State Marriage Laws: Same Sex vs. Cousins... Seriously.

[Fearless]

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/sex-windy-city/2009/12/follow-up-to-where-americas-same-sex-couples-live.html



------------------------
Betcha didn't realize that!

:banghead:

[kerrywins]

1. Get the Government Out of Marriage...Problem Solved

why does the government give special incentives to married people?

get rid of that...

there is no reason why the government should even be involved in marriage....

[hlthe2b]

2. I have long argued the incentives should be offered to all adults

to designate one person as their beneficiary, whether it be a marital partner or sister/brother/parent/adult child. The current system is setting us up demographically for disaster as we have ever increasing large numbers of aging widows/widowers or singles. Our societal policies in this regards are archaic and outdated, not to mention infinitely unfair.

[Warpy]

3. Well, yes there is

Much of it involves the equitable distribution of assets when the marriage is dissolved and some of it involves the allocation of children when it dissolves, along with issues like inheritance.

There's a huge body of contract law surrounding marriage that is incredibly expensive to duplicate outside it.

In addition, marriage is the promotion of an unrelated life partner to first degree relative status. That also carries the right to visit the partner in a hospital if blood relatives disapprove and the right to claim a body after death. Neither of these rights can be conferred by contract law as it exists.

I'm afraid state marriage is here to stay, there's just too much of it that the state has been involved in for far too long. However, what needs to be completely optional is religious marriage.

The state has a vested interest in refereeing marriages, especially when they break up. The state has no vested interest in telling consenting adults whom they might marry.

[Deep13]

4. My native state of MA allows both.

They're relatively hang-up free, I guess.

[Fearless]

5. +1

[noamnety]

6. This comparison has been posted 4 times in the last week, I think.

It's enough already.

It's not a contest. The implication is that we should be more bigoted against cousin marriages, when the reality is that we shouldn't be bigoted against either.

The comparison invites bigoted and ignorant comments against cousin marriages. I've seen that in each of the previous three threads on this subject, as well as some seriously ugly comments in each of the so-called news sites I've looked at where it's been linked.

[Fearless]

8. I don't think you understand why I posted it. And I haven't seen it elsewhere.

What I'm saying is that some people seem to think that discrimination against gay couples is ok because of a strict guideline of one-man, one-woman. However, I find it surprising their lack of concern to criteria that isn't gay people. That's all. Please don't try to paint me as a bigot, you don't know me. Thanks.

[noamnety]

10. I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot

I think some of the people here aren't aware of the overtones in the post - just something they haven't considered.

I'm not sure however what a "lack of criteria" has to do with cousins marrying ... but I am not asking you to spell that out explicitly. Just maybe think about why the original author of this comparison would have chosen to highlight this, why there are such ugly comments about it (against gay people and against cousins) online, and whether or not posts like this would in some way invite people to make bigoted comments about cousins who marry, even if you aren't the one making them.

The other threads
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=154421&mesg_id=154421
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=154269&mesg_id=154269
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x153777

You can see why it's getting tiresome in the forum, even if it wasn't intentional on your part.

[Fearless]

11. I'm sorry if you feel that this is in some way painted in less than a flattering light...

And I can understand why you find things frustrating here at times, but nevertheless we reflect the greater community at large and certainly we are not as a society free of frustrations.

[GodlessBiker]

7. The map is bogus. Why is NJ on the equality map? They just voted down marriage equality.

[Fearless]

9. Because it's not current.

:eyes:

[Unvanguard]

15. NJ never had marriage equality. The map is simply wrong.

NJ has civil unions that are supposed to be the legal equivalent of marriages (but really aren't). If you count that, you'd have to count Washington and California, too, neither of which is included on the map.

[queerart]

12. Does The GLBTQI Need Yet Another Thread On Incest?

Give This Topic A Rest Already.....

The Haters get it.... and they don't give a shit......

Marry Cousins, Play Around On Your Spouse, Divorce At Will, Keep A Mistress, Mary 20 Wives ......

They don't care that they are smiling bigot hypocrites... they do get it... Don't ever fool yourself that they don't....

Just like this one:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/08/more-allegations-emerge-over-iris-robinsons-teen-lover/

This seemly never ending topic could be added to really bad ideas for a Reality Show:

http://tv.popcrunch.com/the-15-worst-reality-tv-shows-ever-made/

[customerserviceguy]

13. Interesting chart

But there is one big fat difference: First cousins who marry in, say, Illinois, can move to Iowa and have their marriage recognized by everybody in that state. Can a gay married couple from Iowa do the same if they move to Illinois?

That first-cousin marriage chart is the ultimate answer to the problem of equal marriage. If we have a concept that the full faith and credit of one state's marriages are Constitutionally entitled to recognition in all of the states, then we've got the sword that cuts the Gordian knot.

[Fearless]

14. +1