More U.S. States Allow Cousin Marriage Than Gay Marriage

[Daamien]

Although we would likely all agree neither issue should involve federal government, it is odd that more states allow you to marry your first cousin than marry someone of the same sex. What are your thoughts?

Article from death+taxes

 

[ChaosControl]

Marriage is a religious issue
Agree with this

states should issue civil unions universally for tax and inheritance
Disagree with this.

I put other. The state shouldn't be involved at all. I don't think it should issue civil unions.
I think if some combination of individuals who are able to legally consent want to sign some contract stating who gets what in what situation, they should be able to do that. But this should have nothing to do with states recognizing some kind of relationship like a civil union or marriage.

Not that it is relevant but I find less wrong with a cousin marriage than a homosexual marriage, but in the end neither is my business.

 

[Daamien]

Those contracts are legally enforced by state courts. Therefore, it does require state involvement to some degree to recognize the relationship. Civil unions are a form of voluntary contract after all.

 

[ChaosControl]

Those contracts are legally enforced by state courts. Therefore, it does require state involvement to some degree to recognize the relationship. Civil unions are a form of voluntary contract after all.

It is a contractual relationship and nothing more. It can be 2 people or 50 people, it doesn't matter. It can be a 20 year old man, a 40 year old man, and an 80 year old woman. No restrictions other than being able to consent to a contract within the state, whatever the consent requirements may be. It has nothing to do with any relationship beyond a contractual one though. Nothing to do with marriage, love, civil union, romanticism, whatever. Just like you can have a business contract and what happens when the business dissolves.

 

[PermanentSleep]

The only logical argument is personal liberty. Doug Stanhope says it best.

...If you want tax breaks, incorporate, right? The government should only look at you as an individual no matter what...If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? Would you go, "baby, this shit we got together it's so good we got to get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment tweenst us, we need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby, it's hot. But someone invented it, and now you gotta do it or you're an ass hole. It's like secretary's day. Every day was fine when you shuffled into the office until someone said, "ah, it's secretary day" and now you're a dick if you don't bring her flowers. Someone invented marriage and now you're a dick if you don't marry her and I'm a dick if I don't show up, and it's a boring, ego maniacal ritual that no one wants to go to. Don't ever for a second think that someone wants to be in your wedding. It's the most boring, horrifying experience. It's like watching someone make out on a bus for six hours...if I'm going to be that privy to your most intimate details, I'd rather just watch you fuck...

 

[libertybrewcity]

states should stay out of marriage altogether

 

[Daamien]

It is a contractual relationship and nothing more. It can be 2 people or 50 people, it doesn't matter. It can be a 20 year old man, a 40 year old man, and an 80 year old woman. No restrictions other than being able to consent to a contract within the state, whatever the consent requirements may be. It has nothing to do with any relationship beyond a contractual one though. Nothing to do with marriage, love, civil union, romanticism, whatever. Just like you can have a business contract and what happens when the business dissolves.

You are right, but not dealing with the current system of tax and inheritance laws. States have existing income and inheritance tax laws that favor unions between heterosexual partners, those same unions should be extended to any consenting adults. In this case, state law does have the need to recognize such unions for tax and inheritance benefits to be applied.

In an ideal situation with the absence of any such benefits, you would be correct. However, even under that scenario states would still be involved with enforcing such contacts through courts unless you lived in a stateless society with competing contract arbitrators.

 

[BuddyRey]

states should stay out of marriage altogether

This! Marriage should have no bearing on taxation whatsoever (everyone should be completely free from federal taxation, IMO), and marriage can become a church/private contract issue again.

 

[speciallyblend]

i voted other, you have to remember they keep the cousins law legal so they can keep kkk recruiters busy!! government shouldn't be in marriage period!!

 

[specsaregood]

I find it amusing that none of the options except "other" represents Dr. Paul's position.

 

[Danke]

What about siblings?

 

[Daamien]

I find it amusing that none of the options except "other" represents Dr. Paul's position.

I suppose I should have just left Option 1 as "Marriage is a religious issue". But the situation is slightly more nuanced than that. It's unacceptable for states to give tax breaks on the basis of whether a relationship is heterosexual regardless of whether they are involved in marriage. Hence, I don't comprehend the opposition to Option 1 just because it involves our current tax and inheritance benefit structure. If we wanted to be idealistic and simply ignore the current systems under which states operate, then we could just say that states should not be in the business of collecting income or inheritance taxes so civil unions would be pointless. At least Option 1 is a more equitable solution under the current system while a transition could be made to a system devoid of income and inheritance taxes.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

what about a cousin by marriage? if, for instance, you have a step grandmother.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

the only logical argument is personal liberty. Doug stanhope says it best.

lmao!!! +10000000

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What about siblings?

that's reserved for when things get desperate and there's a shortage of warm bodies lolz

 

[nate895]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.

 

[thehungarian]

I have no problem with gays or cousins marrying. Funny that cousin-banging is more acceptable(or used to be) than teh gheys. At least gays don't have mutated babies.

 

[Daamien]

What about defining marriage by what it actually is: A publicly declared male-female sexual union. Nothing else is marriage. They just don't have the parts.

Why does it have to be public? There are plenty historical and even current examples of secret marriage or eloping.

See, your definition isn't the same as mine in that case, so it just as easily may not be the same regarding it being a heterosexual union or even a sexual union. Therefore, it's pointless to try to impose a universal definition. Leave it up to the individuals and their voluntary associations with each other and organization such as churches.

 

[nate895]

Why does it have to be public? There are plenty historical and even current examples of secret marriage or eloping.

People that elope eventually come home and live together, and everyone notices that. I'm just saying people have to notice it. It isn't Johnny whispering to Suzie in the backseat of his car.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

what about a cousin by marriage? if, for instance, you have a step grandmother.

Great question! Another-What if it's a cousin by adoption? (for example, if one's mother is adopted and is not blood-related to her siblings)