[js1138]

I'm a little curious about how this new law will be worded. I mean gays are3 not the only people currently forbidden to marry. How can you write a marriage law that prohibits discrimination without allowing marriage between siblings -- don't laugh, marriage is a legal contract that would confer great benefits in inheritance of large estates. How about marriage between 50-year-olds and nine-year-olds. In my state marriage at any age confers adult status. This would also have implications in the realm of inheritance and ownership.

[Dalan]

"How can you write a marriage law that prohibits discrimination without allowing marriage between siblings..."

Indeed. Wether we're talking about incestuous relationships, polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, whatever, it's all the same now that we've redefined (or more accurately, "undefined") marriage to now include homosexual couples.

If the argument for traditional one-man-one-woman marriage is only an ambiguous moral argument open to interpretation, what possible basis can there be to exclude the recognition of any other sort of "relationship" that someone may dream up?

That the Left and the gay community so casually discards this obvious consequence is astounding, and intellectually dishonest.

[azhenfud]

"How can you write a marriage law that prohibits discrimination without allowing marriage between siblings..."

You know, that's a good question. All states that restrict/prohibit kinship marriages do so citing they're protecting the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Why can't they cite the same prohibition excuses for gay marriage (since it's known to be detrimental and costly) and just leave it at that?