For every stride this country makes in favor of gay marriage, there is someone there to try to tear it down. The latest case is in Alabama, where although a federal judge ruled that the state must start giving out same-sex marriage licenses, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Ray Moore has ordered the state’s probate judges refuse to do so. More than 50 judges have followed his advice. Moore’s faulty reasoning for all this:
“Do they stop with one man and one man or one woman and one woman?” he asked. “Or do they go to multiple marriages? Or do they go to marriages between men and their daughters or women and their sons?”
Seriously? We’re still dealing with the slippery slope argument? If you allow gay marriage people will then marry their dogs, etc., etc.? Sigh.
Team Blackness also discussed debtors prisons in Ferguson, giving old man haircuts to misbehaving kids, and more acusations that Obama “isn’t a real Christian” due to his National Prayer Breakfast remarks.
Subscribe on iTunes | Subscribe On Stitcher | Direct Download | RSS
? Martin
Is anyone surprised that Roy Moore’s brain went to father-daughter marriages when almost nobody else’s does?
I’m not.
Major Major Major Major
Frankly I have no problem with multiple consenting adults entering into a legal agreement recognized by the state.
It’s only different from incorporation because of symbolism.
C.V. Danes
Jeez…next thing you know, whites will want to start marrying blacks.
Mustang Bobby
INAL, but I believe it’s legal to limit the number of parties in a contract, which is what a marriage is. You just shouldn’t limit it based on an innate quality such as gender, race, or sexual orientation.
Yes, you can marry your dog as long as you can get the dog to understand and consent to the terms of the contract. Good luck with that.
ranchandsyrup
We already have laws against bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, etc. Allowing the ghey marriage doesn’t undo those laws.
Way back when, there had to be a causal connection between the slip at the top of the slope and the down-the-line results. But no longer.
Peale
I guess I can see Roy’s point. The issue hasn’t been properly debated or thought through. I mean, until yesterday, I didn’t even know people were talking about gay marriage. I think its important that we don’t make a move on this without hearing everyone’s opinion and getting an agreement, because we aren’t a republic, we are a democracy, and one that requires unanimous agreement to boot. Or so I’ve been told for the past seven years.
Major Major Major Major
@Mustang Bobby: plus the dog has to be at least 18.
SatanicPanic
In a way he’s kind of right- once you hear some nutcase ranting about how gay marriage might lead to plural marriage there’s a natural tendency to think well if he’s opposed to plural marriage maybe it’s not so bad.
Ryan
Two questions.
1) If two consenting adults cannot enter into a legal agreement recognized by the states, then why are corporations people (my friends)?
2) Aren’t there some pretty serious legal consequences in store for those that defy Federal Courts? Or is it 18 century France, and stealing bread the only crimes that face punishment?
trollhattan
@Ryan:
1. That’s different! [stamps feet]
2. Cliven Bundy seems to have done a bang-up job ignoring the feds, so far.
trollhattan
Wow, this kind of thing isn’t usually quite so openly brazen.
Darkrose
@Major Major Major Major: In dog or people years?
SiubhanDuinne
@? Martin:
Nor am I. But I’ll bet he’d be among the first to champion those creepy father-daughter “Purity Balls” with their inçestüous “pledges.”
Amir Khalid
@Ryan:
It was five years for what he did, the rest because he tried to run. Yes, 24601 …
More seriously, I was under the impression that “nullification” is a fiction, plain and simple — American states have no power to nullify Federal statutes, and never did.
Major Major Major Major
@Amir Khalid: I believe we fought a war about that one.
As I recall, the pro-nullification side lost.
Chris
There seriously needs to be a class in school on the topic “logical fallacies.” SSF figures prominently on there.
If nothing else, it might cut down slightly on the number of people who can’t distinguish “firearm registration” from “One-World UN Zionist Occupation Government.”
jl
This BS is old and tiresome.
OK, look, animals cannot give informed consent to entering civil contracts or having sexual relations. So they are out.
There are sane arguments against close relatives getting married.
And sane arguments about fairness and potential problems with exploitation for more than two people entering civil marriage contract.
But maybe Moore will be all for a crackdown on Mormon and a very few weirdo Christian splinter groups if he is so worried about group marriages.
And the comparable arguments against same sex marriages are….?
I think healthy to separate talk about marriage into the civil contract aspect and the religious aspect.
I got yelled down here a few years ago for saying just get rid of the word marriage for civil contract aspect, so I gave up on arguing for that.
But at least pointing out to these loons that we are talking about rights to make a civil contract here, really, because that makes them very upset, and I enjoy that.
The Moar You Know
Box turtles, motherfuckers. Or you are not taking your “alternative sexual practices” seriously.
Amir Khalid
@Major Major Major Major:
They lost the shooting match, which went on from 1861 to 1865. I understand that they are still fighting the larger, political conflict.
Major Major Major Major
@Amir Khalid: I suppose we’ll just have to raze Atlanta to the ground again.
