Maybe Ritalin is the Answer...

[DanKroh 11]

SaintCad,

 

I believe what Ed is trying to get at this that all the consanguinous marriage restriction laws are worded in gender specific language:

 

For example, in Massachusetts, the law reads "No man may marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, aunt, niece, stepmother or stepdaughter, and no woman may marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, uncle, nephew, stepfather or stepson. Any marriage within these degrees is void."

 

So his straw man argument is that therefore, the consanguinity restriction will not apply to SSM because it is not explicitly disallowed by the wording of the law.

 

However, part of the Massachusetts ruling that permits SSM dealt with this problem by saying:

"Rather, the statutory provisions concerning consanguinity or polygamous marriages shall be construed in a gender neutral manner. See Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76, 92-93 (1979) (construing word father in unconstitutional, underinclusive provision to mean parent); Brownes Case, 322 Mass. 429, 430 (1948) (construing masculine pronoun his to include feminine pronoun her). See also G.L. c. 4, 6, Fourth (words of one gender may be construed to include the other gender and the neuter unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the law-making body or repugnant to the context of the same statute)."

 

So, basically, this problem has been easily dealt with in Massachusetts, and could be handled similarly in any other state that decided to permit SSM.

 

I would like to compliment OGE and Fuzzy Bear on their well reasoned and well articulated attitudes surrounding this subject.

[SaintCad 10]

"Are there laws on the books to prevent 2 brothers from marrying each other? Or 2 sisters? Or 2 male cousins? Or do those laws only apply when a brother & sister want to marry?"

 

Yes, because those laws are written as "degree of relation" similar to next-of-kin laws.

 

 

"Would SSM laws repeal the consanguinity laws? They could if they are written to do that."

 

But they are not! That is called a strawman argument. Let me give you an example:

Me) Laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman would allow brothers and sisters to marry because they are a man and a woman.

You) No. There is nothing in the proposed law that repeals the brother/sister marriage ban.

Me) Yeah! But if it were written to repeal the ban, it would.

 

 

"And if you think there is nothing wrong with SSM, then you are more clueless than I thought!"

 

You must realize that you have no argument because you're resorting to personal insults (like in that other thread). But I forgive you.

Oh, and I was not supporting SSM laws - I was simply pointing out your error that SSM laws would allow brother/brother marriages

 

[evmori 11]

SaintCad,

I'm happy to hear you don't support SSM. And BTW, I don't resort to insults. You just seemed to have a hard time understanding my argument.

 

Have a nice day!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SaintCad 10]

"I'm happy to hear you don't support SSM."

 

Actually I do, based on this country giving preferential status to married people. I personally don't have a problem with homosexuality so if two men or two women want to marry to get the same benefits a man and a woman do if they marry - fine by me. HOWEVER, I do recognize that some consider homosexuality a perversion and consider SSM equivalent to allowing a pedophile to marry a child. Although I may not agree with that position, I can respect it.

 

 

 

"And if you think there is nothing wrong with SSM, then you are more clueless than I thought!"

"And BTW, I don't resort to insults. You just seemed to have a hard time understanding my argument."

 

Calling someone "clueless" is not an insult?! Also, to understand your argument, you have given absolutely no reasons why you feel SSM will destroy American society other than the fallacious SSM => incestuous marriages.

[evmori 11]

Why do I feel SSM will destroy American society? Same sex couple can't procreate! Sure they can adopt but if same sex couples dominate in numbers, the society will die out!

 

Oh, and I was not supporting SSM laws

 

"I'm happy to hear you don't support SSM."

 

Actually I do, based on this country giving preferential status to married people. I personally don't have a problem with homosexuality so if two men or two women want to marry to get the same benefits a man and a woman do if they marry - fine by me. HOWEVER, I do recognize that some consider homosexuality a perversion and consider SSM equivalent to allowing a pedophile to marry a child. Although I may not agree with that position, I can respect it.

 

So you do or don't? Or does it depend on which side of the argument you want to be on?

 

I'm done!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"Sure they can adopt but if same sex couples dominate in numbers, the society will die out!"

 

Gee, if same sex couple dominate then I guess they wouldn't be an aberration, at least not to that society

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Here are other possibilities that will kill off society:

 

Heterosexuals that marry and divorce and leave behind children or chose not to have children or cannot have children.

 

Heterosexuals that live together for fun and leave behind a string of partners with or without children.

 

Heterosexuals that decide to practice permanent or temporary birth control or are impotent.

 

Heterosexuals that live in a drug induced state of euphoria and are impotent by choice.

 

There, I believe that is the clear majority. Society must now fail save a few married with children and unmarried gays, other than that all remains the same. FB

[stlscouter 10]

By simply changing the definition of the word marriage you also change the concept of marriage (connotation vs denotation). That would necessarily change the definitions of the following words in conjunction with the relation to male/female contact:

 

man-woman

male-female role

sexual intercourse

homophobe-hetrophobe

right-wrong

moral-immoral

ethical-unethical

proper-improper

pedophile

majority age

relation by degree

bigot

discrimination

clean-unclean

nasty

repugnant

repulsive

vile

abomination

sick

 

When it is all said and done, whomever controls the language, controls the debate. So communication becomes not communicating with people, but talking at or past them.

 

And to answer how SSM would impact me and my spouse-about as much as someone stepping off a curb in front of a bus-we could no longer communicate.

 

[SaintCad 10]

"By simply changing the definition of the word marriage you also change the concept of marriage"

 

And this is my point exactly. In the U.S., marriage is not a religious union blessed by God, it is a civil contract between two and only two adults (limited to one man and one woman in every state except Mass.) [Ref. C.F.C Section 300, I know that this is California law but I'm sure it's similar in other states.]

 

I don't want to demean the religious aspects of marriage, but religion is not a factor in marriage laws EXCEPT that a minister is allowed to solemnize the marriage - but look who else is (in California) [C.F.C Section 400]:

Marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of

the age of 18 years or older:

(a) A priest, minister, or rabbi of any religious denomination.

(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or

retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired

commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this

state.

© A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.

(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United

States:

(1) A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme

Court.

(2) A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district

court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which

are entitled to hold office during good behavior.

(3) A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.

(4) A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.

(e) A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a

member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while

that person holds office.

 

So I could have Sen. Feinstein or Gov. Schwarzenegger or Judge Mills Lane or my local pastor solemnize my marriage.

 

 

[frznpch 10]

Note: When your argument devolves into 'you can't spell,' and words like 'clueless' and 'repulsive,' you've lost your argument. If someone is on the fence on an issue (and believe it or not, some people are on this issue) or you want to change minds (again, BION, I've done it and seen it done), then a reasoned intelligent debate is the only way to go. I really enjoy thoughtful disagreement, but completely ignore the name-callers.