I didn't ask what you thought was possible. Perhaps you should stick to the argument.
I'll make it very simple for you since it's difficult responding to the subject:
If johnny shoots blanks and jenny is sterile, and they are siblings, should they be allowed to get married?
And stop talking about the cost to the taxpayer for healthcosts. If we were worried about costs, we would have gotten rid of lawyers a million years ago but we're stuck with you arent we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
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
