PA Gov likens Marriage Equality to Siblings getting married.

[Crossroads Inc.]

From the following AP News

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett compared the marriage of same-sex couples to the marriage of a brother and sister during an appearance on a Friday morning TV news show, a remark that was quickly condemned by advocates involved in the state's ongoing battle over whether to allow gays to wed.

Corbett was on WHP-TV in Harrisburg when an anchor asked about a statement his lawyers made in a recent court filing, comparing the marriage of gay couples to the marriage of children because neither can legally wed in the state.

"It was an inappropriate analogy, you know," Corbett said. "I think a much better analogy would have been brother and sister, don't you?"

Pennsylvania is the only state in the Northeast that allows neither gay marriage nor civil unions. Its ban on same-sex marriage is being challenged in federal and state courts.

Mark Aronchick, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the pending federal case, called Corbett's remarks "insensitive, insulting and plainly wrong."

"In other words, some kind of incestuous relationship," Aronchick said. "He's just out of touch on this one. Gay people marry for the same reasons straight people do — to express their love and to declare their commitment before friends and family."

Later Friday, Corbett issued a statement saying his "words were not intended to offend anyone" and apologizing if they did. His office said the interview was taped Monday.

"I explained that current Pennsylvania statute delineates categories of individuals unable to obtain a marriage license," he said. "As an example, I cited siblings as one such category, which is clearly defined in state law. My intent was to provide an example of these categories."

He said the legal status of same-sex marriage will be decided with "respect and compassion shown to all sides."

Ted Martin of Equality Pennsylvania, which advocates on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, called the governor's remarks "shocking and hurtful."

Corbett, a former federal prosecutor and two-term state attorney general, also said in his television appearance that he does not think a challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage belongs in federal court.

"The Supreme Court left it up to the states to determine under their laws as to what is and isn't a marriage," Corbett said. "The federal court shouldn't even be involved in this. But if they say they are, then they're going to make a determination whether the state has the right to determine that a marriage is only between a man and a woman and not between two individuals of the same sex."

Corbett's attorneys included a reference to children in a legal brief in August involving same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses. In the court filing opposing allowing same-sex couples to intervene in the state's lawsuit to bar a suburban Philadelphia county from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the lawyers made an analogy to a pair of 12-year-olds, saying if the children were issued a marriage license and tried to defend it in court, they wouldn't be taken seriously because the license was never valid.

Corbett later rejected that analogy, saying the case revolved around the question of whether a public official had "the authority to disregard state law based on his own personal legal opinion about the constitutionality of a statute."

A state judge sided with Corbett in that case, ordering the clerk to stop issuing the licenses.

A hearing on the federal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban is scheduled for Wednesday in Harrisburg.

For those that wanted a little reminder of exactly how the thinking processes of the Far Right are in America these days.
Keep in mind, he said this thinking that this would be BETTER than a previous statement by a staffer that "Gays getting married like is a little children getting married." Appearing on the show was his chance to try and make himself seem LESS Of a bigoted asshole.

But don't believe me, lets listen to his own words!

[Kitsune]

Smart thing to not look like less of an asshole should have been "Look, this is the law. You can agree or disagree."
The argument that it belongs in teh states is a similar argument that was used before Loving V Virginia

[Batman]

'Smart thing' and 'trying to NOT look like less of an asshole are sort of mutually exclusive you know
That depends on your itinerary. If you are trying to look like a complete moron, this is definitely the way to go.
True enough I suppose.
So they're equating gay marriage with child marriage, which is generally frowned upon due to the fact that children are largely not considered qualified to informedly make that kind of decision, and sibling marriage, which is generally frowned upon because leaving out everything else, there's good biological reasons this is a bad idea, on the grounds that...all of them are illegal.
And by now I'm not sure those people are any longer capable of the 'It's the law. Take it or leave it' approach. They're so convinced they are right and theirs is the way the world (or at the very least the US) should look like that anybody not agreeing with them is the enemy.

[Kitsune]

Does he actually believe what he says of is he just mouthing the party line?
Reason why I ask is there was a US House Rep who was anti-abortion. No need to guess what party.
Suddenly, he gets a mistress pregnant and he pressures her into getting an abortion.

[Batman]

The very possibility that this is the Party line should tell you something about how connected to reality (i.e. not at all) those people are.

[Kitsune]

The very possibility that this is the Party line should tell you something about how connected to reality (i.e. not at all) those people are.

Just saying that some people have lashed themselves to roaring tigers

[Gandalf]

The very possibility that this is the Party line should tell you something about how connected to reality (i.e. not at all) those people are.

Just saying that some people have lashed themselves to roaring tigers

They can leave at any time. It isn't like they've taken the Unbreakable Vow.

