Tangipahoa is NOT in New Orleans.

He's discriminating against my sexual orientation. Mmmmm Jennifer Hudson.

Second 2. Elie, get a damn map.

Bardwell was vice-chair of litigation at GDC for 15 years.

I would ask that he suck my dick, but counsel informs me that I am collaterally estopped from requesting that relief.

“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”

Apparently, the fact that our current President is a child from such a marriage has escaped Mr. Bardwell.

wgwag

He has piles and piles of black friends.

In his oven.

Shockingly, Elie authors a post regarding a racial subject matter. When will she give it a rest?

10= pathetic whining loser

7 just pwned Bardwell back to the stone age.

wow. this is sad and sick.

There is no debate here and Fitzhobgoblin is not going to defend this guy. This is a rogue judge who is going to lose his job. This is an appropriate post for Judge of the Day not some subtle reference to the fight over gay marriage. Last I checked the Supreme Court hasn't said that Loving v. Virginia applies to every concept of marriage. If you had paid attention in Constitutional Law class you would know that there are more classes of people that cannot marry than just homosexuals. Relatives are still precluded from marrying each other in most of the country as a traditional and appropriate form of restriction on marriage (I'm looking at you West Virginia - stop marrying your cousins). Every state, except backwoods portions of Utah, also prevent multiple concurrent marriages. You cannot marry everyone you want to marry at the same time. I know that's discriminatory against a whole lot of people that out there having affairs when they could avoid that whole problem by telling their wives they are just seeking a new wife.

Of course someone will brand me as a bigot and a liar for equating homosexuals with incest and polygamy, but the Supreme Court (and Congress) have recognized these restrictions and from a Constitutional perspective at this point it's not an easy statement to declare that "of course homosexuals have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Elie, your pithy analysis only shows the weakness in your argument.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Loving v. Virginia is bad law. That was 40 years ago. Maybe in 40 years everyone will look back and say wow, can you believe we didn't use to let gays marry, but currently it's not clear that is going to happen. The abortion debate has not subsided after almost 40 years. The segregation debate is over and this judge is on the losing side of history.

The guy's statement sounds like it's straight from The Onion.

Elie, why do you posit the theory that "patriots" are going to rush to defend this guy? Could that be a not-so-thinly-veiled barb directed at conservatives?

This is tragic. If only a minister had refused to marry Keith Bardwell's parents. It would have been preferable to all if no one had aided and abetted his parents in producing him...his existence has not been very well received.

14, you are a bigot. There is no defensible LEGAL position against letting whomever wants to marry someone else. There might be religious arguments out the wazoo, but gov't really shouldn't be basing law on religion, nor should it be telling churches whom they need to marry. So, people can get a marriage license and marry legally, and all the churches who want can refuse to marry them religiously. BUt explain to me, legally, how two gay people marrying is Constitutional? How is depriving two adults of the government-given benefits of marriage OK in any way. And don't give me religious or moral reasons. They do not apply.

this is 18: oh, and yes, that does mean there really is no legal basis for denying polygamy either, if you want to be honest about it.

16, it's not thiny-veiled at all.

How compassionate! Nixon would have just aborted the mulatto abominations...

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/06/nixon-supported-abortion-for-interracial-babies/

I'm chalking this one up to "abstinence-only education"

10,

You're mistaken (sort of.) This post is not about interracial marriage, it's about equating the vast valid opposition to gay "marriage" with the invalid opposition to interracial marriage. You are right in the sense that Elie is once again using this blog as his tool to bludgeon us over the head with his belief in liberal social policy. You are simply incorrect about what liberal social policy he's pushing at the moment.

32 states have declared gay marriage illegal. 32.

First they came for Limbaugh, now Bardwell. Why won't these liberal elites quit ruining our country?

Just confirming right, that only the judge is in trouble, and not the county or parish or whatever system they use in LA. Because I don't see a problem for the county/parish/whatever as long as a judge will marry the couple, which is what I understand happened.

18 & 19,
Can a state validly restrict two adult relatives from marrying each other?

Sincerely,
14

I'm pro gay marriage, but if you think that Loving vs. Virginia means that anyone can marry anyone, then you need to go back to the first year of law school. The judge here is going to be in very very big trouble, regardless.

26: there is a social interest there in preventing birth defects. There is also a social interest in preventing incest because it is devastating and harmful, just as murder or having unprotected sex while you have AIDS and not telling your partner is. You are intelligent enough, I am sure, to see the distinction.

Every time Elie equates race with sexual orientation, a fairy gets its rainbow

27: correct, Loving does not. It was narrowly tailored. But there are lots of other good legal arguments for gay marriage.

lat- i don't ever comment, but am getting sick of how elie's political views/agenda permeate every story that could have a tangential connection to a political issue. everything seems to turn into an jab at republicans/conservatives/libertarians...

any way to rein it in? political spins can be funny, but they cease to entertain when they are constant, mean-spirited, unsubtle, and largely unsupported...

18 & 19,
The restriction itself, while it may be based in religious traditions, is a valid exercise of state police power to regulate the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the people. Morals is included in the constitution. Morals are different than religion. If the state didn't have that kind of power they could not regulate prostitution, murder, alcohol (although alcohol is a weird product of the 21st amendment specifically leaving regulation to states). If the state didn't have the power to regulate or restrict certain activities it would not be able to function.

It is cruel to allow a man to marry a woman. Marriage = misery. Better to rent than to own.

I concur with 14. Well done.

I read the whole article, and Elie did some selective editing.

The guy is a little backwards (maybe a ton) and doesn't do the marriages, but he refers them to officials in the parish that will do it. Paraphrasing him: It's not that I tell them they can't get married, it's just I won't do it.

In the grand scheme of things for racist actions this isn't close to being at the top of the list. There are much worse things going on in LA.

Lat,

Any way we can curb Elie's personal political views of everything under the sun? This isn't his personal race or liberal website -- he's got one of those already that no one reads (for good reason).

18,

You're either not very bright or you realize that the religious and moral arguments are fatal to your side. Of course religious and moral reasons apply. I know you want to pretend they're invalid, but they're the basis for all criminal legislation.

Why is murder illegal? Because society has decided it's morally wrong. Same with rape, robbery, assault, and on and on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with society deciding that one form of marriage is moral and one is not and basing its legalization on that fact alone.

But you will likely argue that most laws are different from this one...that society has decided it is more productive or more peaceful by banning violent disruptive crimes. That is true, but it doesn't explain all crimes. You have to stretch, for example, to sweep in prostitution and drugs. (You can do it with "government's just looking out for your best interest" but that leaves "best interest" entirely up to the government, and they could just as reasonably decide gay marriage is not in the best interest.)

Well, guess what? Society can also decide that gay marrage inhibits productivity. For millennia, stable, heterosexual, two parent households have been the bedrock of society. If you don't believe changing that is disruptive and damaging, you're just ignoring things that don't support your worldview.

32, what morals of the people are being protected here? People who are gay, because they were born that way, choose to enter in to a permanent, commited relationship, and yes, gasp, raise happy, healthy children and that harms who? How? People get the heebie jeebies imagining what those two people are doing in the bedroom?

Because that is what we are talking about here. Fear of buttsex. There is nothing else different about a gay couple than a straight than how they have sex.
BIGOTRY. Pure and simple.

And I am a straight, married female, for the record.

Mystal, suck my ass, you obese race bating Walrus!

The Inuit

32, what morals of the people are being protected here? People who are gay, because they were born that way, choose to enter in to a permanent, commited relationship, and yes, gasp, raise happy, healthy children and that harms who? How? People get the heebie jeebies imagining what those two people are doing in the bedroom?

