Moral argument against interracial dating
A society might determine, for example, that anti-polygamy laws disfavor one particular family structure and thus cause unfair treatment of those within that structure.
This logic might lead to acceptance of polygamy, but that will not happen because we have legalized gay marriage; it will happen if we decide the logic applies to marriages with multiple partners.
Polygamy and same-sex marriage are independent issues.
To affirm marriage equality does entail rejection of a traditional standard that some perceive to be absolute.
The consent for contract under civil union of a minor must be in the following form: STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF ....................But once the begetting happens, there may be consequences with certain combinations. (a) The following civil unions are prohibited: (1) a civil union entered into before the dissolution of an earlier civil union of one of the parties becomes final, as provided in section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction where the dissolution was granted; (2) a civil union between an ancestor and a descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood; (3) a civil union between an uncle and a niece, between an aunt and a nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures; and Subd. Developmentally disabled persons; consent by commissioner of human services.Besides which, with the state out of marriage, such unions would not be legally recognized, anyway. Developmentally disabled persons committed to the guardianship of the commissioner of human services and developmentally disabled persons committed to the conservatorship of the commissioner of human services in which the terms of the conservatorship limit the right to form a civil union, may form a civil union on receipt of written consent of the commissioner.But rejection of that standard does not mean we “would have to accommodate everyone’s varying definitions of marriage.” If we’re going to presume a slippery slope, we might presume it slides in the other direction: If we continue to allow our government to prohibit gay and lesbian people from marriage, why could it not prohibit marriage between people with sexually transmitted diseases or people with mental illnesses or people of different races?Tennessee’s Supreme Court ruled in one marriage-equality case that to alter the definition of marriage would engage the slippery slope: “we might have in Tennessee the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, the brother with the sister, in lawful wedlock, because they had formed such relations in a State or country where they were not prohibited.
517.02 and 517.03, which limits the freedom to marry? Throwing the baby (i.e., minors and others with no legal ability to consent) out with the bathwater is silly.