Boomer Wisdom
New member
A law in which the State of California prohibited homosexuals from engaging in a marriage contract was overturned because a judge ruled that it broke Federal Constitutional law (Due process and Equal Protection). It results in the concept that U.S. Constitutional Individual Rights trump a State's ability to define and determine legal contracts between individuals.
If this ruling holds, does it not mean that siblings (of either sex) should be able to have a recognized "marriage?"
Are not siblings a class of citizens who should not be discriminated against?
(Personally, I don't care. My marriage of 30 years would still be a marriage whether or not the government approved. I'm looking for how you would argue this in court, since I see no difference between classes of people who wish to be married. This is a legal exercise, not any sort of personal propaganda or policy statement.)
As for incest, the Constitution of the United States never addresses it. Previously, such matters have always been under the jurisdiction of the States or Individuals, per the 9th and 10th Amendments. (I'm pretty sure these Amendments existed when I was a kid...can't find 'em now...)
If this ruling holds, does it not mean that siblings (of either sex) should be able to have a recognized "marriage?"
Are not siblings a class of citizens who should not be discriminated against?
(Personally, I don't care. My marriage of 30 years would still be a marriage whether or not the government approved. I'm looking for how you would argue this in court, since I see no difference between classes of people who wish to be married. This is a legal exercise, not any sort of personal propaganda or policy statement.)
As for incest, the Constitution of the United States never addresses it. Previously, such matters have always been under the jurisdiction of the States or Individuals, per the 9th and 10th Amendments. (I'm pretty sure these Amendments existed when I was a kid...can't find 'em now...)