response 72 of 191:

Jul 2 23:54 UTC 2003

You can fully expect the Lawrence v Texas decision to be a major issue 
in next year's election.  With conservative fears that laws against gay 
marriage are now in jeopardy, Bush and his political advisors are said 
to be salivating over the idea of introducing a new proposed Amendment 
to the Constitution, which would spell out a ban on gay marriages

They'd probably word the proposal something like:

"The government of the United States of America hereby recognizes that 
marriage in this country can only be entered into by two persons who 
are heterosexual, and who are not close blood relatives" 

They'd include the incest part to blunt criticism that it is just an 
anti-gay Amendment, and to make it politically more potent.  Bush would 
come out strongly in favor of such, and try to turn the entire election 
into a referendum on the institution of "marriage"  If his opponents 
say they are against this Amendment proposal, then his spin doctors 
will say "Bush is FOR the institution of marriage, and his opponents 
are against it, that his oppenents are "for" gay marriages and 
incestual marriages. 

Even though this might not have any chance of actually getting the 
required votes to become an Amendment to the Constitution, Bush's folks 
will surely think that simply having the proposal out there serves its 
purpose.  To portray Bush as the protector of the institutions of 
family and marriage.

Get out the Maalox, there's going to a lot to make you feel ill during 
this next year's election cycle... 

response 74 of 191:

Jul 3 01:02 UTC 2003

There already exists in federal law the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA,
1996).  Up until then, marriage laws had been left up to the States,
although a number of federal law referred to the married status, for
certain rights and privileges. The origin and wording of the DoMA are
presented at http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Federal_.htm It still leaves the
definition of marriage up to the States but rather concerns recognition of
States for the marriage laws of other States if the marriages are between
persons of the same sex.

An amendment would probably use part of the language of the DoMA. 

response 76 of 191:

Jul 3 02:01 UTC 2003

So you expect marriages between close relatives to be banned because they
might produce children, and marriages between people of the same sex to be
banned because they can't produce children?  How about banning marriages
between other people who can't product children (infertility, menopause,
having been sterilized)?  Banning marriage with anyone having a known genetic
defect in their family?  

response 78 of 191:

Jul 3 02:09 UTC 2003

what about legalizing incestual marriage IF the husband could provide
documentation that he's had a vasectomy and/or the wife could provide
documentation that she's had her tubes tied.  And both sign sworn statements
saying they'll never attempt to have said procedures reversed and will never
have kids?  Then what would the objection be?  So long as they are not having
kids, they are still consenting adults, so whose business should it be whether
they are in a relationship?  you don't have to approve of a lifestyle to
accept other people's rights to live it if they choose so long as issues of
mutual consent are satisfied (i.e. no beastial relationships, or adult-minor
relationships or other types where one party isn't capable of legally
consenting)

response 80 of 191:

Jul 3 03:40 UTC 2003

If such an amendment were adopted, I think it would be an enormous spur to
creative family arrangements through other legal means and maybe even a
bigger flight from "marriage" because of the greater availability of
alternatives that may have significant financial or other advantages. 

response 84 of 191:

Jul 3 05:28 UTC 2003

Re #76, last sentence:  That used to be done, here and elsewhere.
It was called "eugenics", and it acquired a bad reputation.

I can think of ways that the benefits might be achieved without
either the evil connotations or coercive nature of past attempts.

response 86 of 191:

Jul 3 14:16 UTC 2003

        Dan Savage, in his column Savage Love, has come up with an alternate
definition for the word "santorum" (in lower case) that makes #85 particularly
funny.

response 88 of 191:

Jul 3 15:36 UTC 2003

I'm aware of eugenics, and if you read my post, you'd notice that what 
I'm suggesting is FAR from:

From WordNet (r) 1.7 : 


  eugenics
       n : the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by
           selective breeding (especially as applied to human
           mating) [ant: dysgenics]

I am merely suggesting that modern mechanisms of social conditioning be 
applied in a very specific and valuable way where traditional methods are 
failing due to the breakdown of social taboo.