[Alyeska]

In related news, Marriage Equality is spreading in New Mexico. 8 counties are now accepting gay marriage licenses and several courts have required equal treatment. Covers about 58% of the state population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_ ... exico#2013

[energiewende]

He's right. People oppose gay marriage because "eww". People oppose sybling marriage because "eww". The only newsworthy story here is that these gay advocacy groups (and AP's editorial line, and possibly most of this board) think that sybling marriages are "eww" but gay marriages aren't.

[Broomstick]

Sibling marriage is opposed not just because of "ewww" but because, assuming a male/female pairing of childbearing age, inbreeding to that extent increases the risk of genetic disorders in any resulting children. Society has some interest in not encouraging production of such children, and for similar reasons many societies also ban cousin marriages and even more distant consanguineous unions. In other words, not just "ewww"

[energiewende]

Sibling marriage is opposed not just because of "ewww" but because, assuming a male/female pairing of childbearing age, inbreeding to that extent increases the risk of genetic disorders in any resulting children. Society has some interest in not encouraging production of such children, and for similar reasons many societies also ban cousin marriages and even more distant consanguineous unions. In other words, not just "ewww"

Do you think that people with hereditary disabilities should not be allowed to marry (or even have sex, perhaps)? How about people with <100 IQs, or people with genetic predispositions to cancers, etc.? This justification for banning brother/sister marriages is essentially eugenicist.

[Broomstick]

Sibling marriage is opposed not just because of "ewww" but because, assuming a male/female pairing of childbearing age, inbreeding to that extent increases the risk of genetic disorders in any resulting children. Society has some interest in not encouraging production of such children, and for similar reasons many societies also ban cousin marriages and even more distant consanguineous unions. In other words, not just "ewww"

Do you think that people with hereditary disabilities should not be allowed to marry (or even have sex, perhaps)? How about people with <100 IQs, or people with genetic predispositions to cancers, etc.? This justification for banning brother/sister marriages is essentially eugenicist.

Stating the reason behind something is not the same as supporting that position. No, I don't agree with such a eugenicist position but I recognize it exists. Thus, the marriage ban on sibling marriage has a greater basis than just "eww". Whether or not that's a good reason is another question. Prior to genetic testing and current medical science birth defects were much more of a problem and much less predictable so for most of human history such a stance might have been more justifiable than today. Hunter-gatherers don't have pre-implantation genetic testing, for them, avoiding birth defects largely comes down to "don't marry your siblings" ("treating" birth defects often came down to infanticide which, thank goodness, we don't have such a need for anymore).

Likewise, there are some people who believe the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction and thus do not think the infertile or elderly should marry, and by extension neither should homosexuals. I don't agree with that, I merely recognize that that position exists.

[Ralin]

That's a reason to be against sibling marriage, yes, and it's probably how the prohibitions against it originally came about, but I agree with energiewende. Most people are against it because "Eww, that's disgusting" and only go looking for reasons beyond that after the fact.

[Broomstick]

I remember when interracial marriages were "eww" to the majority and banned in many states in the US. They were legalized, the world didn't end, and even though there are still people who say "ewww" no one is exerting any effort to turn back the clock on that issue.

I see something similar with gay marriage occurring these days. The same answer applies: "If you don't like X marriage then don't enter in an X marriage". I'm OK with people saying "ewww" to same sex marriage, I'm not OK with them forbidding it for other people.

Because there IS a reason to be against sibling marriage other than just "eww" I would expect the prohibition to be far more entrenched than the ones against inter-racial, cross-religion, or same sex marriages. In the distant past, when it was essential for the survival of a tribe for people to produce offspring, there was also a reason beyond "eww" for same sex marriage, although it wasn't unusual for homosexual sex to be tolerated so long as those individuals also engaged in sufficient heterosexual sex to reproduce. Since we don't have a people shortage at present that argument no longer holds water, but we still have entrenched notions from the past to deal with.

[energiewende]

Sibling marriage is opposed not just because of "ewww" but because, assuming a male/female pairing of childbearing age, inbreeding to that extent increases the risk of genetic disorders in any resulting children. Society has some interest in not encouraging production of such children, and for similar reasons many societies also ban cousin marriages and even more distant consanguineous unions. In other words, not just "ewww"

Do you think that people with hereditary disabilities should not be allowed to marry (or even have sex, perhaps)? How about people with <100 IQs, or people with genetic predispositions to cancers, etc.? This justification for banning brother/sister marriages is essentially eugenicist.

Stating the reason behind something is not the same as supporting that position. No, I don't agree with such a eugenicist position but I recognize it exists. Thus, the marriage ban on sibling marriage has a greater basis than just "eww". Whether or not that's a good reason is another question. Prior to genetic testing and current medical science birth defects were much more of a problem and much less predictable so for most of human history such a stance might have been more justifiable than today. Hunter-gatherers don't have pre-implantation genetic testing, for them, avoiding birth defects largely comes down to "don't marry your siblings" ("treating" birth defects often came down to infanticide which, thank goodness, we don't have such a need for anymore).

