Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudey
I guess you're having trouble reading so I will write it again for you just as I have before. I said marry. I didn't say have kids. We're not talking about children here. You can marry and not have kids as many do. Additionally, we don't play a game of eugenics in America where we prevent people from getting married based on certain genetic markers so not sure what you're getting at there.
|
Preventing marriage due to the possibility of certain genetic markers, i.e., M.S., is one thing. Preventing it due to the probability of children which will have a host of birth defects is another.
We already have laws which outlaw procreation between siblings, parents, etc. with just that sort of purpose. I'm sure morality is involved, but you don't need morality to see that the decision to procreate in that sort of relationship harms others.
Using legalistic language, and even adopting the California view, under substantive due process, marriage is a fundamental liberty interest. If something is a fundamental liberty interest, we test a restriction's validity under strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling governmental goal -- here, we have the welfare and health of the children being born to the marriage, the effect that those sorts of children will have upon society, etc.
Part of marriage involves intercourse. For different-sex couples, intercourse almost always involves a risk of pregnancy, whether intentional or not.
I could see same-sex sibling marriage under California's law, but probably not between siblings of different genders. For the above reasons, I think there's a compelling governmental goal in preventing what may come out of that union.
You attempt to divorce marriage from procreation. I don't think that's really possible, at least where procreation is possible.
Threaded Mode