Because that is what we are talking about here. Fear of buttsex. There is nothing else different about a gay couple than a straight than how they have sex.
BIGOTRY. Pure and simple.

And I am a straight, married female, for the record.

37, actually hetero marriages have been the basis of owning property and keeping it in the family. I really odn;t htink you can point ot straight marriage these days as being the bedrock of anything.

And again, a gay couple, together for 20 years, contributing to society, is different from a staight one how? Oh, yeah, where they put their sexual organs. Got it. That offends society.

i agree with 31,

this news story ALONE is pretty crazy.... why do we have to make it about gay marriage? it has nothing to DO with gay marriage!

and don't get me wrong, i'm totally for letting whoever wants to marry civilly do so.... but still

THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT GAYS ELIE

get off your political soap-box.

the guy is a racist. just leave it at that.

This guy is such an easy target and Elie still manages to screw it up.

Dammit, I need to cancel my wedding. How little did I know that the combination of my blue eyes and her plump lips was so dangerous.

Dammit, I need to cancel my wedding. How little did I know that the combination of my blue eyes and her plump lips was so dangerous.

32: weak, weak argument, really. If states could legislate based on morality alone, we would not have had Lawrence. There must be some corresponding safety or health issue -- as there is with murder/alcohol/tobacco/drugs/etc. (Prostitution is another story -- I don't think that's really a legally defensible prohibition either.) Sure, use morality, but if all you can point to is a general "it is immoral" argument, that is not actually a legal argument -- you have to come up with more specific societal harm or more specific state interest.

Which is not to say that some judges don't listen to the pure "Ewww, gross, god hates that" crap argument. And not to say that others don't buy what seem to be clearly irrational and contradictory welfare arguments: we've had states, such as Florida, claim it is because of children's welfare: although gay parents can be foster parents, and there is no ban on surrogacy for the benefit of a gay parent -- so that is blatantly contradictory. We have states claim it is because the purpose of marriage is to procreate, although there is no prohibition on women who are post-menopausal marrying or couples otherwise infertile from marrying.

But honestly, the train has left the station. More states are actually questioning the false arguments produced above and recognizing their legal insufficiency.

38,
see # 37. All laws are based on morality to some extent and that's what the state decides through the governed. If states change the law that's fine and their right. My only problem is if it is done by the 9 supremes. States can and will legalize gay marriage. The people then get to decide that if they don't like certain laws, they can move states. It's called federalism. You should not eliminate experimentation in the states. Go back to Locke - more speech is necessary not less. If gay marriage is beneficial to society than those 5 or 6 states that currently have it will prove it to the other 45.

@47:

Uhhh, courts change the definition of marriage all the time. The Supremes change the definition of marriage. See, eg, Loving.

Oh, it's OK to discriminate against gays but it's no longer OK to discriminate against interracial couples BECAUSE the US Supreme Court said so?? On what planet do you troglodytes live? Let me type sloooowly so even you mouth-breathers get it...it is simply wrong for a governmental entity at ANY level to deny benefits to a class of people based on 1) their gender, 2) their age, 3) "race," creed or religious beliefs, and 4) sexual orientation. These apply, of course, to two consenting adults of legal competence. WTF is wrong with equating #4 with the other criteria?? News flash, brainiacs, sexual orientation is no more a choice than the color of one's skin or your height. Hence, Mr. Mystal's point is to my mind, quite pertinent; there are many points of correlation between the civil rights struggles of the 1960s and the present-day struggle for equal opportunities for gay people. I had hoped that we had left the 20th century behind; unfortunately, Louisiana hasn't quite caught up to the rest of the world. BTW, this asshole should lose his JP license like yesterday...what fracking business of his is it to worry about the potential children of the people he chooses to marry? Jackass....

Damn these activitst judges!

Oh -- and of *course* some people don't want to see the connection between this story and gay marriage. If they admitted to any connection between how wrong it is to refuse marriage to consenting, non-related adults of different races, then they might have to begin to explore why it is wrong to refuse marriage to consenting, non-related adults of the same sex. Go figure.

Regarding the main point, this judge should resign immediately, and if he doesn't, he should be removed.

On to a more interesting (to me) topic, the problem with sanctioning polygamy is that in the United States the practice of it has been tightly bound together with brainwashing (i.e., religious indoctrination), marriage of underage girls and statutory rape. So for that reason, as a society we'd have to look very closely at sanctioning it, and if we did, we'd probably have to step up enforcement to prevent coerced polygamy. (And frankly it will be a long time before mainstream politicians ever touch the issue with a 10-foot pole.)

IMO, if three consenting adults of sound mind want to enter into a polygamous relationship I don't think that there are very many good arguments against it. Single parenthood isn't a basis for flatly denying child custody or refusing adoption. Accordingly it would seem that the only possible argument against sanctioning polygamy between three consenting adults -- to protect children -- wouldn't hold up.

And honestly, allowing polygamy might very well produce economic benefits in our society. Laugh at me all you want (or tear me a new one if you like). However, I submit that men quite often lose romantic and/or sexual interest in their wives and leave them for younger women and have second families, and the economic impact of those divorces in this country is huge. I'm not a woman (if you hadn't guessed that by now), but some women might rather choose a polygamous relationship over divorce.

And I'd don't think we'd have to worry about the practice becoming widespread. Polygamy is expensive. A friend of mine who was born in Africa told me that polygamy was allowed in the country of his birth, but it was not common because not many men could support more than one wife.

46 and 48, yes. The contortions anti-gay-marriage people go through to talk around the fact that is this just "ew, yyou know what those boys do in the bedroom?!" bigotry is fairly sad and transparent. I hope the train has left the station.

At this point, my friends, in VA, who have been together 20 years and have a 17 year old son are still in the position that only one of them can legally adopt him, so the other has no rights should he be in the hospital, and she needs a note from the other mother to pick her son up from school. Try explaining that to the son. (who is a straight-A student, football player, straight, and dating girls)

When did race become a dichotomy of black and white? Is the judge stating that his view of interracial marriages as negative is bolstered by a belief that neither black nor white society accepts mixed offspring?

Even if true, why would the views of those two racial groups be relevant to my offspring which will be a white/asian hybrid?

By talking about "interracial" marriages solely in terms of black/white, is the judge implying that a white/asian marriage is NOT interracial? Maybe it's because white is closer on the color spectrum to yellow than it is to black, so my marriage is not quite interracial enough to bother anyone.

My point is that people don't seem to be talking about interracial topics but rather are talking about black/white topics. If that's the case, what's the distinction?

In conclusion, I'd like to give a hearty "fuck you" to this judge and anyone who criticizes me, my wife, or our future children.

54, he probably has an Asian woman fetish, and thinks they make nice, docile wives for white men. The man is a pig. And stupid.

Comments on this post to 190. Nice race-baiting Elie. Hope the advertisers come flocking next. And no, patriots aren't going to defend this guy. At least not this one.

And by the way, a state has every reason to specify the terms on which it will recognize a marriage and thereby impose benefits and obligations (that's right, I said obligations, gay folks better understand that its not all "benefits") on married couples.

I am struck by an overwhelming sense of who gives a shit?

So this parish justice of the peace won't marry mixed race couples? So?

As the article notes he is elected. This problem will solve itself in one of too ways: 1) The good people of the parish will vote him out of office 2) The not so good people of the parish will agree with him and elected him again

Democratic Republicanism at work. We elect our leadership and then judge them based on their policy decisions.

