From the Massachusetts General Statutes

[discreet_chaos]

Chapter 207: Section 1. Marriage of man to certain relatives
No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, stepmother, grandfather's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister.

Chapter 207:

Comments

[tequilaprophet]

Interesting...

[flainn]

It sounds, somewhat, like it was lifted from Leviticus (or was that Exodus ... I'm forgetting).

A lot of this seems silly. It should go without saying that bigamy is forbidden, but I don't understand why a person should be prevented by the government from marrying a non-blood relative, if that person chooses to do so. What's the harm? What's the government's interested in preventing this?

[discreet_chaos]

The very next statute outlaws polygamy.

Though, what I found interesting is that I assume (without reading the opinion) these definitions provided part of the basis for the Mass. Supreme Court to find that their law doesn't forbid gay marriage. Glancing through the statutes, I can see the bit which I believe the legislature added to restrict gay unions to only those who will be living in a state that would recognize it, but I find no list similar to the above that would cover these new marriages.

So, quite possibly in Massachusetts, gay people have a less restrictive field.

[artificialpuppy]

Are all things equal, or is this a matter of economics?

[artificialpuppy]

It is the oldest profession and politics aside, most people have an unbalanced perception of this equation and enough of those "most people" have to agree to pass a law by Democratic means.

As an old man said at the library not so long ago, he has "money in his pockets", while "all you youngens" have credit cards.