Likewise, there are some people who believe the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction and thus do not think the infertile or elderly should marry, and by extension neither should homosexuals. I don't agree with that, I merely recognize that that position exists.

Since almost no one supports a general policy of banning sexual relations that are more likely than average to result in genetic defects, I argue the real reason brother-sister marriages are opposed is "eww" rather than because most people are secretly eugenicists. The eugenicist argument is, at best, a smokescreen, and not a very effective one.

The original comparison - that homosexuals trying to get married are like children trying to get married - is much more insulting. Children can't get married because they aren't considered rational enough to consent.

[General Zod]

There's more states that allow marriage between first cousins than marriage between two dudes. Honestly, this guy has no leg to stand on.

[Kitsune]

I think it is interesting that North Carolina has basically a double constitutional amendment against gays marrying yet allow first cousins to marry

[Batman]

Since almost no one supports a general policy of banning sexual relations that are more likely than average to result in genetic defects, I argue the real reason brother-sister marriages are opposed is "eww" rather than because most people are secretly eugenicists. The eugenicist argument is, at best, a smokescreen, and not a very effective one.

And the reason it's 'eww' can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that throughout virtually all of human history that's exactly what inbreeding resulted in.
Not that you have to be a eugenicist to understand that even only from a purely biological PoV, close blood relatives having children=potentially really bad. That's common knowledge, at least where I come from.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

A much better argument against sibling marriage is the high potential for some sort of abusive relationship to be the part of it when you have these sorts of direct family dynamics tied with romance and sexuality. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good argument to ban it, but it at least is a potential track to take.

Banning marriage because any potential offspring they might have have a higher chance of disorders is eugenics. I don't care how "common knowledge biology" that is; that doesn't stop it from being based entirely from eugenics.

[Batman]

Which has got what, exactly, to do with the fact you don't need to be an eugenicist to know that?

[Terralthra]

Since almost no one supports a general policy of banning sexual relations that are more likely than average to result in genetic defects, I argue the real reason brother-sister marriages are opposed is "eww" rather than because most people are secretly eugenicists. The eugenicist argument is, at best, a smokescreen, and not a very effective one.

And the reason it's 'eww' can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that throughout virtually all of human history that's exactly what inbreeding resulted in.
Not that you have to be a eugenicist to understand that even only from a purely biological PoV, close blood relatives having children=potentially really bad. That's common knowledge, at least where I come from.

And gay couples can't have children at all, "from a biological point of view." That doesn't keep us from letting them get married, because having kids is not the only reason to get married.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Which has got what, exactly, to do with the fact you don't need to be an eugenicist to know that?

Are you under the impression that "eugenicist" is a job description or else something indicating specialised knowledge, and not a philosophy based on restricting reproduction based on some genetic ideal?

[Batman]

Since almost no one supports a general policy of banning sexual relations that are more likely than average to result in genetic defects, I argue the real reason brother-sister marriages are opposed is "eww" rather than because most people are secretly eugenicists. The eugenicist argument is, at best, a smokescreen, and not a very effective one.

And the reason it's 'eww' can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that throughout virtually all of human history that's exactly what inbreeding resulted in.
Not that you have to be a eugenicist to understand that even only from a purely biological PoV, close blood relatives having children=potentially really bad. That's common knowledge, at least where I come from.

And gay couples can't have children at all, "from a biological point of view." That doesn't keep us from letting them get married, because having kids is not the only reason to get married.

Indeed it is not. That doesn't make being wary about marriages that not only can result in children but have a noticeably increased likelihood of those children being even more imperfect (often drastically so) than is the norm for human beings a bad idea. Especially as for most of the existence of the human race we didn't have the technology to compensate for that.

Are you under the impression that "eugenicist" is a job description or else something indicating specialised knowledge, and not a philosophy based on restricting reproduction based on some genetic ideal?

I'm under the impression that eugenicist describes somebody who is reasonably well informed about eugenics. Given that I had to look the term up yet have known that 'marrying siblings=bad' for as long as I can remember, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the general populace decided to file that under 'biology, genetics, other'.

[Ralin]

I think it dilutes the term to describe anyone who generally supports a pretty common culturally reinforced belief that close relatives having kids is bad and unhealthy as an eugenicist.

I mean, I agree it's technically true, but I wouldn't really consider someone an eugenicist unless they supported things like actively preventing reproduction by people likely to pass on genetic problems for whatever reason.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Determining marriage policy by the genetic makeup of their potential children is pretty high up there on the eugenics tree. I mean sure it's not as bad as forced sterilisation or anything, but that's a pretty low bar to cross.