Its not like they were denied a marriage license, they weren't prevented from getting married. One redneck justice of the peace just refused to do it himself.

Again, who gives a shit?

What's wrong with being racy?

56, I think gay couples are quite aware of the "obligations", thank you very much. And would you say to my face, "hey, because you are a man, andfuck your partner in the ass, you cannot marry him, even though you have been in a commited relationship for 10 years"? No, I didn't think so, because it is indefensible.

public individual makes questionable decision; lawsuit is initiated. certainly we need 23 year olds to fill volumes with their opinion on the issue.

37,

You are so wrong. Why are murder, rape, rape and robbery illegal? Not because the society has decided they are immorally, but they in one way or the other do harms to others persons' life, liberty or property. Could you say that two same-sex persons who want to get married have done anything harmful to other persons in the society?

Echo 59 --- 56, your comment was in really poor taste. Gay people are not some naive, neophyte class of people that know nothing about committed relationships. They just aren't allowed to get the piece of paper. If you're going to contribute to the debate, try to treat the other side with a little respect. Seriously.

14 - FYI, plural marriages are not legal anywhere in Utah, backwoods or not. In fact, Utah is the only state that has a provision in its state constitution forbidding polygamy. All other state just have statutes to that effect.

59 - Of course it is defensible. Look at the history of marriage. Society had to figure out what to do with women and children who couldn't support themselves. Society therefore imposed obligations on husbands/fathers to take care of their dependents. A little sexist, of course, but society still recognizes the obligations of one spouse to his/her other spouse and his/her children. Tell me how this system applies to 2 men, and by the way, I don't give a rat's ass what either of the 2 men do with their themselves.

What are the "benefits" that you are talking about that 2 men can't otherwise achieve through personal contracts that don't need to involve the power of the state? I'm sure if you really want the tax benefits, you could pay the extra "marriage penalty" if you wanted.

-not 56

From Elie's introduction when he was first named an editor at ATL:

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality. Here are some of my identification labels."

Elie Epic Fail

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/08/meet_new_editor_elie_mystal.php

Filthy bigot probably has a problem with marrying queers, too.

62-The issue isn't "committed relationships". Go ahead and committ all you want. I don't care. Just like I don't care what you do with your sexual organs. The issue is plain and simple. A society should be able to determine the terms on which it will recognize marriage. There is no justification for a society to recognize the marriage of 2 men and more than there is justification for a society to recognize the marriage of a brother and a sister or a 35 year old man with a 13 year old boy. Society's views may change over time. But for gay folks to make this a civil rights issue is just a little over the top. If I were black, I'd be offended by the way the gay community is using the civil rights model as a way to impose their morals via the court system.

Good for the judge for standing up for what's right.

To those who object to the use of "moral" reasons to oppose gay marriage--please explain your support (if any) for universal health care, opposition to the death penalty, and/or pro-choice posture without making any conceivably "moral" arguments in favor of such position.

52
Are your references to "society determining" and "politicians not touching this with a 10 foot pole" an indication that you think gay marriage is an issue that should be resolved at the polls? If so, then I'd say you are on to something. Put polygamy, gay marriage, and other non-traditional marriage structures on the ballot box and let the chips fall where they may. Making it a constitutional issue to me is the point where I would have to say "no".

Ellie is absolutely right to slam the NAACP here. Who would have thought that all these years later that organization would be (tacitly) promoting the most narrow reading of Loving possible?

If you support gay marriage how can you then oppose poligamy, incest, or, say, marrying one's cat?

Seriously, what if two brothers want to marry for benefits - not sexual, just tax and other benefits?

not 67

69-Why do you assume that teh gays support all those things.

69-Why do you assume that teh gays support all those things?

As 35 points out, the couple could find other officials with the power to marry them. Of course, most of us agree that what the JP did here was wrong, but it does raise an interesting question -- should justices of the peace be able to refuse to marry ANY couple, if the marriage would be legal? It's not that far from the question of whether clergy should be forced to perform gay marriages, except that the JPs are government officials.

Can we let the fuckin South secede already?

73--I don't. That's why I said "(if any)". My only point is that people only object to "moral" arguments regarding a position when they disagree with the morality.

--69

75--

Isn't the interesting question whether the state should govern marriage at all? Why not simply have a civil partnership that ANY two people can voluntarily enter with all of the governmental rights and privileges inherent in marriage. Whether anyone else (churches, private citizens, etc.) choose to recognize that relationship as a "marriage" would be up to them.

69 (I love being 69, tee hee)

54 = Jon Gosselin

69/78

I hope you are a girl for your "tee hee" comment. If you're a guy, pretty sure you will die a virgin.

22 (and others): you are absolutely correct.

The biggest canard of the gay marriage movement is that the old laws against interracial marriage have anything to do with the present dispute.

It is an intellectually dishonest maneuver, on the order of Chief Justice George's lament that California "increased the rights of chickens on the same day that it withdrew rights from gays".

Elie,

You have tagged this article with "gay marriage." I fail to see anything related to gay marriage. Obviously the justice of the peace should have issued the license. But it has nothing to do with gay marriage. No Supreme Court decision or other decision binding upon Louisiana has ever equated interracial marriage with gay marriage.

In fact, the only court to ever equate interracial marriage with gay marriage promptly saw its decision effectively overruled by a ballot initiative in Proposition 8.

Didn't you go to law school?

69 ftw!

"To those who object to the use of "moral" reasons to oppose gay marriage--please explain your support (if any) for universal health care, opposition to the death penalty, and/or pro-choice posture without making any conceivably "moral" arguments in favor of such position."

(1) Elie is pointing out that everyone has their own concept of "traditional" marriage. This guy's concept was a fairly mainstream one 50 years ago.

(2) I think he's actually calling out the NAACP which hasn't exaclty jumped on board the gay rights movement. The NAACP is (obviously and rightly) offended by this guy standing up for his "traditional marriage" beliefs, then turn around and try to impose their "traditional marriage" beliefs on others. The head of the Iowa NAACP, for instance, endorsed a Republican in the state's gubernatorial race based solely on the gay marriage issue. It's more than a little hypocritical, and I think Elie is trying to point this out.

78: why do you limit the notion to only two people?

This discussion is silly. If marriage is to become simply a matter of contract, and the state has no business determining the gender of the participants, why does it have any business limiting the number of participants? If 4 people decide to enter into a committed relationship of love, and wish to have the state recognize that, who (or what?) is the state to decide otherwise?

Is the answer: "well, no one is suggesting that group marriages be allowed"? But this begs entirely the conceptual question. Moreover, it begs entirely the expected trajectory of social movements. Thirty years ago, the idea of gay marriage was a laugh line, a throwaway. It is not now.

Is the answer: "well, it's just obvious that society can only be successfully based on marriages between two, as opposed to among four, people". It's not "just obvious". The Mormons obviously had a different view. Besides, for centuries it was "just obvious" that society could not be based on, or even tolerate, homosexual marriages.

Gay marriage proponents have a strong argument based on the notion of contract, and privacy, and the inappropriateness of the state interfering in intimate relations. Strong, but hardly invulnerable.

But proponents would, to my view, make their case much stronger if they were able, in an intellectually honest way, to counter the argument that limiting the number, as well as the gender, of participants in marriage is also open to strict legal challenge.

Legalize Polygamy Now!

84, you are a racist.

A black man is just as free to believe that 1) a man and a woman should be able to marry regardless of race and 2) that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That is exactly what Martin Luther King Jr. believed and taught, although liberals hate for that pesky fact to be brought up.

