this?
“Gay and lesbian couples are entitled to marry, writes Chief Justice Ronald George, but that “does not mean that this constitutional right . . . must . . . extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships.” Why not? Well, because “our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.” So while the bar to homosexual marriage must be overturned because the court considers the public’s opposition to it outdated, the public’s opposition to incest and polygamy is still a good reason to bar them. As one of the dissenters notes, such logic invites a future court to overturn those prohibitions as well.”
Full link
to article
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
9 Answers
Interesting. Where does the abolishment of rules end? Is there a good balance between freedom and anarchy? I guess we’ll see how things go.
I guess the difference could be that gay sex is not known to result in children being born with ‘deformities’ (can’t think of a better word – please correct me here).
society determines right and wrong. When we get to the point where an incestous relationship is seen as a healthy one I am sure it will be reevaluated. Yuck.
@wildflower- how about mental and physical illness.
@playthebanjo-true true!
Thanks Randy – that’s a better way of putting it :)
Polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships are, by default, an abuse of power by one individual over another.
I only have a laymen’s understanding of the law, but I disagree with the court’s reliance on public opinion as a standard for decision. Judges, in my mind, should exercise judgment independent of any influence other than their own bias, which should be limited. And, their hands should be tied by the letter of the constitution.
I’m fine with gay marriage and believe the article’s argument that man and woman is the only relationship that produce offspring is quaint and a fallacy. A woman, a woman and a turkey baster also works. Not to mention the added potential for adoption of all the unwanted babies that the conservatives have saved over the years. While it does invoke the slippery slope argument, we’ve seen similar progressions with women and minority rights.
@marina, I wonder, though, whether that would be true in the case of siblings, for example, who are separated and come to know each other as adults. I understand this is nitpicking, but I would guess there are quite a few exceptions that prove the rule.
@kevbo That has to be a very small percentage of the cases.
Still, I would have no problem with writing an exception for it into law provided the couple agrees not to bear children. That relationship is genetically too close for breeding, thus the almost universal cultural ban, except for royals. (And wasn’t that a bonehead move?)
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
