Rhode Island became the most recent state to neuter its marriage licensing.
Rhode Island has no existing laws whatsoever against consensual incest.
Based on these facts (and you can check them out for yourself if you don't believe me) I'd like to know from marriage neutering advocates what their reaction would be to this situation:
Two unmarried women approach the counter at the appropriate government office in Rhode Island and ask for a license, saying "We very much want to get married." They have been living together for many years now, and are raising two children together. The clerk examines the paperwork and realizes that the women share a biological father, who has never been in either's life. As it turns out, the women were not raised together and only met for the first time as adults.
Should the law instruct the clerk to issue them a state-recognized license, entitling them to all of the legal aspects of marriage?
If not, why not? Is it Constitutional to deny them a license?
Remember, their relationship is not criminal in any way.
Rhode Island has no existing laws whatsoever against consensual incest.
Based on these facts (and you can check them out for yourself if you don't believe me) I'd like to know from marriage neutering advocates what their reaction would be to this situation:
Two unmarried women approach the counter at the appropriate government office in Rhode Island and ask for a license, saying "We very much want to get married." They have been living together for many years now, and are raising two children together. The clerk examines the paperwork and realizes that the women share a biological father, who has never been in either's life. As it turns out, the women were not raised together and only met for the first time as adults.
Should the law instruct the clerk to issue them a state-recognized license, entitling them to all of the legal aspects of marriage?
If not, why not? Is it Constitutional to deny them a license?
Remember, their relationship is not criminal in any way.
Marriage law (among other things) creates a close familial relationship between two people who do not already share such a relationship. It instructs the state to begin considering those two people who were not closely related in the first place as near kin - next of kin, in fact.
ReplyDeleteWhat sense does it make for two people who are already closely related to as the state to start treating them as if they are closely related? None. Its nonsense. It would be like a woman who is already underweight requesting bariatric surgery so that she can become thin, a request with which no competent doctor would comply.
"who do not already share such a relationship"
ReplyDeleteThat is YOUR definition. There is no reason why that has to be the the government definition. At least one country legally marries half-siblings.
You have expressed why you don't think it makes sense not why it would be Constitutional to discriminate against them and deny their their supposed right to marry.