Elie, you raise a good point. How many times did you take the NY bar exam and when did you give up trying to pass it?

78 - It's not an interesting question at all. In fact it is quite simple. Society (at the time, probably in the form of tribal elders, in all likelihood, men) needed a way to impose order and otherwise protect women and children. Enter marriage. The contact imposed by society essentially became: If you take my daughter's viginity, you have to provide for her well being. If you have kids with her, you have to take care of them. Pretty sexist, of course, but it seems to have worked and continues to be the main basis for a state to recognize marriage at all. It's not about a state giving out "priveleges", it's about a state enforcing ordered liberties. It's up to the gay community to convince society as a whole (at the ballot box, not at the courts, thanks) why the state should be involved in regulating their relationships. There is nothing to stop them from having a big wedding, buying matching tuxedoes (or gowns), etc. if they want to do so. But why exactly do they need the power of the state to enforce their "committed relationships"?

you know, something people always forget about with regard to "traditional marriage" &c. is the fact that most modern, heterosexual marriages are not typically all that "traditional"

the very CONCEPT of a "companionate" marriage is a novel one (i.e., marry a "companion" that you "love" and "want to spend your time with"). in the middle east, europe, and even early america, marriage fulfilled many different roles, but a "partnership based on mutual love and affection" was always last on the list.

the institution joined families, secured wealth, allowed for an efficient division of labor (men in the fields/factories, women at home with children: both essential jobs that NEEDED to be done). marriage was more of a legal contract than a love story, and was used to protect women, children, and the parents of the newlyweds.... AND, of course, one of it's primary purposes was to control SEX itself, a very divisive, powerful, and dangerous, if also pleasurable and necessary, aspect of any society.

i mean, just LOOK at the traditional wedding: we have the parties say "i do" to affirm the contract," and the "best man" and "bride's maid" are remnants of the two witnesses sent by the respective families to verify the legally binding "agreement."

SO, what i mean is, we already HAVE redefined marriage in america and in the modern world. the very idea of "marry who you love" is a redefinition of a "traditional" concept of marriage that has existed for millennia.

we are astonished that people still marry for money (gold diggers!) or based on what their parents say or culture dictates, but THAT IS THE WAY MARRIAGE WORKED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

and let's not even talk about DIVORCE. it used to be UNTHINKABLE... and women or even men in abusive relationships were forced to live in them regardless.

so also would be a man and woman marrying and deciding to FORGO children.... INCONCEIVABLE, and DEFINITELY NOT a "traditional" marriage!

and SEX could ONLY exist in marriage... "fornication" was a legally punishable offense...

now, even IF we think divorce is too commonly resorted to, or couples SHOULD have children, and sex SHOULD be in marriage, most of us agree that it is at least well and good that the GOVERNMENT doesn't interfere with these things but allows things to take their own course

so anyway, just food for thought. societal concepts of marriage continuously change. but we shouldn't be so quick to discard old models: they worked for a long time! there IS some good in them. all too often, we are quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

so yes, let's allow the LEGAL institution of marriage to change as it must, but let us not rush to force changes that could prove detrimental to, what is and will be at least for a long time to come, the fundamental unit of society.

85--I just threw the number two out there as representing a civil union, and wasn't meaning to take a position on the question of whether civil unions of more than two should be permitted. I suppose the state could justify such a limitation on the basis of administrative convenience? Not sure on that. You definitely have identified a tough position.

80--touche.

69/78

33 wins.

91: how possibly could "administrative convenience" outweigh a supposed issue of social and constitutional justice? I realize that your comment was thoughtful, but I respond only to indicate that there is no conceptual barrier to marriage among more than two people once the "privacy/contract/get the state off my back" argument is accepted.

And yes, 92, on a lighter note, 33 does win.

This guy is so racist - its the commonly accepted social norm that white people should be able to love and marry light, mocha-skinned people....

Now the navy-blue Crayola people are a different story altogether......

91: how possibly could "administrative convenience" outweigh a supposed issue of social and constitutional justice? I realize that your comment was thoughtful, but I respond only to indicate that there is no conceptual barrier to marriage among more than two people once the "privacy/contract/get the state off my back" argument is accepted.

And yes, 92, on a lighter note, 33 does win.

16:
Elie is right on.
Not all Republicans are racist. But if you are a racist in America today, you are a Republican. Period.

There is a common misconception that marriage between relatives is banned because it may cause birth defects. Read Margaret Mead or any good sociology book as well as any good book on genetics and you will find that is not the case. Also, the state cannot ban you from marrying someone on the basis that you have a birth defect and may pass it on to your offspring. Related party marriages traditionally were banned as a way of preventing clans from becoming too clannish. It forces people to go outside their families in seeking a mate, further integrating them into society. I am for gay marriage, but saying that the ban on relatives marrying each other is to save people from birth defects is scientifically and sociiologically incorrect.

97,

The ban on marrying relatives also exists to keep family reunions and get-togethers from being more uncomfortable and bizarre than they already are.

"Little Suzy! All grown up! Hey, so do you remember Uncle Ron? He just graduated from business school! I'll just leave you two to catch up!"

14 -
marriage to cousins is outlawed in West Virginia, but not in many other *sophisticated* states (looking at you NY and VA)

Some hypos (we lawyer types loooooove hypos)

HYPO 1

Male, aged 50, loves his post-menopausal mother, aged 70. Should they be permitted to marry?

HYPO 2

Male, aged 20, loves his pre-menopausal mother, aged 40. He solemnly covenants to get snipped. She solemnly covenants to practice only oral sex with him.
Should they be permitted to marry? Can the state enforce their covenants? And, is it any business of the state to regulate whether they might try to have children?

HYPO 3

Man, 50, loves his father, 70. Should they be permitted to marry?

Now, before the expected deluge of outraged responses, please consider:

1) Different strokes for different folks: you and I may think it's outrageous for a man to marry his mother, and be recognized for legal purposes as having a "marriage", but not everyone would. So, what right do you, or the state have to impose your ideas on them?

2) Shame: this argument says, without responding to the hypos or the conceptual argument: "how COULD you even raise these questions"?

3) Ad hominem attacks: this reponse says, without more, that the person raising the questions is a bigot, or a racist, or a benighted Republican fool (many on this blog will criticize me for being redundant), and that disposes of the issue, once and for all. Or that the person being attacked fails to appreciate that gay marriage is no different--no different in any material respect-than interracial marriage, and that this judicial fool down in Louisiana perfectly represents all those who have contrary arguments.

Bored and sadly taking the bait of 96:

Come to the ever-so racially inclusive city of Boston sometime, talk to more than 10 Kennedy-worshipping native sons about their honest-to-God racial views, then do everyone a favor and put both barrels in your mouth....

Reread 89 and 90.

-not 89 nor 90.

67-

What if you were black and gay?

It's all well and good to say that society should be able to decide the kinds of marriage it will recognize, but you can't just stop there, it's intellectually dishonest. The law -- society, if you like -- prohibits incestuous marriage BECAUSE there is a rational basis (uh oh, look out, an actual legal concept) for it to do so, which is the prevention of two-headed children and the destruction of the human gene pool. The law prohibits adults from marrying minors TO PREVENT psychological and social harm to the minor, who is presumed to be unable to consent. I think it's fair to say that the grounds for these restrictions are reasonable and rational, although I'd certainly be willing to hear the objections of any incestuous pedophiles who'd care to chime in.

(Now we get to the part of the analysis that tends to give homophobes the heebie-jeebies...)

