re: All in the Family......the Okie version

quote:

---

can you believe either one of them licks the other one's vagina?

---

really...even their pictures smell..

The real question is would anybody hit it just for the story of having a mother/daughter?

quote:

---

The newspaper reported that she pleaded guilty to felony incest Tuesday, and under a plea deal, the 46-year-old will serve two years in prison followed by eight years of probation. She will have to register as a sex offender following her release.

---

It's all kinds of fricked up, errbody involved needs years of counseling and such a marriage should be legally null and void. But when it's between two consenting adults I have a hard time categorizing it as a sex offense.

quote:

---

Frankly if someone wants to have a incenstuous gay marriage, I say allow it. At least they won't be breeding and passing on their genes right?...if only it were that easy.

---

But again we are left in a precarious legal position. If you allow incestious gay marriage, you cannot legally deny heterosexual incestious marriage.

We need to face the fact that Pandora’s box has been opened when it comes to marriage.

quote:

---

The same legal basis that gay marriage used to become legal. The whole argument for gay marriage being illegeal was based on moral grounds of it being “wrong”. Well if you can no longer use morality as a basis of denying marriage rights for some (homosexuals in this case) then due to the equal protection clause you cannot deny those same rights to others who's Marriage rights have historically been denied due to moral grounds.

---

You need to do a little research on Constitutional Law and the EP clause, and I'll just leave it at that.

to put it in terms you’ll understand:

quote:

---

That’s a cop out. If you disagree with my point you need to offer a detailed counterpoint. My point is that the same legal argument used to legislative gay marriage can (and eventually will) be use to to legalisie both incestious marriage and plural marriage as well. If you disagree, you need to list out valid legal reasons to deny them. And remember, you can use the argument that it’s “morally wrong”.

---

Laws can be made that technically violate the EP clause, but they are subject to strict scrutiny where the government interest is taken into account as is the constitutional right of the individual. One of the prongs of the strict scrutiny test is does the government have a compelling interest in denying equal protection. In the case of incestuous marriage, the government interest is in not having genetically fricked up kids. That's a pretty compelling interest right there that has absolutely nothing to do with 2 dudes or 2 chicks marrying each other as in the gay marriage cases, so there is nothing in the gay marriage cases that would change the test the courts would go through in evaluating incestuous marriage

quote:

---

So you’re saying the government has a compelling interest in marriages producing healthy offspring?

---

Is that what I said, or did I say they had an interest in preventing genetically fricked up kids? Obviously they don't take the position you stated or the government could also prevent barren couples from marrying. What I stated was their interest in preventing genetically fricked up kids from incest, which is an actual compelling interest; now maybe you can ask do they extend that in the future to non-related couples who would be genetically predisposed to having fricked up kids.

quote:

---

. Furthermore, in regard to your argument, a mother and daughter can’t create a two headed baby so there is no legal standing to deny them the right to marry. So would it be right to let a mom marry her daughter but not her son? That flips the whole gay marriage argument on its head now doesn’t it? Baically as long as marriage is between consenting adults, there’s no legal standing left to deny them to marry. It could be a mom and daughter or it could be a mom and all five of her adult kids for her matter.

---

The argument here would be similar to the laws that prevent teachers/coaches/people in positions of authority from having sex with their students for stopping parents from marrying their kids, even where they are over 18 just like with students and teachers. That doesn't fit perfectly for sibling marriages I'd have to think about that a little more, but someone who isn't a tax lawyer would easily have a good argument for a compelling interest against that

Maybe it was a tax scheme thing