An Argentinian judge found … among the penumbras and emanations of the Argentine Constitution… a “right to happiness.” (Much like Anthony Kennedy found a “Right to Dignity” in the Constitution of the United States.) And therefore is allowing a woman to marry her own stepdaughter.
After her husband’s death in 2010, just four months after their wedding, the stepmom got closer with the daughter, and the two eventually started a romantic relationship, El Pais newspaper reported. However, when last month the couple decided to formalize their relationship, they were denied a marriage license based on portion of the Civil Code, which has allowed same-sex marriage since 2010 but prohibits any kind of parent-child unions, even if the couple isn’t related by blood. Both women are now in their early 30s, and they sued claiming that the rule violated their constitutional rights. And family judge Ricardo Dutto agreed, declaring the article unconstitutional and ruling that the constitution guarantees every citizen “the right to be happy.”
The Social Left used to make fun of inbreeding; but now that Teh Gheys do it, it’s almost as trendy as transgenderism.
“The Social Left used to make fun of inbreeding; but now that Teh Gheys do it, it’s almost as trendy as transgenderism.
Only families with homosexual and bisexual caretakers engage in intergenerational incest in western civilization. The sandnazis and prognazis share much in common.
“The Social Left used to make fun of inbreeding; but now that Teh Gheys do it, it’s almost as trendy as transgenderism.”
Lol! So true–trannies, pedophilic Hollywood film makers (looking at you, Woody Allen), Roosevelts, etc. Being a liberal or a “progressive”, your life choices are never scrutinized or condemned.
What annoys me is this idea that sex equals love equal happiness.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of the pursuit of happiness, but not the actual acquisition of it.
And really, if it came to that, one person’s happiness may mean another person’s misery, so it would then become a weapon for the powerful to punish their opponents, by finding that their friends have a right to be happy.
Imagine if some judge decided the there was a right to happiness that Trump’s the electoral college. “To guarantee the right to happiness for the most people, we must rule in favor of a plurality of the voters.” Yeah, they’d love that…
How many years apart are they? Nine maximum.
When did “Stepmom” marry Father? 2010. The oldest she could have been was 33. The youngest the Daughter could have been was 24. Can a 24-year-old be legally adopted?
What I found most interesting is that Father died four months after the wedding …
To be fair, this isn’t inbreeding, as the two have no blood relationship.
And it cannot be inbreeding, because two women cannot conceive a child without outside assistance.
“the first Mexican American” elected to public office in New York City, and the “openly-gay New York City Council” member from Brooklyn admits to conspiracy to break laws on camera. At least he wasn’t wearing a pink bow tie.
““Protecting it from a possible Republican president was just one of the reasons” for the provision, said City Councilman Carlos Menchaca, who wrote the law that created the program.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/15/new-york-city-may-erase-id-card-data-to-protect-illegal-immigrants.html
It is only “marriage” in the minds of the marriage-relativity crowd where anything goes. The division between one’s hallucinations and one’s delusions should certainly lead to each dysfunctional half having a stronger core through the nanny state unification by marriage. Thus, it is perfectly logical that people with multiple personality disorders should be encouraged to marry themselves.
We are not talking icky old establishment-laden marriage here. We live in a post-Enlightenment, secular humanist world where a man and the parrot on his should have an inalienable right to form whatever band of relationship imaginable so long as it sends a tingle up at least one leg.
Off Topic but just for funsies: A friend-of-a-friend on FB created this Christmas photo-rebus that I thought worth sharing, ’cause it’s cute.
LOL! Throbert, that is awesome!
Christmas Eve Mass at my sister’s church always closes with that particular hymn (I’ve been going with them every year, pretty much since my nephew first got old enough to be a sheep in the Nativity pageant).
And if I’ve had any whisky-spiked eggnog just prior to Mass (I respect them enough to NOT take Communion, so I don’t need to abstain from food or beverages), I do my awful best at belting it out during the exit procession.
Every active (and many who are inactive) Catholic thanks you for that.
No, it’s not ‘inbreeding’, but it is incest, though not of the physical kind. It’s emotional incest, and even though consensual, is often a boundary violation. This is why Woody Allen’s current marriage is unhealthy. (Though to be fair, this couple are far more strangers than Woody & Soon-Yi were.)
How is it emotional incest? They are a maximum of nine years apart and the younger one was at least 24 when the marriage took place. They were both grown adults.
