I guess that if a man can marry a dog in that part of the world, then a dog can be served with a summons and put on trial.

http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2007/11/even-weirder-pet-stories-dept-man-weds.html

Do we still have to pretend like we take this society seriously? When will it be acceptable to just tell the truth that this is a backward, outdated culture? The only benefit offered is the opportunity for scientists to study diseases thought to have been eliminated centuries ago. Oh, and offering garbled instructions on operating Norton Anti-virus.

well, if a man can marry another man (as is the new thinking here), why can't he choose to marry a dog or a sheep..... aren't we enlightened enough?

I remember my crim law professor in law school reminding people that you have to kill a person to have commited murder. If I kill this dog, will I be executed?

At least this dog gets more rights than Guantanamo detainees.

Kash, you can make terrible puns to me any time. I will even feign amusement. Marry me?

#4, Scalia predicted the slippery slope many moons ago. Why can't we choose to marry our moms? If love truly knows no bounds, can I marry my geranium?

"At least this dog gets more rights than Guantanamo detainees."

I'll bite. A dog - any dog - *deserves* more rights than Guantanamo detainees.

That dog's got some serious balls on him.

haha 9 that was awesome .. and this story is ridiculous

Co-sign #10. Those gonads are so substantial that they're almost NSFW.

Dog has HUGE balls. That is awesome.

#8 If the prior comments and yours are insinuating what I believe they are: the very fact that you can feel a difference between same-sex marriage and a person marrying their mother, pet, or foliage proves that the slopes are different at the top than at the bottom. That, in a nutshell, is why all slippery-slope arguments are inviable in and of themselves.

Obviously this story ranks at the top along with IDIOTS that bequeath money and possessions to their dogs. What a joke!

Kash said doggy-style..... hehe.

India to $1/hr!

Dogs in my high school had huge balls all the time, it was no big deal.

#14, precisely the opposite. "feeling" a difference is extremely subjective....... codified ethics and the law- now that is something tangible. It is also supported by tradition and morality, unlike same sex marriage.

Sounds like a dog of a case.

If I can marry and have sex with the same gender, why can't I do so with a dog? I know you'll say because it's not human. But so what? That distinction only came to being because of the development of traditions and morals. Like traditional marriage. So if one can be redefined, why not the other?

well, an animal can't give informed consent, right?

why the ooutrage from all the libs. as has been posted above many times if one can marry what he wants then why are dogs any less?

I'd like to know what Roger Lou thinks about this. His incisive commentary on this important issue is greatly missed.

#23 is right. informed consent is not even the issue. A person may ask me to shoot them. If I do so, I am going to jail (even quicker than the dog above). The point is, there is no solid argument for same sex marriage, just a weak feeling that it is somehow acceptable.

22: Then why can't I marry my sister or mom? Both adults, both can give infomred consent. What's the bar to this situation?

25: And killing a dog will also get you sent to jail, or at least fined, in most states. Both are crimes. There is no such thing as informed consent to being killed, under the law. In contrast, there is such a thing as informed consent to marriage and the relationship it formalizes, and animals, including dogs, cannot give such informed consent. Thus, the existence of same-sex marriage is not an argument for the existence of inter-species marriage.

9: Innocent until proven guilty. The government has acknowledged that many of the original detainees were imprisoned in error, and that they were no threat to the United States. Many of the detainees who remain at Guantanamo maintain that they also fall into that category. Why don't they, less than any other human beings, deserve the opportunity to contest the government's case against them before a neutral arbiter? Why should we simply credit the government's assertion that they are dangerous terrorists, when the government itself acknowledges that it has made that assertion incorrectly with respect to others in the past?

7: Not a pun. Just a (non-)humorous reference to the facts of the case.

27: Again . . .Then why can't I marry my sister or mom? Both adults, both can give informed consent. What's the problem?

Yes. Only Roger Lou can properly explain the persistence of a dog.

28: you've heard of social conventions, right? Or are you the bull-headed iconoclast that our courts system has been searching for?

Unless you have some solid standing for your devil's advocate question (e.g., an imminent marriage to an attractive cousin), then I suggest you hush down until further notice.

28: The law assumes, with some justification, that informed consent is not possible in an incestuous relationship due to powerful differentials that develop over the course of living together in family life. This is especially the case with regard to parent/child relationships, where the potential for abusive and unhealthy sexual relationships is real and documented. It is also a concern for sibling relationships, because of the power differential that exists between older and younger siblings. It is considerably less a concern for relationships between cousins, and some states recognize that by not barring marriages or criminalizing sex between first cousins.

Nonetheless, a general policy in favor of same-sex marriage does tend to question some of the foundations of traditional marriage in such a way as to undermine the prohibition on incest. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, so long as the general policy against, at the very least, parent/child sexual relationships and marriages is maintained and only modified on a case-by-case basis, so as to reduce the potential for abuse. Closely related couples, even spouses, should also be required to undergo genetic screening, and if there is found to be a serious risk of passing on genetic defects to their children, they should not be allowed to reproduce with one another.

