Wolf O'Donnell- I hope you realize that I am trying to follow the stellar advice given by Debra LAW with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment and the provision of Equal Rights under the law.
I think it is cruel, American and positively Medieval to refuse Equal Rights to those who would practice Bestiality, Incest, Polygamy, Polyandry, and Pederasty.
No, you aren't. You're taking her advice to the extreme. By your logic, we must give equal rights to animals and plants of any sort.
Bestiality is equivalent to rape, because the animal does not consent to anything. The same goes for pederasty.
Polygamy and polyandry are illegal because they somehow cheat the tax system concerning marriage. Incest is not comparable because it puts any offspring created at a health risk incomparable to homosexuality.
This is true for pederastery, but not for animals -- because animals are not persons, they don't enjoy equal protection of the law, and their lives, liberty and property can be taken without due process of the law.
Thomas wrote:This is true for pederastery, but not for animals -- because animals are not persons, they don't enjoy equal protection of the law, and their lives, liberty and property can be taken without due process of the law.
Still doesn't change the fact that it's nonconsensual.
And I can't seem to find any evidence for the latter questions you ask.
So is intercourse with inflateable plastic dolls, which I'm sure the 4th and 14th amendments protect.
That's why I agree with the point justice Scalia made in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas: Gay marriage should be treated analogously to incest, polygamy, and polyandry. Which, in turn, leads me to the conclusions that (1) the constitution does not compel states to recognize gay marriage; (2) it would be good policy to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, a point joefromchicago created this thread to discuss; and (3) it would also be good policy, though not quite as good as #2, if the state recognized gay marriages, incestuous marriage, and polygamy/polyandry.
Thomas wrote:So is intercourse with inflateable plastic dolls, which I'm sure the 4th and 14th amendments protect.
I'm not sure how the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures would protect intercourse with inflatable dolls, although it would certainly protect against the seizure of that doll by the state. Instead, sex with inanimate objects would most likely be protected under the general liberty interest of the 14th amendment.
The state, after all, protects various classes of persons (e.g. minors, persons with diminished mental capacities, etc.) in their contractual relationships. The state determines that those classes of persons, because of their inherently unequal bargaining power and the increased risk of abuse, require the special solicitude of the laws. The same could be said of people in certain types of incestuous unions.
Eighteen months ago, somewhere in Blatham's thread, you explained to me the equal protection argument why the constitution compels the states to recognize gay marriage. If I remember correctly, I called it "ridiculous". That was certainly an error on my part, though I still don't find the argument entirely persuasive. Who knows what I'll think about the matter 18 months in the future?
You disagreed with me? I find that difficult to believe.
I find Mr. Thomas' arguments compelling. I must point out that Polyandry, Polygamy and Incest have been practiced in many societies throughout history. In Sweden, a country whose outlook is so much more liberal than our Puritanical homeland, , not only is Prostitution or fornication not a crime, father-daughter incest has a MAXIMUM punishment of only two years.
US Society is slowly becoming more like Ancient Greece. Soon, pederasty, incest, polygamy and polyandry will become common.
If Homosexuals do not desire to be equated in the same way with those who would practice incest,,,,,,,,what would that make those homosexuals?
The 2-to-1 decision rejected the efforts of seven same-sex couples to marry, although the case is expected to go to the state Supreme Court.
Hi Joe --
Did you have the chance and the inclination to look at the recent judicial setbacks to gay marriage in New York, Connecticut, Washington, and the appeals court for the 8th circuit? If you did, I'd be interested in hearing what you make of these decisions.