Drudge: 1 JUDGE VOIDS 7,000,000 VOTERS...

[Socrtease]

whats a 'double first cousin'?

YOur brother and you both marry sisters who are cousins and then you each have a child, one boy and one girl. That would be a double first cousin.

 

[DamnYankee]

•North Carolina: First cousins, yes. Double first cousins are not allowed to get married.
(wow SM doesn't even know the laws of his own state.)

Doesn't matter. Should marriage between siblings be legal?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

YOur brother and you both marry sisters who are cousins and then you each have a child, one boy and one girl. That would be a double first cousin.

that makes my head hurt.

 

[Phantasmal]

Here are the laws relating to cousins marrying in the US. Guess that argument sort of falls by the wayside huh?

Alabama and Alaska allow first cousins to marry with no proscriptions. Arizona allows it if they are beyond child bearing age.

•California: First cousins, yes.

•Colorado: First cousins, yes.

•Connecticut: First cousins, yes.

•Delaware: No

•District of Columbia: First cousins, yes.

•Florida: First cousins, yes

•Georgia: First cousins, yes.



•Hawaii: First cousins, yes.

•Idaho: No

•Illinois: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.

•Indiana: First cousins once removed, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.

•Iowa: No

•Kansas: Half cousins, yes.

•Kentucky: No

•Louisiana: Marriage between first cousins is not allowed.



•Maine: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children, or if they get genetic counseling.

•Maryland: First cousins, yes.

•Massachusetts: First cousins, yes.

•Michigan: No

•Minnesota: No, unless aboriginal culture of the couple permits cousin marriages.

•Mississippi: Adopted cousins, yes.

•Nebraska: Half cousins, yes.

•Nevada: Half cousins, yes.

•New Hampshire: No

•New Jersey: First cousins, yes.

•New Mexico: First cousins, yes.

•New York: First cousins, yes.

•North Carolina: First cousins, yes. Double first cousins are not allowed to get married.
(wow SM doesn't even know the laws of his own state.)

•North Dakota: No

•Ohio: No

•Oklahoma: Half cousins, yes.

•Oregon: Adopted cousins, yes.

•Pennsylvania: No

•Rhode Island: First cousins, yes.

•South Carolina: First cousins, yes.

•South Dakota: No

•Tennessee: First cousins, yes.

•Texas: No.

•Utah: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.

•Vermont: First cousins, yes.

•Virginia: First cousins, yes.

•Washington: No

•West Virginia: Adopted cousins, yes.

•Wisconsin: First cousins once removed, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.

•Wyoming: No

It is one reason the state consistently votes Republican!!

 

[Socrtease]

Doesn't matter. Should marriage between siblings be legal?

You move the goal posts everytime someone proves you wrong.

 

[Damocles]

whats a 'double first cousin'?

That would be the children of two pairs of first cousins. Say I married a first cousin, and so did my sister (different one of course). Our kids could not get married because they'd be "double-first cousins"...

 

[Phantasmal]

You move the goal posts everytime someone proves you wrong.

It was practiced at one time in history, but things change!

 

[DamnYankee]

You move the goal posts everytime someone proves you wrong.

Not at all. I never claimed that you couldn't marry first cousins in any particular state. In fact I never qualified the "cousins" scenario at all. My argument is aimed at the slippery slope. If something that is considered detestable by a majority is OK, then something that is considered detestable by a larger majority should be OK next.

 

[DamnYankee]

It is one reason the state consistently votes Republican!!

Like Massachusetts?

 

[Jarod]

Not at all. I never claimed that you couldn't marry first cousins in any particular state. In fact I never qualified the "cousins" scenario at all. My argument is aimed at the slippery slope. If something that is considered detestable by a majority is OK, then something that is considered detestable by a larger majority should be OK next.

The reason for prhoibition against marriage amung family members is the potential for abuse. People who grew up in a custodial enviroment together have a great possability to be in such a great position of power over the other that the chance of abuse is great.