In light of the foregoing, please provide the *rational basis* for society to prohibit marriage between consenting adults of the same sex. Note that any argument resorting to the hackneyed "bedrock of society for thousands of years" (also known as the "We've Always Done It That Way") response -- or the ever-popular, "Eeeeeew, ICKY!!" -- will earn the offender an Epic Fail and an hour wearing a dunce cap while banging erasers together during recess. Gay erasers.

I wonder what he would have thought if the guy was trying to marry an Asian girl

I'm not sure I follow the subtlety of Elie's argument. It's almost as if he's comparing inter-racial marriage to some other, more controversial form of union. Could he be attempting to draw a moral equivalence between inveterate racists and opponents of this other type of union? If only he wouldn't hide the ball behind his brilliant whit.

I'm going to assume he's endorsing bigamy. Let me be the first to say that I agree whole heartedly. Who are we to tell an adult man that he can't marry as many teenage girls as his cult-leader blesses him with? There really is no difference between opposing the legal recognition of marriage on the basis of race and opposing marriage on the basis of other factors. Bravo, Elie, for having the courage to go against main stream cultural thinking and standing up for bigamists.

"They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

He's only talking about the colored bathroom in his house, right?

100 here.

103: please see my anticipated response 3. "Incestuous pedophiles" and "dunces" indeed. Rarely do I have other commenters confirm my position so completely.

No, you respond to my arguments. Provide a conceptual legal basis for precluding two related individuals, such as a son and a mother, neither of whom is a minor, from earning state recognition of their "marriage".

And, please: don't resort to any of that hackneyed, hoary stuff about the "bedrock of society for thousands of years" :- )

No Oedipus here :- )

NIGGER LOVERS

96: You're wrong on multiple levels. One, your post suffers from the assumption that only white people can be racists. If you believe that then you are a racist. There are plenty of black, latino, and even asian racists out there. You can find their websites on the internet. I guarantee that, if they vote for either major party, they vote Democrat.

Also, there are white racists who for cultural or economic reasons tend to vote for Democrats. If you don't believe that then you've never sat down and had a frank conversation with white, blue-collar, union workers.

"32 states have declared gay marriage illegal. 32."

That's correct, 23. And in how many states was interracial marriage illegal when Loving v. Virginia was decided by SCOTUS? Go ahead, look it up. We'll wait.

96: "But if you are a racist in America today, you are a Republican. Period."

- unless they're black.

It's cool guys. After all, he did let his black friends use his bathroom, so he can't be a racist.

It's cool guys. After all, he did let his black friends use his bathroom, so he can't be a racist.

38: "Fear of buttsex. There is nothing else different about a gay couple than a straight than how they have sex. BIGOTRY. Pure and simple."

If you're pro gay marriage - great. So am I. But your argument=FAIL. A straight couple is the same as a gay couple except for buttsex? What about straight couples who engage in buttsex? And lesbian couples who do something entirely different? (And, I suppose, gay couples who engage in oral sex only). FAIL.

What's with people who use "fail" or "Epic fail" to express their disapproval of an earlier post? Use your words boys and girls. You can actually articulate your criticism without referring to faddish buzzwords.

i still haven't read one compelling reason to limit the ability of gay people to marry each other. Anyone?

99 - That's because they trust us to exercise precaution, whereas in WV it was neccessary to outlaw.

55 - i'd much rather have a wife who wants to stop working after three years and then get a divorce after five years. she'll take the house, the car, and the cat. all because mommy and daddy told her she was a princess.

111 - I don't think Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a Republican.

I want to know what Mrs. Lat thinks about this judge.

I have read enough of these gay marriage posts to realize that this is the same group of people saying the same thing over and over (on both sides). I think it is fair to expect that issue to come up (and the corresponding arguments on both sides to therefore be regurgitated once more) every once in a while. But this is a case of Elie taking a story about one thing and transforming it into something that is only arguably inferentially related.

Give it a rest already.

Still haven't seen anyone respond to 100/107. Anyone?

Neither 100 nor 107

116. The issue is whether a union of two gay people is "marriage" at all, since that term has traditionally referred to a legally recognized union between a man and a woman. While the right to marry has been recognized as a fundamental right implicit in the constitution, the Supreme Court has never recognized that a homosexual union falls within the definition of marriage. That being the case, the appropriate standard of review is not strict scrutiny -- requiring a compelling justification -- but rather rational basis.

Is there any conceivable rational basis for recognizing only heterosexual unions as marriage? Sure. It tends to promote procreative relationship since, on the whole, heterosexual couples are more likely to have children. A legislator could also rationally conclude that a child might be better off having the benefit of both a male and female role model in the household. If you're a lawyer you know that rational basis doesn't require there to be a perfect fit between the rationale and the law. It doesn't matter that you can imagine some situations in which heterosexual couples don't have children or don't wind up with two parents in the household. It's enough that the policy, taken as a whole, can be seen to generally promote the goal of procreation and households with two, opposite sex, parents.

"NAACP branch of Tangipahoa Parish"
Doesn't the author mean "Tangipahoa Parish branch of the NAACP"?

123 False. The traditional form of marriage has included homosexual marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

Maybe if we let gays marry, I'll finally find a job as a JOP who grants them marriage licenses in accordance with my understanding of the traditional view of marriage.

123: Your second paragraph is an argument against single persons adopting children (states rely heavily on singles to adopt kids from their state foster and adoption programs). When you make an argument, you should test it to see if it unintentionally includes or excludes. As a lawyer, you should know better.

124- You are equivocating the term "traditional"

Reality check:

1) There is no empirical or objective reason to deny marriage to people of the same sex. Every credible scientific (or social scientific) organization to have studied the issue has concluded that there is no statistically significant difference between (A) relationships of gay and straight people, and (B) development of their children. The game is objectively up on this issue, just as it is objectively up on miscegenation.

Yes, yes, I know, some religions ban it, it isn't "traditional," etc. Other religions allow it, though--opponents have not given any credible reason why our government should (or can) choose between religious viewpoints as a sole ground. And in any event, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas explicitly state that promoting morality, in and of itself, isn't good enough.

2) There is no Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage. None. Lawrence v. Texas expressly disclaimed any relationship to same-sex marriage. Romer v. Evans is ultimately a political restructuring case...maybe an anti-scarlet letter case most generously construed. It has nothing to do with marriage. Loving v. Virginia is distinguishable on its facts in so many ways that it simply isn't worth addressing.

There's a reason why gay rights groups (rightly) avoid federal court like the plague. I know of eight federal challenges to marriage laws, all unsuccessful. 123's analysis is exactly how a circuit or the Supremes will decide a challenge.

3) The judge was out of line, and there is no rational argument to the contrary. The legislature sets the definition of marriage, judges and local officials have a legal duty to execute it. Louisiana allows interracial marriage. This judge's refusal to marry interracial couples violates separation of powers, and he should be de-robed for his insolence.

125, no it's not. It's an argument that COULD be used to justify not letting single persons adopt. That its an available argument does not mean the legislature has to deploy it.

125--

Rational basis review allows for heavy over- or underinclusiveness--for purposes of rational basis review, it wouldn't matter if the same argument could be applied to single persons. 123 wasn't making a policy argument, s/he was making a legal argument. As a policy matter, you're absolutely right, but legislatures are allowed to be hypocritical under rational basis review.

100/107-

"No, you respond to my my arguments."

