Jeffe Fecke of Alas, a blog is as weirded out by J.D. Hayworth’s haste to leap into man-horse sex as I was earlier today.
So here’s something I don’t get: why is it that whenever people start talking about same-sex relations, members of the right instantly leap to bestiality? We all remember former Sen. Rick “Man On Dog” Santorum, R-Penn. Then there was Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and his box turtle lovin’.
I can’t find a link at the moment but I’m pretty sure conservatives have also brought up the creepy prospect of NAMBLA members marrying juvenile boys variation as well. I can’t possibly, on the planet, be the only person to see it this way but…
The really, giant, big, distinguishing difference between grown men or women marrying each other, vs. Arizona Senate aspirants marrying their horses, is that the law already allows men and women to marry. Whereas, at least as far as I know, there are no provisions in law for horses to marry each other. Same with dogs. Same with box turtles. And for good reason. In civic if not celestial terms marriage is an establishment of fairly complex set of legal, contractual, tax, and property rights, including the establishment of legal inheritance and even powers of attorney. None of which, again to the best of my knowledge, are recognized in the case of animals.
Note: As for the NAMBLA scenario, Hayworth’s native Arizona already wisely prohibits marriage of children under the age of 18 without parental consent. Even with parental consent children can’t marry under age 16. Although, disturbingly, Arizona does permit children under age 16 to be married with the consent of the parents and approval of a superior court judge. (That last bit may be a nod to the state’s large child-marrying FLDS population.) To the extent a state wished to forestall the NAMBLA scenario they could simply update their child-marriage laws to 21st 20th Century standards. But I digress…
Point being that whereas legal marriage can (and should!) be easily extended to adults of the same sex with very trivial modifications of civic laws governing marriage adults who currently are allowed to marry each other, before people could marry animals it would first be necessary to establish all the other legal rights and responsibilities for animals that are now the domain only of humans.
Update: Although via Neatorama.com see also Injured Dog Checks Himself into Hospital. :-)
Seems pretty clear to me that
Submitted by Mike Howell (not verified) on Tue, 2010-03-16 14:12.Seems pretty clear to me that what animals and underage humans have in common in this regard is the ability to give informed consent. In the case of animals, it is because, as far as the law is concerned, they are not sentient and therefore cannot give consent. This is why bestiality, in many countries, is illegal; the animal doesn’t really get to choose not to participate. In the case of underage humans, there is a legally established minimum “age of consent” for every state, the moment at which the law recognizes that a human being can give legal consent. This is why the whole “slippery slope” argument is…well…a slippery slope. If we buy into these kinds of arguments against same-sex marriage, who knows…what’s to stop members of congress from making similar stupid arguments about health care reform?
Oh…wait…
[Yup. You can make some kind of case that a dog can consent, enthusiastically even, when invited to go for a walk. And even very small children can clearly choose between, say, watching Barney or Teletubbies. But as you say those statements of preference aren’t considered under the law to be legal consent. And thus they have no bearing at all on the rights of legally-recognized adults to marry. Thanks, Mike. —fl]
It’s just a way of scaring
Submitted by Shadow (not verified) on Tue, 2010-03-16 16:13.It’s just a way of scaring people, who doesn’t know better(and doesn’t bother to enlighten themselves) into voting against whatever they want.
In this case it’s same sex marriage. In another it’s healthcare. And I know they have probably used similar tactics regarding their rights to guns before and will again.
These are things I simply don’t understand. I know why they do it; they are themselves scared of change, of loosing power(and votes), but why are they so focused on keeping a part of the population unhappy? Shouldn’t they be trying to make the country a better place for all the people living there? Isn’t that what they have been elected for?
And as you point out, there are a great difference between two adult humans marrying and dogs, horses, turtles, birds etc. marrying each other/humans. It’s just nonsense and a pile of crap.
It’s time those people woke up to the 21st century.
Ahh, Arizona politicians…
Submitted by osoborracho (not verified) on Tue, 2010-03-16 16:48.Ahh, Arizona politicians… always embarrassing. I was sure JD Hay-for-brains’ political career was dead after he lost his House seat (and even conservatives here had mostly stopped liking him), but he kept getting media coverage. That makes him look influential, so he gets more coverage, etc.
My guess is that the provisions for underage marriage came from the very large mainstream Mormon population, but today it seems to only be utilized for “shotgun” weddings. Forced marriage in the event of accidental fertility is great for preserving that sanctity, right?
The FLDS is a scary, scary cult that doesn’t care if the government legally recognizes anything and actively tries to isolate itself. The members only answer to the church. (I’m descended from a FLDS member and it’s hard to resist going off on a long rant about them.)
And yes, children and animals cannot consent to enter legal contracts, thus they cannot marry adults or each other. Why is this simple concept so hard to grasp?
Actually, I don’t think
Submitted by Nightfall (not verified) on Tue, 2010-03-16 20:23.Actually, I don’t think that’s the issue at all. I think it’s more like homosexuality is as much of an “abomination” in a “moral” sense as bestiality and pedophilia. It doesn’t matter if the child or animal or same-sex person is willing, it’s still something that is “icky and wrong” and they think the law should reflect that.
The fact that same-sex adults are able to give informed consent as it is legally defined is the “only” difference as for as they’re concerned, and possibly a rather trivial one – one could theoretically consent to having their head blown off in full view of the public, but anyone who would do that is likely insane (not to mention the act itself would disturb much of the public) so it shouldn’t be allowed. Likewise, same-sex marriage is also “insane” in that sense and shouldn’t be allowed. Consent, informed or otherwise, is largely irrelevant. Thus, the slippery-slope argument does make some sense from that viewpoint.
I understand what you mean:
Submitted by Mike Howell (not verified) on Sat, 2010-03-20 08:02.I understand what you mean: for the anti-marriage-equality crowd, the slippery slope argument is that once we allow same-sex marriage, it’s only a matter of time before we start allowing “other abominations.” If we allow women to marry women or men to marry men, what’s to stop us from allowing men or women from marrying animals or inanimate objects? It’s an emotional, not a rational, argument, which is fine as long as we acknowledge it as such.
To me, though, that’s what makes the question of legal consent relevant to the conversation. While they’re busy setting up a false moral equivalency, the law of the land says that you can’t marry an underage person or an animal, and no one in the mainstream on either side of the argument is attempting to challenge those laws. Marriage equality is only about humans who have reached the legal age of consent; however one may feel about it, there is no real possibility that marriage equality might lead to changes in the law that would make it possible to marry anyone or anything who isn’t an adult human being.
Mike