I'm sorry that society is moving in the direction of not allowing your personal feelings about sexual morality to determine the shape of a state-sanctioned institution which has serious social benefits that can no longer justifiably be reserved for heterosexual or even unrelated couples. But that's how it always is with progressive social change--some are dragged along kicking and screaming.

30: That made no sense at all. I have heard of social conventions. When did same sex marriage become one of them exactly? Oh, that's right, it's not.

And if it has become one because a minority of people want it to be . . .then why not incest, etc.?

I'll take your complete silence on the argument and resorting to what essentially amounts to name calling as a complete loss on your part. No need to argue a position, just tell the other person to "hush." Good job.

Why so serious, ATL commenters?

"powerful differentials" in first sentence of 31 should be "the power differentials."

You know, as a tax lawyer who has a lot of individuals as clients, I advise all of you to just shack up. Once your wife Mom got in a mess with the IRS and you had to pay out the luv would surely fade. And divorces are soo expensive . . .

31: What are you basing this on? You're just making up facts for your argument.

Where's the contract law exception for families? I guess no family members could ever enter into a valid contract with each other. Wow, that argument was really dumb. Your points could apply to any relationship.

I'm glad you're OK with some incestual relationships. I need not even argue with someone of your ilk. Thank you. I think this well illustrates the points I was making.

same sex showdown

This thread was better when it was about dog balls and GITMO detainees.

#3 and my 74-year-old grandma = the only two people who need to call tech support for Norton Anti-virus

Chottu means "small" or "the little one" in case anyone was wondering.

31: Informed consent to sexual contact is not the same as, or equivalent to, informed consent to a contract. If it were, requirements setting forth the capacity of persons to enter into contracts would track state sexual age of consent laws, for example. They do not. In almost all cases, this results in a higher bar for capacity to enter into contracts than capacity to consent to sex. But that in the case of incest versus contracts between family members, it results in a higher bar for sexual consent should not surprise us--the two capacities are simply not analogous, and therefore the attempt to reason about the requirements of one using the strictures of the other is not informative.

As to the basis for arguing the "power differential" view of incest prohibitions, that's the only tenable argument in the wake of Lawrence. It clearly establishes that mere moral disapproval of a relationship between consenting adults is insufficient to criminalize or penalize that relationship; thus, the "consent" element of that formulation must be attacked with respect to incest. As it turns out, there is a plausible argument to be made that in the case of parents and children, meaningful consent to a sexual relationship cannot be given, even if both individuals are adults.

Finally, the term is "incestuous," not "incestual." I'm a little amused that you think it's unnecessary to argue of someone "of my ilk," who is willing to hold open the possibility of case-by-case determinations of the acceptability of sexual relationships between related parties where authentic consent exists. I suppose it does illustrate the point you were making, in the sense that the erosion of the traditional "morals" interest in regulating people's lives does mean that incest laws are likely to be successfully challenged in the future. But I don't believe I've seen you make any argument as to why that's an undesirable social outcome. Perhaps you're relying on the famous "it's icky" defense of incest (and, in the past, sodomy) laws?

31: as I said in #4, our enlightened society (or as you say, "progressive social change" ) may well "progress" to the point of allowing man-dog marriage (or brother-brother). Think of the fun (or funny) potential reading in the Sunday Style section. something like, "the dog is on the left in the photo."

42: Non-human animals will never be able to give informed consent to any kind of relationship, including marriage. Progressive social change does not involve expanding the rights of some at the expense of others. And before you get there, I'll just head you off: No, you do not have the "right" to have your sexual morality codified in the form of criminal statutes or marriage law. That's a "power" over other people that you're asserting, and it gives way before their actual right to enter into intimate relationships, including marriage, when doing so does not affect anyone other than themselves (as it assuredly does not).

28: The reason you can't schtoop and/or marry your close relative is a public policy concern about procreation and the resulting over-abundance of mental health defects. We as a society want to discourage behavior that leads to obscene medical expenses for the taxpayers and by not allowing close relatives to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool we decrease the risk society will be burdened with a booming population of the developmentally challenged. Procreation, not so much a concern in same-sex marriage now, is it?

28: The reason you can't schtoop and/or marry your close relative is a public policy concern about procreation and the resulting over-abundance of mental health defects. We as a society want to discourage behavior that leads to obscene medical expenses for the taxpayers and by not allowing close relatives to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool we decrease the risk society will be burdened with a booming population of the developmentally challenged. Procreation, not so much a concern in same-sex marriage now, is it?

28: The reason you can't schtoop and/or marry your close relative is a public policy concern about procreation and the resulting over-abundance of mental health defects. We as a society want to discourage behavior that leads to obscene medical expenses for the taxpayers and by not allowing close relatives to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool we decrease the risk society will be burdened with a booming population of the developmentally challenged. Procreation, not so much a concern in same-sex marriage now, is it?

