Rare as it is, States have seen fit to exercise their authority and discretion, CUNx.
prohibited marriages?
"Generally, you are free to marry anyone you choose as long as that person is not already married, the same sex as you are, or a close relative. South Dakota prohibits marriages between parents and children; brothers and sisters, including half brothers and sisters; uncles and nieces; aunts and nephews; first cousins; stepfathers and stepdaughters; and stepmothers and stepsons.
The South Dakota Legislature recently amended the statutes to prohibit marriages between persons of the same sex. However, South Dakota statutes also state that all marriages contracted outside this state which would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were contracted are valid in this state. Whether a same-sex marriage validly contracted in another state is valid in South Dakota is undetermined."
At some point, you have to consider that if anything goes, then by what authority will you deny a brother the right to marry his brother or a sister the right to marry her sister. They may have more love than any other couple for each other, they may or may not be sexual with one another, they may or may not only be after the financial benefits,...
Yet YOU would deny a brother the right to marry his brother or a sister the right to marry her sister. Even though they can't make "three headed babies?"
You should consider the reasoning behind denying them but demanding the same right for gays.
I've already given you the answer to this paradox, CUNx.
The government should define and recognize only the most basic definition of marriage necessary to establisg the "family unit" as necessary for the general welfare (talk about percentages here),... as it is necessary for the making of laws (article 8 section 1) as per the Constitution.
All other unions could still take place without the government's recognition.
Being treated with Indifference and apathy are not tantamount to being discriminated against.
Bookmarks