September 15, 2014
“We are the NEW face of hope. I will bear the brunt of the attacks. I will wear the scarlet letter. I will change America.”
—- Mary Carter
UPDATE: Fortunately, this story appears to be a hoax or a joke. Thank you to the readers who emailed me to inform me of this.
I am not surprised that it is a hoax, nor would I be all that surprised if it was true. Nothing much surprises anymore. When fully licensed doctors are offering to freeze any woman’s eggs before she “transitions to a man” so that she can have children with another woman, well, is there any limit to the insanity out there?
— Comments —
W. Higgins writes:
In this case, it seems to be a hoax.What is important to note, and the Snopes person didn’t, is to read the Twitter feed or other comments on the hoaxed posts. It is clear that there are those who support this “union” and others claim to know just such people.
Anyway, just thought I’d send you the link to the debunking.
Greetings from the Netherlands and God bless you.
I’m pretty sure this is not factual. But that doesn’t mean it’s a hoax: I think it is, in fact, a trial balloon. Its purpose is to gauge the response to your question: why not?
About ten days ago I came across a column by Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law Professor and sometime White House employee. He’s clearly a moral sceptic. I imagine that he would argue that this mother/daughter lesbian couple, real or not, should have the “right” to couple and even to “marry” if they chose to. He would argue that our constitution protects that “right”.
Sunstein lauds the opinions of Judge Richard Posner, who he says has given same-sex marriage (and by extension unlimited variations) “its greatest legal victory”. Sunstein says that Posner “eviscerated the states’ efforts to defend their discriminatory laws” with two words “go figure”.
Sunstein says that we should listen to Posner for these reasons: He was appointed by President Reagan, he isn’t known as a judicial activist or for promoting social change, and he is widely admired. Sunstein is a Harvard Law professor. That’s some legal philosophy.
To understand his (Posner’s) opinion, it is important to distinguish among three quite different objections to laws forbidding same-sex marriage.
The first is that they interfere with the right to marry. On this view, under the Constitution’s due process clause, that right is fundamental, so states can’t interfere with it without a “compelling justification” (for example, to prevent marriages between parents and children).
The second is that because gays and lesbians have been subject to pervasive prejudice and hostility, and because sexual orientation is immutable, any form of discrimination against them is “suspect” under the equal protection clause — which means, again, that it can’t be allowed without a compelling justification.
The third, and simplest, argument is that laws against same-sex marriage lack any reasonable basis, so they violate the equal protection clause for being “irrational.”
So, the first objection to laws against same-sex marriage is that the objectional laws interfere with what they prohibit. The second objection to laws against same-sex marriage is that they are simply an extension of a prejudice and a hostility against an immutable human condition. The third, “and simplest” objection is that the laws are irrational and they lack “any” reasonable basis.
Posner ridicules the state of Indiana’s argument that the purpose of marriage is “to enhance the welfare of children.” Posner declares that the heterosexual couple is “rewarded” with a right to marry because men and women can have children, and sarcastically, that since homosexual sodomy doesn’t produce children, that homosexuals are “rewarded” with a non-right to marry.
I wrote in my notes: “Posner must be arguing that any imaginable combination of infertile, non-fertile, non-procreating creatures should be allowed to marry. Fathers and sons, mothers and daughters?”
What could Posner or Sunstein offer as an objection to this real or imagined mother and daughter being married, or a father marrying his son? Two males can’t violate lingering taboos or legal restrictions against consanguinity. Two females can’t unless they demand the “right” to fertilize one or both of their eggs with the sperm of a son, father or brother. So, there remains no “reasonable basis” to prohibit their desires. A father and son marriage, under the coming legal paradigm, will be completely without restrictions for at least for one sick, perverted generation. It would get a little dicey after that. The females could simply stay outside of the family gene pool.
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized