Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

[Bob Juch]

I have to say I've never really understood the taboo of incest. I mean, regardless of whether you believe science's or the Bible's version of history, there still had to be an awful lot of incest going on at some point in time for us to all be here now....

lb13

Well if Adam and Eve were the first couple, their children must have practised incest.

[silverscreenselect]

I have to say I've never really understood the taboo of incest. I mean, regardless of whether you believe science's or the Bible's version of history, there still had to be an awful lot of incest going on at some point in time for us to all be here now....

lb13

In a lot of cases, incest is a form of child abuse, in which an adult forces himself or herself physically or psychologically on an essentially helpless son or daughter.

[littlebeast13]

I have to say I've never really understood the taboo of incest. I mean, regardless of whether you believe science's or the Bible's version of history, there still had to be an awful lot of incest going on at some point in time for us to all be here now....

lb13

In a lot of cases, incest is a form of child abuse, in which an adult forces himself or herself physically or psychologically on an essentially helpless son or daughter.

That is pedophilia that just happens to be incest, but you are right that this is why it has such a stigma...

lb13

[Spock]

So there is actually a law in California that says you can marry your first cousin? I've lived in California all my life and have never met anyone that would even consider getting married to their cousin, maybe since it never happens we figure go ahead if you really want to.

And now that I've thought about it for a minute since my wireless connection went out for a second. I'm surprised that it is looked up so much that someone actually made a map of the states where it's legal to marry your first cousin.

My husband just walked in, I asked him if he knew it was legal to marry your first cousin in California (he's 3rd gen Californian). His reaction was ewww and he doesn't even have a first cousin.

First-cousin marriage is increasingly common among the British-Pakistani community.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 714582.stm

[Bob78164]

If a federal judge strikes down Obamacare as unconstitutional, and a sitting Republican President chooses not to appeal, would that be a "back door" to repeal since private citizens (or, presumably, states) would not have standing to defend the law?

Anyone who lost a subsidy to which they were entitled under Obamacare would have standing to appeal, because that person would suffer a real and redressable monetary injury by the invalidation of Obamacare. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

If a federal judge strikes down Obamacare as unconstitutional, and a sitting Republican President chooses not to appeal, would that be a "back door" to repeal since private citizens (or, presumably, states) would not have standing to defend the law?

Anyone who lost a subsidy to which they were entitled under Obamacare would have standing to appeal, because that person would suffer a real and redressable monetary injury by the invalidation of Obamacare. --Bob

I can't get insurance right now due to preexisting conditions. In 2014 I will be able to.

[ghostjmf]

I don't see that anyone has asked (so I will) what happens with inheritance when a member of a 1st-cousin marriage dies. Presumably, since no federal statute against 1st-cousin marriage has been cited, the inheritor will inherit as a spouse, at least on their federal tax form.


Also, I don't see why INS makes such a big case about marriages of convenience. Well, I know why they're doing it; it's to prevent immigrants from getting citizenship "the easy way" if they don't intend to have sex in the marriage. Having sex suddenly becomes a big deal to this government agency.

But in fact there are probably a lot of cases of marriages of convenience, so that one of the spouses can get insurance, can inherit as a spouse, etc where both parties are citizens & I'm not aware that the IRS bats an eye, though insurance companies have been known to prosecute, &, sadly, win such cases (at least according to network TV, my source on such matters legal).

And for anyone needing a definition, "of convenience" here means "the parties never intend to have sex, but they want each other to have insurance, to inherit, etc".

[Ritterskoop]

I have to say I've never really understood the taboo of incest. I mean, regardless of whether you believe science's or the Bible's version of history, there still had to be an awful lot of incest going on at some point in time for us to all be here now....

lb13

As with most taboos that may look like they are based in religion, this one is based in simple genetics. Close relatives marrying is not relevant, but the much higher incidence of babies with traumatic defects is very relevant.

So i say let anybody marry anybody is they are both/all of the age of consent (whatever age that is), as long as they don't produce any babies, I don't care. Brothers and sisters, cats and dogs. Just no predictably tragic offspring.

On a similar line, I understand the pronouncements to be fruitful and multiply, a few thousand years back. But now we have seven or eight billion people on the planet. What we need is less fruit and less multiplying. So I am in favor or supporting marriages and civil unions and whatever that create families and supportive family units but do not add to the number of babies in the world. There are plenty of babies.

We'll tackle group marriages another day, but again, as long as everyone's old enough to choose, I'm on board.

[TheConfessor]

Sometimes life imitates Bored posts. Good luck to Whitney's Kids!
http://www.tmz.com/2013/07/10/whitney-h ... y-brother/

[jarnon]

Nor, logically, can it limit the definition of being 'married' to only a couple. I bet such lawsuits are even now being launched.

