Prop 8 upheld by Supreme Court
Find a Conversation
Prop 8 upheld by Supreme Court
| Tue, 05-26-2009 - 8:49pm |
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-decision27-2009may27,0,6677891.story
Prop. 8 upheld by California Supreme Court

Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times
Engaged couple Robert Franco, right, and Shawn Higgins kiss as San Francisco police line up to arrest anti-Proposition 8 demonstrators.
The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before the November vote will stay married. The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.
By Maura Dolan
11:44 AM PDT, May 26, 2009
11:44 AM PDT, May 26, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.
The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.
The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

Pages
If anyone has something other than hysterical what if conjectures about pedophiles and incest and animals and furniture,
The answer to your question is a simple No, a woman cannot marry her brother.
The laws in the states vary a bit, from my reading, but I don't think too much.
In Delaware they are now considering a bill that would prohibit marriage between 1/2 sibs.
I put the link to that article and another regarding US state marriage laws at the end.
Here is an article from the UK that explains a lot of the rationale and history of prohibiting marriage between relatives.
To throw a monkey wrench in this thread: Using the rationale of "undesirable inbreeding" and genetics one can question, why not run genetic testing on couples before they marry to determine if they carry genes (autosomal recessive or dominant) that will lead to birth defect and "undesirable inbreeding"? We know of disorders that result from people from the same cultural background, ex. sickle cell anemia (mostly seen in African Americans), Tay Sachs (eastern European Jewish descent (Ashkenazi Jews) and among French Canadians and Cajuns), and Cystic Fibrosis (mostly seen in those of Northern European descent)?
"From Times Online
January 16, 2008
The Law Explored: why siblings can't marry
The law allows marriages between first cousins but not between brothers and sisters. Why?
Gary Slapper
Twins who were separated at birth, and who later married each other without knowing that they were brother and sister, have had their marriage annulled.
As babies they were adopted by different families and neither was told that they had a twin. Later in life, they met, fell in love, and married before discovering that they were siblings. They were granted an annulment at a special hearing at the High Court in London.
Marriages between people sharing blood, such as siblings, have been banned for “consanguinity” for many centuries, although modern genetic science is not precise about where to draw the line to avoid undesirable inbreeding.
A marriage between people who are too closely related isn’t valid. The law speaks of the “prohibited degrees of relationship” and two types of closeness can be measured. Consanguinity concerns people descended from the same stock or a common ancestor. Affinity concerns people related through marriage or civil partnership.
Historically, the law was that you couldn’t marry anyone within a certain number of degrees of proximity. The number of degrees at which marriage became permissible changed from seven degrees at one time to four degrees today. Now, marriages involving people related in the first three degrees are invalid but marriages in the fourth degree are okay.
How are degrees of relationship measured? The scheme is influenced by the Roman model which worked like this. Going down the generations like grandmother, mother, daughter, people are always one degree apart.
In general, if you want to know whether a relative is too close to marry, you count the spaces between each of you and your nearest common ancestor, then add together the two numbers. For instance, a brother and sister are two degrees apart because each is one degree from their common parent.
Marriage between people related in the third degree or less is prohibited. You can’t marry your mother’s sister or brother because you’re related in the third degree to them. The common ancestor is your grandmother, from whom you are two degrees away, and your aunt or uncle is one away — three degrees altogether.
First cousins are related in the fourth degree. Your common ancestor will be your grandmother. You have two degrees separating you from her, and so will your cousin (as will your mother’s sibling’s child). Added together, there are therefore four degrees of separation. In short, you can marry your first cousin.
The prohibited degrees were defined by Innocent III in 1215, recognised in an Act of Henry VIII in 1536 and are now in the Marriage Act 1949.
Specifically, the Marriage Act lists the invalid relationships and says a man can’t marry: his mother, adoptive mother, daughter, adoptive daughter, father's mother, mother's mother, son's daughter and so forth. A woman can’t marry: her father, adoptive father, son, adoptive son or former adoptive son, father's father and several others.
The principle that marriages of close non-blood relatives are unlawful was modified in Scotland by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2005. It says that a person can now marry their mother-in-law or father-in-law where death or divorce has ended the original marriage.
The old principle was based on biblical lines, such as that in Leviticus 20:14 which says that if a “man takes his wife and her mother” all three shall be burnt alive. A law that would perhaps have given Dustin Hoffman second thoughts in The Graduate.
There was no particular science behind the old lists of prohibited degrees of affinity. According to one classic legal history, they were simply the “idle ingenuities” of men who liked drawing up tables and “doggerel hexameters” (worthless rhythmic lines).
Why did Scotland want to make special provision for a man to marry his mother-in-law or daughter-in-law, and a woman to marry her father-in-law or son-in-law, if death or divorce has ended the original relationship? The answer is that the Scottish Parliament took the view that “family law must be updated to ensure that it reflects the needs of all our people”.
Cupid can behave in curious ways, so diverse passions are legally permitted. Most things, in fact, except romantic love in the third degree. "
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article3198834.ece
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090508/NEWS02/905080335/1007/Bill+would+ban+marriage+between+half-siblings
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/usmarlaws.htm
**** **** **** **** **** ****
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Gerald R. Ford
You must be posting to the wrong person.
>>> The next time someone stands advocating against choice and does it with a picture of an actual ten week old foetus will be the first time. All we see are cute babies, not foetus' the size of a half dollar.
What an inane comment. Why does the size of a developing HUMAN have anything to do with the intrinsic value of it's life? How big does a person have to be in order for you to feel it's life has value?
>>> But then that wouldn't get much support, would it?
Sure it would...which is why libs won't post those pictures...just like you won't. Because despite their attempts to dehumanize the baby by calling it a "clump of cells" or a zygote, at the time most abortions are perpetrated, the fetus is, in fact, a fully developed human...
MONTH 2 -- WEEK 8: At a little more than an inch long, the developing life is now called a fetus--Latin for "young one" or "offspring." Everything is now present that will be found in a fully developed adult.
MONTH 3 -- Week 12: The fetus now sleeps, awakens and exercises its muscles energetically--turning its head, curling its toes, and opening and closing its mouth. The palm, when stroked, will make a tight fist. The fetus breathes amniotic fluid to help develop its respiratory system.
13 weeks: The fetus is now 3 to 4 inches long, crown to rump.. Its unique fingerprints are already in place. And when you poke your stomach gently and she feels it, your baby will start rooting(searching for a nipple).
http://www.geocities.com/pregnancyhelpnow/fetaldevelopment.html
>>> In any case, choice is the only thing that makes legal sense.
LOL! Sure...whine, whine, whine about dunking a terrorist, but pat a woman on the back for killing her baby. Liberal values.
Merely pointing out that the logic of inequality, and civil rights violations are just ridiculous arguments here.
Pages