I think we could take??? sex out of the definition of legal marriage? Which would allow for the marriage of relatives. And gay people. And generally be less gross.
If you take sex out then, it would be more like making someone your new sibling, with guardianship, asset-sharing, inheritance, and medical/financial power of attorney. Maaaybe we could even unbundle those things, but it would be work.
I don’t see any way to include children though-- all of those things require adult consent.
And expanding it to multiple spouses would be possible but way too complicated imo.
If you’re over a certain age (60?) in some states where first cousin marriage is not generally legal, you can marry your first cousin since reproduction is no longer on the table.
Until fairly recently it was against the law in many states to marry a (former) brother or sister in law. Historically a sibling in law was considered equivalent to a sibling. (This is why it was so important that Henry the VIII’s older brother did not officially consummate his marriage to Catherine of aragon so that the marriage could be annulled. Otherwise henry could not have married her and preserved the alliance with Spain.)
Seems kind of a silly exclusion… for the off chance that you go through your life either holding out or not interested in your cousin and then around 60 you’re like now’s our moment!
I’m saying that you’re making odd assumptions about what “get the government out of marriage” means. But in short, yes. Your marriage would mean nothing, legally, so statutory rape laws would apply.
In what way do you think it is the same? Not recognizing gay marriage is the government restricting personal choice. Roe v Wade was the government increasing personal choice. It is the exact opposite.
I don’t know. Obviously I was on the young / liberal team so I can’t relate well.
My point is just that it could have been a non-issue. It was only an issue because people wanted to make it an issue. Then it was this huge battle. Then it blew over and now it’s a non-issue
Not only statutory rape, but rape period. In Ohio, it is not defined as rape to drug your spouse and rape (in all logical definitions of the word if not the legal one) them. In many states, marital rape is treated differently than general rape.
He didn’t say restricting gay marriage, he said trying to keep people from being gay. That’s a lot different. Also that baby doesn’t have any choice, but I’m sure you don’t see it that way which is why local is better than federal. Also the vast majority of religious folks don’t care if anyone is gay or want to live together or even be married. The big fear for religions is that they will be forced to perform the marriages. Of course there is a vocal more hateful minority but ascribing those beliefs to everyone as Shredni did is also overstating the case.
Why do you presume that? Some states have laws that expressly exempt statutory rape laws from applying in cases of marriage. These laws would have to be overturned. They wouldn’t disappear automatically just because the state was no longer specifying rules with respect to who can be married.
The recent Christian case against homosexuality is that it is unnatural, meaning against the plans of God as expressed in both the “book of scripture” and also the “book of nature.”
They have retreated somewhat and now simply don’t want to have to participate in the creation of this kind of unnatural marriage. But to say someone ought not be practice being gay is tantamount to wanting to stop them from being gay. Or to wanting them to disconnect from an essential way they are able to express love, which is arguably worse.
No offense, but that is complete crap. FFS, Protestants can’t force a Catholic priest to marry them so the likelihood of anyone being forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will is preposterous. Please show me a single case in which a religious organization was ever forced to adjudicate a marriage ceremony of any type and I will happily reconsider.