necoandjeff wrote:

> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2ps4taFokp6tU3@uni-berlin.de...
> 
>>>I see a gauntlet lying on the floor in front of me. I'm fairly certain
> 
> that
> 
>>>we filed an amicus brief for the California supreme court case on the
>>>constitutionality issue.
>>
>>On incestuous marriage? May I read it, please?
> 
> 
> I thought the basic discussion here was same sex marriage, but correct me if
> I'm wrong.

I was talking about the inconsistency of favoring same-sex marriage 
while advocating the prohibition of incestuous marriage. What was the 
purpose of mentioning the amicus brief?

>>>I think you have perhaps dismissed the potential genetic issues of
>>>incestuous relationships a little too glibly.
>>
>>"Home" was a sweet episode, wasn't it?
> 
> 
> ?

"Home" is one of the better known episodes of "The X-Files". It was 
about a family of hideously deformed inbreds in rural Pennsylvania. OMG 
THEY WERE INBRED BUT NOT IN TEH SOUTH WTF LOL!!!11!!!one!!

>>>I admittedly have not done a
>>>lot of reading or research into the issue (and I'd love to know why you
>>>seemingly have...)
>>
>>It's an excellent point to be raised in marriage policy discussions, as
>>it is a very useful tool for indicating the social taboos held by folks
>>who imagine themselves to be above such things. Their first response is
>>usually to play Mendel.
> 
> 
> Ah, I see. Well I'm big enough to admit that I'm not above holding a few
> social taboos of my own. I especially don't like it when people pick their
> nose and wipe their boogers on the seats in the train. But I *am* above
> having my government step in to enforce my social taboos. Aren't you?

Yes, that is why I am so surprised by your advocacy of the state's 
prohibition of incestuous marriage. You say that years in San Francisco 
liberated your mind, but I don't see what's liberating about prohibiting 
people from marrying and procreating.

>>That still doesn't reply to my point that a marriage license is not a
>>license to procrate. People procreate with whomever they damn well
>>please and the state does not step in. Do you think it should?
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. 

Well then, why should the state be prohibiting their marriages, then?

> But let's cut to the chase here. Please enlighten me as to
> why states should be allowed to prevent same sex marriage but not your
> marriage or mine, since both kinds of marriage have a long history of being
> considered "social taboos" by a majority of the people. 

I don't think I ever stated that the state should prevent same-sex 
marriage, so why should I enlighten you about that?

> Oh wait! I know, I
> know, because preventing people of different races from marrying isn't
> necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest (no matter how much
> people may have thought it was, say as recently as 30 or 40 years ago), but
> preventing same sex marriage *is* substantially related to an important
> governmental interest. Oh, do tell Kevin. Don't keep us in suspense.

Why should I tell you about that? Did I say that the state should 
prevent same-sex marriage?

>>You also haven't reply to my point about how the state does not prevent
>>people who are carriers for congenital disorders such as Huntington's
>>Disease, SCID, and Osteogenesis Imperfecta from marrying, even though
>>these disorders can be far more severe and have a risk of developing in
>>a carrier's child higher than an inbred child's chances of congenital
>>birth defect. Such people are not prevented from marrying, and they
>>certainly are not prevented from procreating. What do you suppose we
>>should do about that?
> 
> 
> Let's take a step back. I'm arguing *in favor* of the fourteenth amendment,

Why? No one here is saying anything bad about the 14th Amendment. I 
think the 14th Amendment is great.

> and consequently *in favor* of same sex marriage (or actually *against* the
> state allowing people to marry but not allowing some people to marry because
> the state has decided that they happen to be the wrong sex, since, last I
> checked, that is a violation of the fourteenth amendment, absent an
> important governmental interest.) I'm not arguing against any of the issues
> you are raising. And the state not allowing incestuous marriage doesn't
> really bother me anyway. 

Well, that's nice, but what bothers you is not particularly 
constitutionally relevant. IME, people like to draw the boundary of 
constitutional protection just outside the boundary of what they find to 
be acceptable.

"I favor a man's right to marry another man, but not his sister. I mean, 
let's be reasonable."

> When the state says no to them, they are not saying
> no based on the person's sex or even on their sexual orientation (which, as
> I've said, I would be willing to consider one of the suspect or middle-tier
> classes that warrant heightened scrutiny, even though I don't think it is
> necessary to go that far in this case. But that's an argument for another
> day.) 

Yes, the state is saying no based on genetics. Tell me, what do you 
think the standard of scrutiny for discrimination based on genetics 
should be? Since sex is genetically determined and gets intermediate 
scrutiny, I think genetic discrimination gets at least intermediate 
scrutiny.

Or, maybe the state is saying no based on familial relationships? I 
realize that FSU is not Boalt Hall, but I seem to remember reading 
something about "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and 
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment". I know you favor the 14th Amendment 
because you told me, so you should be happy to learn this. Incestuous 
marriage is the intersection of marriage and family life. Dad and 
daughter can marry! W00t!

> So there's nothing I can see in the fourteenth amendment to prevent
> the state from saying no to peole who want to marry their sister. I win.

Your social taboo wins, yes. You must be some sort of religious zealot. 
You don't seem to mind being mollified, though.

Do you really think that genetic discrimination is a "win"? Your eugenic 
JeffWorld does not seem very liberating at all.

>>Do you look at the royal houses of Europe and say, "Egads! These people
>>are severely deformed!"? Do you think thoroughbred horses are severely
>>deformed?
>>
>>Of course, all this talk about procreation leads me to believe that you
>>think marriage is about children. I am glad that we agree.
> 
> 
> Being in one without any children myself, I'm going to have to disagree.

Then when I mentioned incestuous marriage, why did you blurt out, "What 
about the children? We must think of the children!"

How about two brothers? Can they marry?

> Knowing several people who have been quite successful in raising children
> with their gay partners (without being married), 

Can you please tell me what constitutes success in rearing children? As 
I will be a father in a few months, I really want to know that information.

> yep, I'm going to have to
> disagree again.

Then why did you mention children as your objection to incestuous 
marriage? Isn't that weird? Weird as a Dutch accent.

And do you think the royal houses of Europe are severely deformed? (no 
ears jokes about Prince Charles)

- Kevin