Seriously? That's your answer?? What are you, 12? Speaking of intellectual dishonesty...which, by the way, was the reason for the dunce comment. It was not an ad hominem attack, it was a criticism of those who would attempt to dodge the perfectly reasonable question I posed. Sound familiar? It should. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Nor was the "incestuous pedophile" comment ad hominem -- I wasn't attacking anyone who might argue in favor of incest or pedophilia. Indeed, argue away, as you plainly have done. Rather, it was a minor use of a literary device known as "sarcasm." Whoops, look, I just used it again.

In any event, I already responded to the particular hypothetical you posed. You should read more carefully. Please pay attention, as I will repeat my response in greater detail for your benefit:

Marriage between mother and son who produce offspring will lead to an increase in the incidence of homozygous genes in that offspring. (If you don't understand this concept, take a genetics class and catch up.) If the homozygote does not express as a birth defect, this reduces the number of carriers. If it does express as a birth defect, that's what medical doctors, sociologists and insurance companies call "bad." In a large enough population -- say, every human on Earth -- carriers are more likely to survive and breed. The ultimate consequence would be an increase in the general incidence of birth defects in their offspring. Again, "bad." This gives us the conceptual legal basis for precluding state recognition of incestuous marriage.

In anticipation of your response -- and in answer to the non-reproductive scenarios I hadn't seen when I posted my last -- I will only say that strained hypotheticals don't prove your point, they only prove that you can strain a hypothetical. I'd love to hear whether there have been any actual cases on these facts and how they were resolved. Until then, I posed a real-world question. Care to take a stab at it?

103

I'm sorry 130, how is that a "strained hypothetical"? It's no more strained than a hypothetical involving gay marriage was 50 years ago. It's a distinct possibility that a mother and a son would want to get married. In fact, I'd venture to say there are at least dozens of that exact scenario around the world, if not the U.S. Why not let them if they (or either one of them) were sterile?

Not 100/107

103 - Gay blacks? Come on, you can't be serious.

123,

That's still not very compelling. You changed the question and apply a rational basis test, which applies a high hurdle for anyone attempting to overcome it. Using this test is perhaps reasonable, but still doesn't avoid the appearance that the sudden spate of laws and amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman have been applied entirely arbitrarily.

Marriage as a procreative institution? There's plenty of evidence that marriage is more about protecting property rights. A child is better off with mixed-sex parents? Where's the proof? Most of these "defense of marriage" acts didn't appear until after the appearance of the possibility that gays want to get married. This strongly suggests that the only reason for those acts was to prevent gay marriage, with all the other rationales being tacked on afterwards.

Still, the rational basis test...hard to overcome, as you've explained.

116

131-

Are you positing that in 50 years, there will be a nationwide debate with respect to the recognition of *incestuous* marriage? You'd venture to say there are at least "dozens" of that exact scenario worldwide (I'd like to see a real story about just one), and that doesn't strike you as strained in light of the *millions* of gays at issue? Come on.

132 gets a chuckle.

103/130

I don't know how this turned into a debate about gay marriage, and frankly I don't care to read all the comments. All I can say is I hope an interracial couple denied a marriage license sues the fuck out of him and the Louisiana government. This is what happens when you give small, uneducated people a little bit of power.

p.s. Um... Obama? He sure isn't accepted by the mainstream, now is he?

134:

Are you seriously still avoiding an obviously legitimate hypothetical because you have no explanation that won't betray your reasoning?

Yes, I would imagine that there are some sons who would like to marry their mothers, and some mothers who would like to marry their sons. Sorry if that's not "normal" to you, but that's just one of the issues of the debate isn't it? If you don't think so, why strain so hard to argue the differences between incest and gay marriage? Say they aren't mother and son, but first cousins (still sterile). Maybe brother and sister (sterile). Surely those hypotheticals aren't too "strained."

And seriously, you're bringing numbers into it? Numbers are gays' worst enemy. Any trip to a voting booth would tell you that.

131

Quick question:

Why, if I support gay marriage, do I have to defend poligamous, group, or incestual marriages? That makes absolutely no sense. What sort of half-cocked, slippery-slope, non-sense theory posits that the natural extension of gay marriage is a son marrying his mom? Think before you type, people.

137,

Well, you know, there may or may not be upwards of DOZENS of sons and moms who want to marry in this world. If we allow gay marriage then all moral standards MUST be thrown out the window and no one could ever judge anyone else for their personal choices! We must tolerate everything!! It would be the end of the world!!!

Moral relativism for all!

It doesn't have to be the natural extension. But if it's a possible one it's worth discussing in order to define exactly what "right" is being debated.

I think the rational basis hurdle might be lower than most people think. Every study I've heard of shows that children raised by gay couples perform just as well in school as children in straight households.

To use another metaphor: Animus is the horse, and these hypothetical rational bases are the cart.

138 - IN LOVE WITH HIS MOM

100/107 here.

130:

My hypos had nothing to do with bearing children. As you know. I explicitly constructed them not to include that issue.

(Although, interestingly, even if they had, I am not sure that the state's concern to prevent genetically malformed infants would still win out. I mean: one of the strongest doctrines in present day law is equal opportunity and equal protection of the law. Three generations of imbeciles, it seems were not enough: the state has no cognizable interest or right to prevent dim bulbs--and I do NOT know with certainty that you are one of them--from reproducing.

(Moreover, zygotic problems are a matter of % probability, since they do not occur automatically in all such offspring. I believe you state only that there is an "increase in the general incidence of birth defects" in their offspring.

(Well, how much of an "increase in the general incidence of birth defects" qualifies? Is the state justified in preventing marriage when only 0.01% of the offspring will be zygotically impaired? What about 2%? 5%? At what threshold does the state's interest in eugenics supersede the progress of equal protection law over the last 40 years? And how would you pick that particular threshold?)

You construct a straw man relating to the bearing of children and "homozygous genes" (but I am not sure why homozygous genes should be considered any less desirable than heterozygous genes, do you? :- )

But seriously, folks: you didn''t respond to me at all. You characterize the hypos as "strained" but really don't go any further.

If you are the best the gay marriage movement can come up with, it is in trouble.

137: I happen to be absolutely, positively in love with my mother, Jocasta. Y'see, my dad died--it was all bloody. Ma and I hope to marry in the spring, even though by now she is 2500 years old and can't have any more children.

Now, what legal argument--other than characterizing my position as "half-cocked (!), slippery-slope non-sense" do you have why the passage of gay marriage legislation will not facilitate our plans?

Remember: the idea that gays would want to marry was just such a "half-cocked" (sorry, I went to law school in Greenwich Village) idea thirty years ago.

Finally, just remember that "slippery slope" arguments are a favorite of those on the left when it comes to the state setting restrictions on abortion access or limits to what the press may report in times of war.

130 you are wrong on the genetics of incestous marriage. If society wanted to prevent birth defects they could effective do so by having genetic screenings and ban people with genetic defects from marrying or procreating. This is not done. The ban on incestous marriage predates any notions of genetics or birth defects and is sociological in origin. Incestous marriages would more likely isolate the birth defect. Non-incestous marriage spreads it around to a larger pool.

Post ex facto rationalizations are best!

137, you are not nearly as clever as you think you are. Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Marriage = man + woman. Gay marriage changes the definition to man + man or woman+ woman. The reason incest, polygamy, etc are brought up is because there is no rational basis to change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage but deny incest, polygamy, etc.