Peale
@Amir Khalid: Yeah, but it doesn’t stop them from trying. I think this falls under “Massive Resistance” rather than nullification. My guess is that Alabama will become the commonlaw state for a few months. No one will get a license. People will get married anyway.
Major Major Major Major
@Peale: discrimination now, discrimination tomorrow, discrimination until June!
Grumpy Code Monkey
There’s at least a medical basis for restricting consanguinous marriages, although if one or both partners gets fixed that kind of gets thrown out the window and then it’s just down to the ick factor. Then again, where would most royal families be without close relatives getting married (if not quite as close as parent/child brother/sister)? Other than a good bit healthier, that is.
Pets and minor children can’t enter into legally binding contracts (and remember, we’re talking about the legal institution of marriage, marriage in the eyes of the state, not the religious institution), so zoophilic and pedophilic unions are out.
Plural marriage would be interesting from a contracts point-of-view. How would you handle inheritance, power of attorney, custody rights (especially in a divorce case) and all that good stuff?
OzarkHillbilly
WHOOPS! I just slid into a gay incestuous marriage with my 6 year old German Shepard who is my cousin and also married to my wife. How’d that happen?
Amir Khalid
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
Sharia law might provide a useful model …
srv
Anti-big/polyamy is anti-rights and anti-freedom, any reasonble person should acknowledge their bigotries.
We would need a million more lawyers though. So at least my bigotry is grounded in practical matters.
Kylroy
@Amir Khalid: And I look forward to someone shouting down the idiots appealing to nullification by citing Grant v. Lee.
raven
Prez coming up on the use of force resolution.
Citizen_X
So…given that only some Alabama judges are going along with Judge Moore’s fatwa (whatever it is, it isn’t a legally binding ruling), couldn’t one just go over to the next county and get hitched? Then boom! You’re legally married in Alabama. Right?
boatboy_srq
The only slippery slope we should concern ourselves with here is whether any adult human should be legally permitted to marry an Alabama Republican.
NonyNony
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
This is actually why I don’t think that plural marriages will ever be recognized in the same way as couple marriages. Because the modern marriage contract is all about a partnership between two people. Old style plural marriage – as once practiced by Mormons and currently practiced in various parts of the world that are not the US – was basically a form of property rights. The wives belonged to the husband, inheritance went to the kids, divorce either didn’t happen or ended with the woman being turned out and her children either turned out with her or kept by the husband as he desired, etc.
A modern update to plural marriage would be a thing that would be interesting, but I can’t even imagine the contractual organization of it. I suppose you could look at something like a law practice or an accounting partnership to see how you might apportion things among a group of co-equals. But frankly I haven’t even heard of polyamorous groups that want a marriage contract like that (as opposed to the polygamous groups out in the deserts in Utah and Nevada who want old-style polygamous marriage to be legal – for them the marriage contract is easy but ugly and one-sided.)
Bill
If the slippery slope argument is valid, it is an argument against marriage generally, not against gay marriage.
“If a man is allowed to marry a woman, what’s to stop him form marrying his dog, or from marrying a toaster.”
If the argument has any validity at all – which it doesn’t – it doesn’t require gay marriage as a step in the slippery slope.
the Conster
The only way polygamy or polyandry would ever work is if each party in the group married each other, and then as mentioned above, how to handle a divorce, probate, custody, taxes, inheritance etc. would be a nightmare for the legal system since there is no framework that would allow for equitable outcomes. Of course, in my experience most men never consider polyandry as a thing that could happen, because when I mention the word they don’t know what it is, and when I tell them they look at me funny.
Of course, the whole notion of consent is foreign to these fucktards anyway.
SatanicPanic
@OzarkHillbilly:
You moved to Alabama?
Villago Delenda Est
@Ryan:
Sleeping under bridges is also a no-no.
raven
Nice piece on gay marriage in Alabama from a retired prof at Jacksonville State.
HARDY JACKSON: Church, state and gay marriage
Villago Delenda Est
@jl:
It’s icky, okay? It’s just icky! I don’t want to think about it….but I can’t stop thinking about it!
I believe The Onion has covered this with maple, blueberry, and chocolate syrup years ago.
JCJ
@Amir Khalid:
I like your suggestion!
SatanicPanic
boo my comment got moderated. FYWP
Yatsuno
@Major Major Major Major: Denobulan marriage for everyone! Seriously, they have it better off. Marriage is strictly for social purposes and adultery is a foreign concept to them.
mainmati
@Ryan: Judge Dumbell is advocating nullification, a doctrine invented by the pre-Civil War South and which has always remained popular with conservatives generally. Nullification says that any federal law we don’t agree with we will not follow.
Villago Delenda Est
@mainmati:
This is basically an engraved invitation to the Federal government to take over your National Guard and back them up with regular Army troops until you see the light.
Jack the Second
Opponents have a serious misunderstanding of needs versus wants. Teh gays don’t just want to get married, they need to get married, to make things like inheritance, hospital visitation rights, pension and social security benefits, and car rentals work correctly. They are being actively harmed by a lack of equal rights.