28: The reason you can't schtoop and/or marry your close relative is a public policy concern about procreation and the resulting over-abundance of mental health defects. We as a society want to discourage behavior that leads to obscene medical expenses for the taxpayers and by not allowing close relatives to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool we decrease the risk society will be burdened with a booming population of the developmentally challenged. Procreation, not so much a concern in same-sex marriage now, is it?

28: The reason you can't schtoop and/or marry your close relative is a public policy concern about procreation and the resulting over-abundance of mental health defects. We as a society want to discourage behavior that leads to obscene medical expenses for the taxpayers and by not allowing close relatives to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool we decrease the risk society will be burdened with a booming population of the developmentally challenged. Procreation, not so much a concern in same-sex marriage now, is it?

28: The reason you can't schtoop and/or marry your close relative is a public policy concern about procreation and the resulting over-abundance of mental health defects. We as a society want to discourage behavior that leads to obscene medical expenses for the taxpayers and by not allowing close relatives to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool we decrease the risk society will be burdened with a booming population of the developmentally challenged. Procreation, not so much a concern in same-sex marriage now, is it?

28: The reason you can't schtoop and/or marry your close relative is a public policy concern about procreation and the resulting over-abundance of mental health defects. We as a society want to discourage behavior that leads to obscene medical expenses for the taxpayers and by not allowing close relatives to swim in the shallow end of the gene pool we decrease the risk society will be burdened with a booming population of the developmentally challenged. Procreation, not so much a concern in same-sex marriage now, is it?

42: LOL! I can't wait for the wedding registry. The bride and groom have requested that no one send products with chocolate, as it may kill the bride.

And think about the situation comedy - - "But honey, I hump everyone's leg."

Hey 44-50: Stop banging your dog / sister while you're trying to post. It's giving you the jimmy arms.

Also, your points contradict. Either the point of marriage is procreation . . .in which case, no gay marriage, or, procreation has nothing to do with it (being nothing more than the contract between two adults) and family members can marry.

That argument holds no water for me. No one stops smokers from getting married. Nor drug addicts. Plus, last time I checked, retarded people can marry - - normal people or each other. Good effort though. Try again.

51: well put! or, "but honey, I had to sniff her butt.... I'm a dog!" also kind of reminds me of the old pictures of dogs playing poker. The (male) dog in a fine black Dolce & Gabbana suit.

Ooops, 44-50 is either one of the very mentally stunted products of inbreeding he spoke of, or just a moron. Though the point is valid.

Yawn. So SSM weakens the argument against incestuous marriage, at least where children are not a possibility. And I care that some dude might be able to someday marry his brother because...?

Does anyone know if schtooping to marry a close relative is a public policy concern?

Dear 26:

It is called incest, and is a crime. Setting aside confusion under the Probate Code.

44-50, First, only click the post button once. Second, you don't actually believe that, do you? We allow stupid people to reproduce, people with genetic diseases to reproduce, and yet, you think we don't allow incest to prevent procreation? You are aware that same-sex incest is also forbidden? It's so obviouly disallowed because of social taboo, why you pretend to believe otherwise is beyond me.

52: Yeah, I'm an idiot with computer issues, but the point never was that marriage is for procreation, it's that regulations against incestous sex and/or marriage are to prevent certain people from procreating, i.e. those related to one another whose inter-breeding could likely lead to a serious burden on society.

55:

Exactly. Why do I care if a man marries another man, his brother, or his dog. Who cares? What another person chooses to do is not any business of mine. Unless, of course, s/he tries to get her/his dog-spouse on welfare.

Dear 57: At one point all SSM and sexual relations were a crime too. What's your point? If it now becomes legal for all gays to marry, then why not change incest laws? Bestiality laws? Plural marriage laws?

Try to think this through before putting another idiotic and snotty post up.

I wouldn't go quite so far as 60; there are some pretty strong categorical distinctions between same-sex incestuous relations and man-on-dog. It's just stupid to pretend that animals have the capacity to enter into contractual relationships; next thing you know we're back to lashing the ocean for storms and other such anthropomorphic nonsense. But really, take the possibility for three-headed babies out of the equation and I really do not particularly care if siblings, parent-child, etc., want to marry. It was pretty damn common for uncles to marry nieces back in the old days and civilization didn't grind to a halt.

--55

26, 28, etc. - If you want to marry your mom and your sister, be my guest. You're a freak, but I couldn't care less.

The real problem with this slippery slope argument is that the bottom of the slope is really not that scary.

62 -- you better have a little talk with #31, who thinks its actually progressive and not regressive, as you imply. which one is it??

64-- I don't really understand what you're talking about (what "it" is "progressive and not regressive"?), but as it's the case that I am not 31, I don't feel any particular obligation to explain or defend his/her views.

--62/55

62: Unless you believe that all living things are vested with the sprit of some previously deceased person--maybe uncle Al, your high school GF, or aunt Mary.

I guess every dog really does have his day.