99, you beat me to it. Aside from New York and Virginia, marriage between first cousins is also legal in sophisticated, non-Appalachian "blue state" locales like California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont. And 117, the myth of inbreeding in West Virginia and other areas of the Appalachian south was popularized, along with sensationalized accounts of the native population's supposed violent, unlettered, irreligious and clannish nature (e.g., nationwide coverage of the Hatfield/McCoy feud), in the post-Civil War era during which the extraction of coal and timber from these areas for the benefit of the northeast and midwest began in earnest. Most mineral rights were not exactly obtained from the locals during this period in a fair manner or with appropriate compensation, so there needed to be a way of painting the native population as an "other" in need of outside paternalism and unable to appreciate and use their natural resources for any real benefit--not too unlike European-style colonialism of the time. In reality, there have been studies (I'm too lazy to look up links) tending to show that Appalachia has never generally had higher rates of incest or inbreeding than other parts of the country (and possibly less when compared to some immigrant neighborhoods in larger cities around the turn of the 20th century) and I recall reading that one theory behind the traditional Appalachian concept of the importance of knowing who one's extended family members are was to avoid unwitting coupling with cousins or other relations. In short, not cool to decry one form of bigotry while perpetuating another!

So... 100/107/142 wins? That appears to be the case.

Not 100/107/142

"Marriage = man + woman. Gay marriage changes the definition to man + man or woman+ woman. The reason incest, polygamy, etc are brought up is because there is no rational basis to change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage but deny incest, polygamy, etc."

It is if you define marriage as a union between two non-closely-related people. Not two closely-related people, not more than two people. Just throwing that out there. Someone else can define "non-closely-related." Or explain why a marriage should be limited to two people alone.

Now that I think about it, other that the after-the-fact rationalization that "marriage is for BABIES!" there really is no compelling reason that marriage should just be limited to two people. Other than to prevent some vaguely-defined "societal harm," why is this such an issue?

I want a girl
Just like the girl
That married dear ol' Dad.

Actually, I want the girl who DID marry dear ol' Dad.

Now, don't go calling me sick or immoral. And take your tired old laws off me and me mum's bodies. Who are some a-hole legislators to tell us what we can and can't do with our lives?

100/107/142

I don't see how this is any different from a pharmacist refusing to fill a legal, doctor prescribed birth control prescription because they don't believe in it. Yet many do and get away with it. Some even keep the prescription, forcing the woman to go back to her doctor to get another before being able to fill it somewhere else.

It's simple. If you can't do the job, don't take the job. If some part of the job requires you to go against your beliefs so much that you simply can't do it, then make another career choice. Letting people impose their beliefs on others in this way is dangerous and can quickly get out of hand.

What if Motor Vehicle personnel started denying people driver's licenses because they believe someone is too young, or too old, or too something else? What if your server at a restaurant decided not to serve you your order because they didn't believe in serving diet food to someone too skinny or a calorie loaded meal to someone too heavy?

98 wins...the law should definitely protect the people from that degree of awkwardness!

although 100 evidently disagrees and thinks that family reunions are prime pick up territory. sooo you come here often Grandma?

Tangipahoa Parish has another claim to fame: It was the filming location for In the Heat of the Night, the TV show about race and the law.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/not-in-tangipahoa-parish/

Tangipahoa Parish has another claim to fame: It was the filming location for In the Heat of the Night, the TV show about race and the law.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/not-in-tangipahoa-parish/

@ 134:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080216/NEWS/802160471
Manatee man accused of incest
By Michael A. Scarcella
Published Saturday, Feb. 16, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.

MANATEE COUNTY — Tammie Mills said she was tired of being hurt in relationships. She was just a teenager, she said, but she wanted to be a mother.
Mills, now 24, said she began a sexual relationship with her father seven years ago. She was 17 when their first daughter was born, Mills said, and they have another daughter who is 2.
"I know it was wrong, but it is my life," Mills said in an interview Friday. "We loved each other. We were in it together."
Her father, Michael A. Mills, 46, was arrested Thursday on an incest charge, based on the longstanding sexual relationship he allegedly had with his daughter. He is being held at the Manatee County, with bail set at $100,000.
Prosecutors say incest cases are rare in the criminal justice arena compared with other sex crimes.
It is even more rare, attorneys say, to have an incest case in which children have been born from the unlawful sexual activity.
However, the state must prove that Michael Mills knew Tammie was his daughter and that the two relatives had sex. Incest is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Authorities said Mills confessed to the crime. His daughter said she wants the man she considers her husband back with her.
"We trusted each other," Tammie Mills said. "People around can think what they want. It's my life. I'm an adult. I can chose what I want."
Their secret relationship likely would have continued if not for a fight this week.
Tammie Mills was arrested on a domestic battery charge, accused of pulling Michael Mills from a bed. He was not injured.
The sheriff's child protective services team took custody of Tammie Mills' daughters.
"They loved their daddy," Tammie Mills said.
An investigation, which included a review of birth records, showed Michael Mills, who mows lawns, was the father of the girls, sheriff's spokesman Dave Bristow said.
Tammie Mills said her father did not force her to have sex. She wanted a baby.
Tammie Mills said she planned to tell her daughters about their father when they grew up.
"I would tell them the truth," she said. "I would tell them why this happened."
Last modified: Saturday, Feb. 16, 2008 at 2:19 a.m.

@130:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13686645&BRD=1706&PAG=461&dept_id=72001&rfi=6
Curtain drops on incest drama
By: Bob Audette, Staff Reporter, 01/06/2005

The legal saga of two former Pine Plains' residents, charged with violation of a 100-year-old law, has come to resolution.
In 2004, Charles Thomas, 44, and Nanci Latrell-Thomas, 29, were arrested on a number of charges, including two Class E felonies, each for incest, and filing a false document. The charges were ultimately reduced and the two were fined. [...] The pair allegedly filed a false document when applying for a marriage certificate to hide their familial relationship. [...] The Sheriff's Department alleged that Thomas and Latrell-Thomas are, in fact, uncle and niece, and had been engaging in a sexual relationship as part of their marriage. They were married May 2001. [...]
Robin Bennett, manager of the Genetic Medicine Clinic at the University of Washington Medical Center, with Arno Motulsky, professor emeritus of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington, presented a paper on consanguinity in the 2002 April issue of the Journal of Genetic Counseling.
In a summary of the paper, the authors conclude that the genetic risks to offspring of consanguineous relationships have been overstated.
Bennett, in a telephone interview with The Register Herald, said first cousins are third-degree relatives, uncle/niece are second-degree, and sibling/sibling or parent/child are first-degree.
"Uncle/niece risk is somewhat higher than first-cousin risk, which is between 1.7% to 2.8% above the background risk," said Bennett.
"Risk in first-degree relations is 7% to 31% - based on limited studies," she said.
Following Bennett's reasoning, the genetic risk of morbidity (the relative incidence of disease) in uncle/niece relationships is somewhere between 2.8% and 7% above the risk of unrelated couples.
"These (incest) laws are old and draconian," contends Alicia Craffey, a genetic counselor at the University of Connecticut in Farmington.
"The (genetic) risk is usually a little bit higher, but not exponentially," said Craffey, but she admitted that in her 18 years in genetic counseling she has never counseled an uncle/niece pair.
"Uncle/niece relationships are very common in some cultures and are not considered 'wrong,' " Bennett said. [...]

@ 151: One could argue that the existence of parallel ties (uncle-niece and husband-wife, for example) would likely have a positive effect in that it would inhibit abusive behavior, since both partners are closely tied to other relatives who are more likely to intervene if there are signs of disharmony.

