Here is the entire problem in a nutshell (in my simple view).
Once you decide marriage is no longer ONE man & ONE woman, and you breach that wall, then to what end? If you base your decision, as this judge did, on some perceived right to form a legal union based on whomever you “love.”
Again, to what end?
It would almost immediately legalize the fundamental LDS polygamy community to the south of me, in Colorado City. This would force us, the taxpayer to subsidize an arrangement that I view as pure child abuse. I could write an entire post sometime on just what I’ve seen out of that bunch.
Forget first cousins being allowed to marry. That’s so yesterday So will brothers and sisters. There will be NOTHING (if love is the only criteria) to prevent fathers from marrying daughters and vice versa. For that matter, how to handle fathers who want to marry their sons, or wives their own daughters? And according to this judge, all these unions will have the imprimatur of the official state. What about any financial benefits that come from marriage, compelling us to be economic parters in that which most of us find repugnant?
Film at eleven....
It’s the way they have used not equal protection and the right to privacy to create rights that makes your assumption correct. The case law if allowed to stand paves the way for love to create any sort of “legal” relationship someone wants to create.
nail on head . I’ve just wrote that their sham marriage is one step to an end and these supporters had better wake up instead of saying they know one and they are nice crap.
Can't wait to see it, Daisyjane69!
Thanks so very much for your trenchant essay/post!