I find this positively baffling. Ought we pass this retrograde amendment simply because the American political consensus would agree with it? I'm acutely aware of the fact that my political beliefs wouldn't pass muster with an overwhelming majority of the public, but that doesn't mean argumentum ad populum is appropriate here.
Some trot out the concern that polygamous unions are associated with domestic abuse. However, we're a first-world nation. There isn't much of a control for first-world nations with legal polygamy. I would posit the opposite point: if we're truly concerned about domestic abuse, then granting legal recognition would be a great avenue for the abused party(ies) in question to seek legal redress.
As for incestuous marriages, I don't find that the line of argument about birth defections carries much weight with me. As I've written before, this is 2014, not 1814 - we know now that inbreeding can be fraught with difficulty. I don't expect many members of this body to be familiar on a first-hand basis with contraceptives, but they do exist and can help prevent pregnancies. Does anybody expect that in the rare instance that one might be attracted to their sister, a lack of legal recognition would actually prevent coitus? Wouldn't parents of the alleged defective children be more in need of legal benefits and recognition given the expenses of special education? Does it seem either logistically feasible or humane to actually criminalize incestuous relations between two consenting adults?
Lastly, if the crux of the argument against incestuous marriages is the problems with procreation, how does the Senate feel about a tarheel-leftist compromise only legalizing same-sex incestuous marriages?