Flybrick was right. The family from the Sister Wives TV show filed a lawsuit against Utah's well-known law against polygamy, and a Federal judge ruled in their favor.

Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional

That doesn't mean that polygamous families now have the same rights in Utah that gay married couples do in states like New York. They just can't be thrown in jail for it. And the outrageous practices of cults like Warren Jeffs's are still outlawed.

[silverscreenselect]

Nor, logically, can it limit the definition of being 'married' to only a couple. I bet such lawsuits are even now being launched.

Flybrick was right. The family from the Sister Wives TV show filed a lawsuit against Utah's well-known law against polygamy, and a Federal judge ruled in their favor.

Utah Polygamy Law Unconstitutional: Federal Judge

That doesn't mean that polygamous families now have the same rights in Utah that gay married couples do in states like New York. They just can't be thrown in jail for it. And the outrageous practices of cults like Warren Jeffs's are still outlawed.

The part of the law that was thrown out prohibited "cohabitation" or living together by non-married couples. That's in keeping with lots of court decisions that have thrown out laws prohibiting all types of consensual sexual activities among adults. The part of the law that prohibits multiple marriage licenses, which presumably would trigger rights to various legal benefits, remains intact.

I don't see a problem in three or four or however many people living or sleeping together if that's what they all want and they're all adults.

[Bob78164]

Nor, logically, can it limit the definition of being 'married' to only a couple. I bet such lawsuits are even now being launched.

Flybrick was right. The family from the Sister Wives TV show filed a lawsuit against Utah's well-known law against polygamy, and a Federal judge ruled in their favor.

Utah Polygamy Law Unconstitutional: Federal Judge

That doesn't mean that polygamous families now have the same rights in Utah that gay married couples do in states like New York. They just can't be thrown in jail for it. And the outrageous practices of cults like Warren Jeffs's are still outlawed.

The part of the law that was thrown out prohibited "cohabitation" or living together by non-married couples. That's in keeping with lots of court decisions that have thrown out laws prohibiting all types of consensual sexual activities among adults. The part of the law that prohibits multiple marriage licenses, which presumably would trigger rights to various legal benefits, remains intact.

I don't see a problem in three or four or however many people living or sleeping together if that's what they all want and they're all adults.

Here's the opinion. --Bob

[BackInTex]

The part of the law that was thrown out prohibited "cohabitation" or living together by non-married couples. That's in keeping with lots of court decisions that have thrown out laws prohibiting all types of consensual sexual activities among adults. The part of the law that prohibits multiple marriage licenses, which presumably would trigger rights to various legal benefits, remains intact.

I don't see a problem in three or four or however many people living or sleeping together if that's what they all want and they're all adults.

But you have a problem with them marrying? Why? Consenting loving adults, and all.

[silverscreenselect]

The part of the law that was thrown out prohibited "cohabitation" or living together by non-married couples. That's in keeping with lots of court decisions that have thrown out laws prohibiting all types of consensual sexual activities among adults. The part of the law that prohibits multiple marriage licenses, which presumably would trigger rights to various legal benefits, remains intact.

I don't see a problem in three or four or however many people living or sleeping together if that's what they all want and they're all adults.

But you have a problem with them marrying? Why? Consenting loving adults, and all.

Marriage is a contractual relationship that gives the parties a wide number of rights under tax, property, criminal, and other types of law. There is every reason to restrict those rights to two people.

I also have no problem with any church deciding what unions it will or will not sanction as marriages. In a number of religions, people cannot marry others not of the same faith in the eyes of the church. If some church wants to sanction a man "marrying" two or three or however many women, that's between them and the church. And it's between them just what sort of activities they do with each other, in bed or otherwise. It is the state's business just which ones of them have the right to file joint tax returns, own property by the entireties, have a spousal evidence privilege, are potentially entitled to alimony, etc. and the state has every reason to limit that to only two people.

In this case, there was only one marriage license, between the man and one of the women. There's really no difference between what he did and a guy who keeps a mistress in her own apartment except that these people were more honest with each other and more economical about what was going on.

[Bob Juch]

The part of the law that was thrown out prohibited "cohabitation" or living together by non-married couples. That's in keeping with lots of court decisions that have thrown out laws prohibiting all types of consensual sexual activities among adults. The part of the law that prohibits multiple marriage licenses, which presumably would trigger rights to various legal benefits, remains intact.

I don't see a problem in three or four or however many people living or sleeping together if that's what they all want and they're all adults.

But you have a problem with them marrying? Why? Consenting loving adults, and all.

Marriage is a contractual relationship that gives the parties a wide number of rights under tax, property, criminal, and other types of law. There is every reason to restrict those rights to two people.