@151:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4332635.ece

From The Times
July 15, 2008

I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty
A woman slept with her sibling for years and has good memories. Not many people understand their relationship, she says

Strangely enough, Daniel's wedding day didn't upset me at all. It was his 30th birthday six months later which really got to me, as he stood there with his wife Alison while they greeted the guests. I can honestly say that that was the only time when I felt real envy and wished desperately that it was me standing beside him, arms round each other as we showed the world how much we loved each other.

It's not as if I'm not allowed to love Daniel, but the way we feel about each other isn't something that we can share easily with anyone else. Daniel is my brother, but since I was 14 we've had a sexual relationship - and that's not something that many people would feel comfortable with.

I've only ever spoken about this once before, and even then it was very much in the abstract. While I was still at university a friend had a major misunderstanding with a relatively new boyfriend when one of his friends had reported back to him that he'd seen her hugging and kissing another man in the union bar. She was firstly annoyed at being questioned and became even more exasperated when she explained that the man in question was her brother, as her boyfriend refused to believe her. Their loud discussion took place in the union with an interested audience, until he finally stamped out in fury, still refusing to believe her. As she flounced back to join us she made a remark about preferring her brother to any other man, whereupon one of the crowd said “Yuck, how pervy!” As she sat down beside me she muttered something like “It's not that strange,” and three or four drinks later I quietly asked her what she'd meant.

Fuelled by drink or maybe just rage, she started talking in a very intense but hushed way about how close siblings could be, going on to say that she was sure that many people experimented sexually with them as they grew up and then simply grew out of it. She said it was like practising your social skills on your family and so long as it was mutual, she couldn't see the harm. I didn't say much - partly because I couldn't believe that I'd met someone who seemed to be like me - and she very quickly clammed up and moved over to talk to someone else and never brought up the subject again.

I think the only reason that I'm talking about it now is to emphasise that I truly believe that she was right - it doesn't happen to everyone but it happens to some, and I don't want to be made to feel guilty about it. Incest is so often spoken about in the same breath as abuse, but if you're close in age and equal in relationship terms then it's entirely different. Of course abuse happens, but it can happen in any sexual relationship and there's an expectation that a family member would never hurt you in the way that someone else could. There's no comparison between siblings close in age having sexual feelings and contact and an adult forcing a younger member of the family to do something they neither understand nor want to be involved in. I think incest is traditionally seen as bad, but in some cultures that isn't the case. When I was small I asked a Sunday school teacher if Adam and Eve's children married each other since they were the first people on earth. She just laughed and didn't reply. Having children with Daniel was never an issue and we were always careful about contraception.

All my memories of my relationship with Daniel are good. He's only a year older than me and we've always been close, especially since we always seemed to be full of nonsense compared with our older sister Jane. She's four years older than Daniel and very studious and focused, while he's bursting with fun and light-hearted enthusiasm. I've adored him for as long as I can remember and my parents were always delighted by our closeness when we were small. We shared friends and moved happily in the same social circles, so I could never understand girls who didn't get on with their brothers.

Things changed when I was 14. I had spent hours getting ready for my first Christmas dance when I knocked on Daniel's bedroom door. It's a dodgy age as you're trying to come to terms with your developing body and worry endlessly about how you look, so his wolf whistle was very welcome as he swept me into his arms and we pirouetted, laughing, around the room, before going downstairs to show off our finery to our parents and Jane.

Daniel's appreciation really helped my confidence and I was aware of him smiling approvingly as boy after boy asked me up to dance, though my greatest pleasure was when he claimed me for the last dance. We giggled home to gossip and hot chocolate with our parents and by the next day all the finery was discarded and life was back to normal.

On New Year's Eve Daniel went to a party and by the time he got home I was already asleep. I was extremely sleepy when he crept into my room and curled up on my bed, which was something we'd both done for years, especially if we wanted to share some snippet of gossip. When he started stroking my hair and face it was a surprise, but I could feel myself drifting pleasurably back to sleep as he caressed me gently. Then I became aware of his hand drifting lower and suddenly I was wide awake as he stroked my neck and started sliding his hand down my vest top. I wasn't scared but I was surprised as he started stroking me, though my overriding sensation was one of sheer pleasure. I instinctively lifted my mouth to his as he kissed me and then he hugged me very tightly and left.

I lay in complete confusion with my mind racing and my body totally turned on. All the sex education I'd had said that this was wrong, that it was abuse and incest. But it hadn't felt wrong and I certainly hadn't felt forced. Rather, I felt that Daniel had stopped long before I'd wanted him to. It was hours before I finally fell asleep but I was sure of two things - that I'd really enjoyed it and I still adored my brother.

The next morning it was clear that Daniel had a hangover but as he grinned up at me from his prone position on the couch there was no awkwardness or regret between us. We didn't discuss what had happened, but went for a long walk that afternoon with Jane and the dog and everything felt the same, down to Jane chiding us about being irresponsible about leaving our parents to do all the tidying up after new year's dinner.

Over the next few years we had sexual encounters every six months or so, each time going farther and farther until I was 17, when we had full sex for the first time. We both went out with other people and there was never any jealousy, although I found it hard to be physically intimate with anyone else. Part of that was because sex with Daniel was so amazing that I had no patience for all the fumbling that seemed to happen with other boys. The sex was never pre-planned, but just always seemed to happen when there was no chance of being discovered.

Every so often I would wonder what people would think if they found out, especially our parents, but it always felt so right and was so exciting that these concerns were never enough to stop me. Sometimes he initiated sex and sometimes I did, but in between times our relationship was as easy, relaxed and affectionate as ever, with the incredible passion of each encounter quietly banked away until the next time.

I missed Daniel when he went to university, but went to stay with him every three months or so. Sometimes we would have sex and at other times neither of us seemed interested. By the time he met Alison he was working and I was a student, and I knew that this relationship was different, but it still came as a shock when he told me he wanted to marry her. However, I was more shocked when he said: “You only have to say and I won't marry her, but then I want us to stay together and not see anyone else. We could be the old boring brother and sister who never got married, but ended up sharing a house because no one else would have them! I know this is meant to be wrong but I've never felt anything so right.” This echoed everything that I've thought about our incestuous relationship over the years. After hours of discussion we agreed that it was time to stop the sexual side of our relationship and also decided that telling anyone else was a bad idea, parting in tears afterwards.

I know Daniel loves Alison, but she's very wary of me. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't see me as a sexual threat, but she thinks of me as an emotional rival and I suppose she's right. It's not unusual - there are countless people dealing with all the emotions that result from partners becoming officially family.

I have wondered if there will ever come a time when I'll look back on my relationship with Daniel in disgust, but I don't think so. Everyone has relationships where the sexual element has ended but a great friendship remains, and that's as good a way as any of summing up what's happened with us. Daniel has a unique place in my affections, as I do with him, and that will never change.

As an academic I have a tendency to draw logical conclusions. I like to see a pattern and resolution, so it does pain me that what appears so lovely and natural to me would be regarded as abhorrent by most people. It's not my subject, but I would be really interested to see a study on incest done on these terms, moving it away entirely from the concept of abuse. However, I simply cannot imagine that many people are happy to talk about it and I certainly wouldn't put my family through hell by being the first to go public.

Three months ago I met Derek and I think this is going to be a lasting relationship. The sex is certainly amazing and he's a warm and lovely man, so I have high hopes for this. The trouble with having someone like Daniel in your life is that it leaves you with very high expectations, but it's hard knowing that the one person you love above everything is out of bounds. Perhaps worst of all is the fact that you can't tell anyone, as his or her disgust would ruin everything.

Names have been changed. As told to Joan McFadden

My bet is that Daniel will probably rape his children too.