Incestuous Marriage

[Perianne]

One of the justifications for denying close family members the right to marry is the impact inbreeding may have on their offspring. But marriage between members of the same sex could not produce inbred offspring. So, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of homosexual marriage, can the right to incestuous marriage between people of the same gender be denied?

America is heading down a dark, crooked path.

[Kathianne]

I don't think the government should be redifining marriage. However, gays have always had sex and incest has always existed.

It's like guns. Outlaws will always find a way, making laws to ban guns doesn't work.

[Kathianne]

Related. Why I think the government should not be involved in redifining marriage:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/modern-sin-holding-on-to-your-belief-1430436364


Modern Sin: Holding On to Your Belief

Trying to put florists, bakers and others out of work for unapproved ideas about marriage.

By CHARLOTTE ALLEN

<time class="timestamp" style="margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Whitney SSm', sans-serif; display: block; line-height: 2.2rem; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); background: 0px 0px;">April 30, 2015 7:26 p.m. ET
On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that asks whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry. Four days before the hearing, in Oregon, an administrative-law judge proposed a $135,000 fine against Aaron and Melissa Klein, proprietors of the Sweet Cakes bakery in Gresham, for the “emotional distress” suffered by a lesbian couple for whom the Kleins, citing their Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, had declined to bake a wedding cake in 2013.
Same-sex marriage wasn’t legal in Oregon when the Kleins made their decision. But the couple was found to have violated a 2008 Oregon law forbidding discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.
Media sympathy for the Kleins’ claim that being forced to participate in a same-sex wedding would violate their consciences ranged from nonexistent to . . . nonexistent. A CNN headline dubbed the Kleins’ since-closed business the “anti-gay bakery”; the Huffington Post prefers “anti-gay baker.”
Supporters of the Kleins—who have five children and operated the bakery out of their home—quickly went on the crowdfunding website GoFundMe to try to raise money to help the family pay legal fees and the fine, which still requires approval by the state labor commissioner. The effort managed to raise more than $100,000 in a few hours. But then, on Saturday night, GoFundMe abruptly shut down the online appeal because the Kleins’ case involved “formal charges.”
The Kleins join a small number of bakers, florists and photographers around the country, most of whom say they serve and even employ gays in their over-the-counter operations but who also insist that their Christian beliefs in man-woman marriage preclude their providing services to same-sex weddings. Those numbers will probably dwindle further: Many states are treating those acts of conscience as ordinary bigotry and, by levying or threatening fines, forcing those small business owners into costly and potentially ruinous litigation.
In Washington state, 70-year-old Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn a $1,000 fine against her last month for refusing to arrange flowers for the same-sex wedding of a longtime customer; Ms. Stutzman had recommended another nearby florist instead.
The lower court that levied the fine also issued a permanent injunction ordering Ms. Stutzman, a Southern Baptist who has cited her “relationship with Jesus” as the reason for her refusal, to serve same-sex weddings in the future. She also faces the potential costs of awards for damages and attorney’s fees in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the customer and his partner.

...


The irony is that only a few years ago, when the legalization of same-sex marriage didn’t appear so inevitable, gay-marriage advocates eagerly assured a skeptical public that scenarios like those above would never happen. Typical was since-retired California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who wrote in the 2008 decision legalizing gay marriage in that state: “Affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person.”
The victors have dropped their conciliatory stance. Bubonic plague-level hysteria surged through the media, academia and mega-corporate America in March after Indiana passed a law—modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993—that would enable religious believers to opt out of universally applicable laws under some circumstances.
Amid threats of business boycotts, the Indiana legislature amended the law to ensure antidiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians—but not before a pizzeria in Walkerton shut down for a week amid death and arson threats after its Catholic owners told a reporter that, while they would gladly serve gays in their restaurant, they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.
Should the Supreme Court rule in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, expect more of the same. During oral arguments on Tuesday, JusticeSamuel Alito asked Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a religiously affiliated college that opposed same-sex marriage could lose its tax-exempt status after such a ruling. “It is going to be an issue,” Mr. Verrilli replied.
That is putting it mildly; the phrase “persecution of Christians” might be more apt. It would be nice if states passed religious-freedom laws that both protected gays and lesbians from discrimination in day-to-day transactions and accommodated people whose beliefs recognize traditional man-woman marriage—as Utah did last month. But in today’s mood of vengeful triumphalism among the progressive elites who rule public opinion, don’t count on many compromises.
</time>

[fj1200]

... can the right to incestuous marriage between people of the same gender be denied?

One can seemingly ban that without violating Equal Protection. Not so with gay marriage... pending decision of course.