I also have no problem with any church deciding what unions it will or will not sanction as marriages. In a number of religions, people cannot marry others not of the same faith in the eyes of the church. If some church wants to sanction a man "marrying" two or three or however many women, that's between them and the church. And it's between them just what sort of activities they do with each other, in bed or otherwise. It is the state's business just which ones of them have the right to file joint tax returns, own property by the entireties, have a spousal evidence privilege, are potentially entitled to alimony, etc. and the state has every reason to limit that to only two people.

In this case, there was only one marriage license, between the man and one of the women. There's really no difference between what he did and a guy who keeps a mistress in her own apartment except that these people were more honest with each other and more economical about what was going on.

I'm opposed in principle to the government recognising marriages performed by the clergy. Separation of state and all that.

[Bob78164]

But you have a problem with them marrying? Why? Consenting loving adults, and all.

Marriage is a contractual relationship that gives the parties a wide number of rights under tax, property, criminal, and other types of law. There is every reason to restrict those rights to two people.

I also have no problem with any church deciding what unions it will or will not sanction as marriages. In a number of religions, people cannot marry others not of the same faith in the eyes of the church. If some church wants to sanction a man "marrying" two or three or however many women, that's between them and the church. And it's between them just what sort of activities they do with each other, in bed or otherwise. It is the state's business just which ones of them have the right to file joint tax returns, own property by the entireties, have a spousal evidence privilege, are potentially entitled to alimony, etc. and the state has every reason to limit that to only two people.

In this case, there was only one marriage license, between the man and one of the women. There's really no difference between what he did and a guy who keeps a mistress in her own apartment except that these people were more honest with each other and more economical about what was going on.

I'm opposed in principle to the government recognising marriages performed by the clergy. Separation of state and all that.

I'm opposed in principle to the government limiting to the clergy (and to government officers) the right to solemnize a marriage. If it can be done by private citizens (and I think it should be), then I think the ability should be available to all private citizens, perhaps requiring some very minimal qualifications. But if that ability is available to private citizens, I see no reason to exclude the clergy. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Marriage is a contractual relationship that gives the parties a wide number of rights under tax, property, criminal, and other types of law. There is every reason to restrict those rights to two people.

I also have no problem with any church deciding what unions it will or will not sanction as marriages. In a number of religions, people cannot marry others not of the same faith in the eyes of the church. If some church wants to sanction a man "marrying" two or three or however many women, that's between them and the church. And it's between them just what sort of activities they do with each other, in bed or otherwise. It is the state's business just which ones of them have the right to file joint tax returns, own property by the entireties, have a spousal evidence privilege, are potentially entitled to alimony, etc. and the state has every reason to limit that to only two people.

In this case, there was only one marriage license, between the man and one of the women. There's really no difference between what he did and a guy who keeps a mistress in her own apartment except that these people were more honest with each other and more economical about what was going on.

I'm opposed in principle to the government recognising marriages performed by the clergy. Separation of state and all that.

I'm opposed in principle to the government limiting to the clergy (and to government officers) the right to solemnize a marriage. If it can be done by private citizens (and I think it should be), then I think the ability should be available to all private citizens, perhaps requiring some very minimal qualifications. But if that ability is available to private citizens, I see no reason to exclude the clergy. --Bob

I think I've posted here that I was married by a notary public who came to my house on New Year's Eve. All we had to do was to sign the marriage license.

I see no reason to exclude a clergy member who meets the same qualifications.

[SportsFan68]

Marriage is a contractual relationship that gives the parties a wide number of rights under tax, property, criminal, and other types of law. There is every reason to restrict those rights to two people.

I also have no problem with any church deciding what unions it will or will not sanction as marriages. In a number of religions, people cannot marry others not of the same faith in the eyes of the church. If some church wants to sanction a man "marrying" two or three or however many women, that's between them and the church. And it's between them just what sort of activities they do with each other, in bed or otherwise. It is the state's business just which ones of them have the right to file joint tax returns, own property by the entireties, have a spousal evidence privilege, are potentially entitled to alimony, etc. and the state has every reason to limit that to only two people.

In this case, there was only one marriage license, between the man and one of the women. There's really no difference between what he did and a guy who keeps a mistress in her own apartment except that these people were more honest with each other and more economical about what was going on.

I'm opposed in principle to the government recognising marriages performed by the clergy. Separation of state and all that.

I'm opposed in principle to the government limiting to the clergy (and to government officers) the right to solemnize a marriage. If it can be done by private citizens (and I think it should be), then I think the ability should be available to all private citizens, perhaps requiring some very minimal qualifications. But if that ability is available to private citizens, I see no reason to exclude the clergy. --Bob

Private citizens can conduct wedding ceremonies in Colorado. I've officiated at two weddings, the daughters of one of my oldest and dearest friends. I mostly used the words from the traditional Book of Common Prayer in the ceremony, but what it really amounted to was acting as a witness for the marriage license.