If people can find a similar compelling need polygamy or goat-marriage, then and only then can we slide down that slope.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
Slopes, they always be slippery, amirite? Be it gun control, gay marriage or taxes. Seriously though, he could always move next door to Mississippi – I don’t think there’s a single slope in the whole State.
Jason Smith
Smaller government is on the slippery slope to anarchy?
Surprised they don’t apply the argument there.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Bill:
This is effing brilliant and I’m seriously pissed off that I didn’t think of it myself.
Bill
(Different Bill)
Turn it back. Accuse Moore and his like of their own slippery slope. Will they push to block interracial marriage? Marriages between different religions? Will they stop the elderly from getting married? Maybe even prevent non-xtians from getting married? Will those of us actually allowed to marry be forced to marry someone selected by the government?
Once you start taking away peoples right to live their life the way they want to, you’re on that slippery slope to a state controlled life.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Amir Khalid:
IIRC, the way sharia law solves the problem is by making the husband’s legal next-of-kin his closest male relative, not his wife/wives, so if there are hospital decisions and the like that need to be made, the wives are out of the loop. Also, of course, the husband is the decision-maker in the marriage and the wives have limited rights (though far more than most Christian European wives had until the mid-1800s). I’m fairly sure that wouldn’t fly for most modern-day Western polyamorists.
Another Holocene Human
@Chris: GIving SSF a name doesn’t solve anything.
Wingers will still make fallacious statements and they just have a new bogus tactic to toss at liberals and scientists when they talk about real, measurable negative consequences of right wing laws. Like SYG. Betcha plenty of pro SYGers accused the other side of SSF, but, nope, SYG does increase homicide rates. “Oops.”
(Wingers think SSF is “if you do A then B will happen” but the fallacy is “if you do A then B will become normalized and then B will happen” which is rarely if ever true unless B was unacceptable for completely prejudiced reasons like, you know, most of the War on Drugs has gone, or the progression from decriminalizing homosexuality to legalizing SSM. This may be why wingers conflate it, they hate SSM with the same fire of a thousand suns that they hate bestiality and have lost the ability to discern why these things are totally different to everyone else.)
Another Holocene Human
@Amir Khalid: Sharia law is not gender neutral, so no-go over here.
workworkwork
@jl:
I agree but the problem is that there are many laws that specifically use the term “marriage”, rather than “civil union”. This is also why legalizing civil unions doesn’t go far enough.
Another Holocene Human
@NonyNony:
Actually most are content with the current legal arrangement, as they engage in rape of teenagers and consanguinous arrangements with impunity and all of the plural “spiritual” wives can go right on welfare and Medicaid.
One of the biggest problems when Bring’em Young mandated plural marriage for the Mormons was that on the 19th century frontier these guys could support one household but supporting multiple wives was very, very difficult. And Young being as narcissistic as he was when one of the men was able to get ahead financially he took the business. That’s why Mormons don’t drink–started with Brigham, he shut down the brewers because they were too well off compared to himself. He wanted a piece of all of the action and to be the richest and most powerful guy around.
Another Holocene Human
@Mnemosyne (iPhone): What it says on paper on the marriage contract and how that plays out in reality in various countries with various political and legal systems are two different things of course.
On paper for centuries Muslim marriage contracts were superior to Christian for women. But women’s status varied a lot from places to place time to time and also by social status (and it wasn’t always the upper class women who got the best position, either).
There was definitely a period of the 19th century in English speaking countries where courts and juries would frequently fail to convict women for taking violent measures when law and custom put them in an impossible position (to be fair, men also got off a lot for killing the wife’s lover and such). But contemporary 18th century accounts of the status of for example rural Egyptian women record absolutely atrocious conditions including sexual exploitation. (Very holy, you know.) Having certain rights on paper doesn’t mean you can enforce them.
Another Holocene Human
@Yatsuno: Sounds like 18th century France, except that adultery was a “sin” and committing sins was so ou la la, IYKWIM(AITYD).
Another Holocene Human
ugh, I just spent ten minutes perusing an excruciating Memory Alpha entry on Denobulans in case there was something about Denobulan marriage (I knew it was plural) that I didn’t know (there was) … ugh
ENTERPRISE sucked so damn much
Hawes
Wait! Am I NOT going to be able to marry my sheep? WTF did I support gay marriage for?
This is a house of lies!
Hal
Obsessions of right wing nut jobs: Bodily fluids, incest, animal humping, the goings on in the bedroom between two men, marrying 20 people at once. Their response to same sex marriage is a window into their own deep, dark fantasies they are too ashamed to admit they have. This is what raising a child to be ashamed and afraid of his or her own body does to your psyche as an adult.
Peter VE
Well, we did legalize miscegenation, and 41 years later we got a half Irish President. The slippery slope in action….
JaneE
They won’t legalize parent-child marriages because if it were out in the open, parents who have sex with their children would face public disdain instead of being the pillars of their community like they are now.
Dr. Omed
When someone starts talking about a slippery slope, the correct response is “WEEEEEEE!!!”