The two women are 33 and 32. The two struck up their friendship back in 2010.
Included in the 27-page ruling: ‘The Argentinian constitution guarantees all its citizens the right to procure their own happiness, which carries with it the right to be treated with dignity by the laws of the country in all areas of life, including marriage.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4007496/Argentinian-judge-rules-widow-lesbian-wedding-step-daughter-right-happy.html#ixzz4SC3Jjfq9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
In this case, since there was basically a four-month marriage between father and stepmother, it’s only incest in the legal sense. But the defense of age, as stated in the comments herein really has nothing to do with it. It’s the manner of relationship and how it’s presented, both inside and outside the family. Two adults can have an incestuous relationship—the most obvious one being brother and sister—even if they grew up in different households, as well as the same household. Marcia & Greg Brady dating and/or marrying would be the most convenient example of this: neither one has any physical (i.e., ‘blood’) connection and neither spent their formative years with each other, but the relationship between the two is intertwined enough for it to be verboten.
The larger issue, aside from V’s original point about gub’mint-sanctioned happiness, is not whether these two individuals should be joined in government-approved matrimony, but what the definition of “eligible” is as it relates to laws concerning marriage between two individuals. Once upon a time, it was relatively simple (save for laws in southern US states, as many a joke illustrate). Now with “marriage equality”, all rules are essentially made to be broken. Every jurisdiction that issues marriage licenses will have to deal with this sooner or later. [Polyamorists who want state sanction for their relationships are already pushing for change.] For me, this is even more of a reason to get the state out of the marriage business altogether.
Thanks for that! I was giving the benefit of the doubt as much as possible as to the age spread (the most years apart they could have been were nine, and the youngest one of them could have been was 24 when the marriage happened). But, you cleared things up: they’re basically the same age, and they were both in their mid-20s when the marriage to the dad happened.
I guess people want to use this as an example of the “slippery slope” argument that is going to endanger children. Between the “slippery slope” argument and Sharia Law, we’re all going to hell in a hand-basket and it’s the bloody liberals’ fault!
Peace,
xo
It makes me wonder, though, obviously this is at least the second marriage for the deceased man. Who likely was 20 years or more the senior to his wife.
In U.S. law, marriage does not automatically make the step-daughter an actual daughter. I don’t know about Argentinian law.
In the West/near East, “incest” often applied to in-laws. Take a look at the Old Testament: there are injunctions against having sex with your father’s wife because she is “your mother,” having sex with your brother’s wife because she is “your sister,” etc. In the Renaissance, there was considerable debate about whether or not banging in-laws was really on the level of banging blood relatives. That was actually the basis for Henry VIII’s request for the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon: Catherine had been his brother Arthur’s wife, and Henry, being something of a theologian, raised concern over whether the marriage was incestuous; being dead, Catherine would have been free to marry, so the problem wasn’t adultery.
Thomas Aquinas articulated an explanation for opposition to incest that wasn’t “you share a certain level of genetic material with each other.” To him, incest was a problem because those who engage in it must attempt to balance the emotional requirements and interpersonal dynamics of two different relationships.
Sean L: It’s unlikely that people in Aquinas’s time had any awareness of “genetic inbreeding depression” — because the damage that incest does to the gene-pool can be fairly subtle, and difficult to notice in an era where non-inbred kids often die from whooping cough or cholera or smallpox or whatever. Only when childhood mortality ceases to be “normal” does it become apparent that “Hmmm, kids born of brother/sister crossings are more likely to be sickly.”
RSG: “For me, this is even more of a reason to get the state out of the marriage business altogether.”
Marriage — the real thing — breeds children. And children demand to be cared for … and, eventually, expect inheritances.
Should government, which is to say, society, also get out of those two businesses?
I feel oddly vindicated. I called it. Incest before polygamy.
It’s an empty victory.
If it’s any consolation, Christina, once modestly well-off people realize that they can “marry” their children so as to avoid inheritance taxes, incestuous “marraiges” will be back off the table.
By the way, there has already been a (technically) incestuous “gay” “marriage” in the US in the past year ot two. A couple of old “gay” “lovers” (*) were legally father and son, going back decades, as I recall. Then, after “gay” mirage was judicially imposed upon upon their state (NY and/or PA), they got “married”.
(*) for whatever “lover” is worth with most “gays”
Knowing the facts as they are, the cries of incest in this thread are absolutely mind-boggling.