Skip to main content

View Diary: The Supreme Court hears the same old arguments (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Norms (0+ / 0-)

    Does government have a legitimate interest in outlawing unions between brothers and sisters? If it's only to prevent procreation (e.g., to forestall possible possible genetic abnormality in offspring), shouldn't we permit such marriages if the females are post-menopausal or undergo hysterectomies and/or the men have vasectomies? Or are there some "marital norms" that we claim the government may legitimately defend, whether or not any given set of partners presents a challenge to that interest?

    This is not posted in opposition to gay marriage, merely to point out that, IMO, Hunter (or possibly Kagan) is a little hasty in dismissing Cooper's basic argument as either irrelevant or stale. If the government has no interest in who marries whom, then it's difficult to see why other sorts of presently-frowned-upon unions ought not to be permitted. Or, if there is some legitimate government interest in these matters, there ought to be rational, statable principles and guidelines. Simply raising the equality/inequality flag doesn't meet that test.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site