The question then becomes, is there a compelling reason to institute a ban on polygamy and incest? My preliminary response is yes because I believe studies show that group dynamics change things dramatically, and I’m aware of no studies that show children of polygamous relationships are just as well off as children of two-person relationships. If such studies existed, then perhaps there WOULDN’T be a compelling state interest in banning polygamy. You might still run into problems with doling out benefits to more people in some families than others, which might raise another equal protection question as far as the benefits go, but as far as calling the relationship marriage, perhaps not.

Same goes with incest. As far as I’m aware, the children of incestuous relationships are much more likely to have birth defects. Not to mention that restrictions based on familial relationship only foreclose a miniscule number of persons from marrying each other. The ban does not have the far-reaching affect of stopping me from marrying millions of people. But again, this should be debated on its merits based on the same standards, but separate from the question of same-sex marriage.

In that case we are not dealing with fundamental rights and we have to look at the merits of government recognition of these private unions. Issues of merit are decided by the legislature and people of California as they are judgement/opinion issues. If marriage is a fundamental right then it would logically follow that group marriage, incest marriage, etc could not be denied.

I don’t know, how about you tell me?

On what legitimate basis do we deny marriage rights to family members right now?

Come on now, you’re really reaching here. Allowing only gay siblings to marry but not straight ones is not equal, and it wouldn’t even pretend to be, its separateness notwithstanding.

Yes, but we treat people differently based on gender…just look at separate but equal bathrooms.

I don’t know how they would handle the question of gay brothers marrying. My only thought on the issue is that it would treat people differently based on gender, which is also suspect. The government would have to show a compelling interest in the difference. I don’t know how they would handle that situation, other than to say that it affects sooo few people that it’s not going to come up in the first place.

I don’t think we’ll be seeing group marriages or incest if this falls. The same-sex marriage court decision specifically ruled that out for now, and I think there is enough to distinguish them from gay marriage.

Junior: That marriage is a fundamental right is a settled question. The only question before the Court now will be whether taking that right away from only a specific protected class is a big enough change to constitute a revision rather than an amendment, thus requiring 2/3 of the legislature to refer it to the people rather than just gathering signatures and passing it by a simple majority popular vote. If the Court is going to rule against us, I’d love to see how they are going to reason. Seems to me that this technically opens the door to an initiative petition by gays to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exampt status (that wouldn’t fly under the federal constitution, but that shouldn’t matter, as the state constitution stands alone, and in principle, shouldn’t rely on the “backup” of the federal constitution to protect fundamental rights). You could technically gather signatures to strip women only of free speech or stop Mexicans from owning property (that would help the immigration problem a lot, no?) The question is whether these changes are considered major or minor.

Also, do you think we could get things like group marriage and gay marriage between brothers, etc as they might fall under equal protection if this is is considered to fall under this?

I also wonder if this get overturned if it will trigger a Federal marriage amendment push. Who knows.

I don’t know if this measure would meet those requirements. I would like to know who governmental framework has been interpreted in the past.