This is the same reason behind laws against bigotry, but with the womans liberation movement being almost complete the abuse potential from bigamy is shrinking.

 

[DamnYankee]

The reason for prhoibition against marriage amung family members is the potential for abuse. People who grew up in a custodial enviroment together have a great possability to be in such a great position of power over the other that the chance of abuse is great.

This is the same reason behind laws against bigotry, but with the womans liberation movement being almost complete the abuse potential from bigamy is shrinking.

You must therefore support a law banning marriage of a boss to one of his employees, or the marriage of a smart man to that of a woman with a lower IQ.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You must therefore support a law banning marriage of a boss to one of his employees, or the marriage of a smart man to that of a woman with a lower IQ.

i saw that one coming LOL

 

[Jarod]

You must therefore support a law banning marriage of a boss to one of his employees, or the marriage of a smart man to that of a woman with a lower IQ.

I dont belive that the power relationship between a boss and an employee is that likely to lead to such abuse, but there are laws prohibiting marriage to retarded people by people of normal intelegence.

 

[Timshel]

Which doesn't change my prediction at all. Whether or not this is nonsense the reality is the SCOTUS is a political entity, and Kennedy would side with the liberals on this issue based on past decisions. He'll side with conservatives on some issues (guns) and liberals on others (abortion, etc.)...

I predict that the SCOTUS will rule on this, and that they'll uphold this decision in the end in a 5-4 decision, probably with the decision written by Kennedy and the opposition opinion written by Clarence Thomas...

Clarence will not write an opinion unless he disagrees with something in a significant way. His opinions are usually very short. It will probably be a highly political/partisan screed written by Scalia, who is probably the worst justice on the court basing his opinions on nothing but whim.

Walker's reasoning on the 14th is sound and in keeping with precedent. No way the homophobes are going to win. They would be better off just accepting defeat in Cali.

 

[Timshel]

You use the word 'discriminate' as if it was a dirty word....thats bullshit....
A healthy amount of discrimination in our lives is a good thing....
We all have rights...and that includes the right to discriminate between good and bad, moral and immoral, when to act or not act, etc....we discriminate every day of our lives...and just because some us choose differently than you might is to be celebrated and not demonized....
its only the freakin' elite that think we all must make the some choices they might make because they somehow know better....again, bullshit

ZzzzZZzzzZzzz... You write about discrimination as if the court pretend all forms of discrimination are the same. They don't.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I dont belive that the power relationship between a boss and an employee is that likely to lead to such abuse, but there are laws prohibiting marriage to retarded people by people of normal intelegence.

the military currently criminalizes fraternization.

 

[Jarod]

Clarence will not write an opinion unless he disagrees with something in a significant way. His opinions are usually very short. It will probably be a highly political/partisan screed written by Scalia, who is probably the worst justice on the court basing his opinions on nothing but whim.

Walker's reasoning on the 14th is sound and in keeping with precedent. No way the homophobes are going to win. They would be better off just accepting defeat in Cali.

Thomas is a poor writer and appears to be unfimular with precident and legal foundation. That is why he rarely is assigned to write anything by the chief or the senior judge in the marjority.

 

[Timshel]

Really? You don't feel the conservative balance on the court would tip the decision the other way? 4-5 against?

Scalia, Alito, Robert and Thomas. I think, that's all they can hope for unless the court can carve somthing out that does not overturn other rulings.

 

[Timshel]

The voters in CA chose to define marriage as is their prerogative under Amendment X. This has nothing to do with Amendment IV.

It is not their prerogative under amendment 9 and 14.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Thomas is a poor writer and appears to be unfimular with precident and legal foundation. That is why he rarely is assigned to write anything by the chief or the senior judge in the marjority.

thomas is an excellent writer. He's also a constitutional originalist. he abhors precedent when it's constitutionally wrong. again, i say read his dissent in raich and his adjoining opinion in chicago v mcdonald.