But does the fundamental right to marry mean that marriage can include whatever group of consenting N people agree to it? Is there a fundamental right to polygamous marriage? A fundamental right to incestuous marriage? Not likely.
Is there a legitimate reason to reject polygamous marriage based on fundamental rights? I don't think so. Incest is so taboo I really don't feel it's an issue, and to some extent that's true for polygamous marriage. These things haven't really surfaced the way same-sex marriage has.
It should be obvious to anyone that the sex of the participants is a lot more significant to the marital relationship than the race of the participants. At least as far as state-sanctioned marriage is concerned, there's a lot more to it than just "any two people willing to enter into the relationship can get married." You can't just say it's an "individual's right to marry", because first you have to define what the "right to marry" means, and in world history, it's never extended to the right to marry someone of the same gender.
You say there's "a lot more to it"--like what?
And going back to the Judge's opinion, just because it hasn't been recognized in history does not mean that it cannot today be considered a basic human right. Just because a right has been denied in history does not justify continued oppression today.
I'm not sure I agree with the basic human rights angle either, but I see his argument.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-16 02:25 am (UTC)Is there a legitimate reason to reject polygamous marriage based on fundamental rights? I don't think so. Incest is so taboo I really don't feel it's an issue, and to some extent that's true for polygamous marriage. These things haven't really surfaced the way same-sex marriage has.
It should be obvious to anyone that the sex of the participants is a lot more significant to the marital relationship than the race of the participants. At least as far as state-sanctioned marriage is concerned, there's a lot more to it than just "any two people willing to enter into the relationship can get married." You can't just say it's an "individual's right to marry", because first you have to define what the "right to marry" means, and in world history, it's never extended to the right to marry someone of the same gender.
You say there's "a lot more to it"--like what?
And going back to the Judge's opinion, just because it hasn't been recognized in history does not mean that it cannot today be considered a basic human right. Just because a right has been denied in history does not justify continued oppression today.
I'm not sure I agree with the basic human rights angle either, but I see his argument.