re: #9 jc717

While I support gay marriage, dislike Scalia, and disagree with his murder/bestiality comments specifically, he does have a point.

Should we allow morality to influence laws that restrict freedom between consenting adults? Would laws banning polygamy, incest between adults, or laws preventing siblings from marrying be unconstitutional? If not, then how is gay marriage different?

I’m of the opinion that if it causes harm to others, then it should be an enforceable law.

*Murder directly harms someone.
*Bestiality is animal abuse, because the animal does not and cannot give consent.
*Polygamy is a much grayer area, but I’m generally against it because as practiced in the past, the man is a ruler of his harem and it absolutely demeans the women in that relationship, if you can even call it a relationship. If both parties choose it, and understand what they are doing and are making the choice completely free of duress (direct coercion or familial/regional social pressure), I’d have no problem with it.
*Incest causes harm to the hypothetical child conceived in that situation. Sibling marriage causes the same harm as well.

Gay marriage is between two consenting adults, and it causes/risks no more harm than heterosexual relationships do. To not understand the nuances behind these situations, equivocating any of them to gay marriage is absurd and false. It’s one thing for a layman to not have objective and reasoned interpretations of the law, but for a supreme court justice like Scalia who is supposed to be a absolute expert in legal objectivity and interpretation, that’s horrifying.