A French Connection

We have another exclusive interview to bring you. 

People in consanguinamorous relationships are everywhere, though consanguinamorists tend to be closeted. Fortunately, some are willing to be interviewed for this blog. As a result, Full Marriage Equality has featured scores of exclusive interviews with lovers denied the freedom to marry and have that marriage treated equally under the law. Most can’t even be out of the closet or they’ll face persecution and prosecution under absurd incest laws, which, instead of focusing on abuse, also target consensual relationships.

The couple interviewed below should be free to legally and publicly marry, or simply be together without having to hide, yet they can’t. Prejudice can be deadly. They are consenting adults; why should they have been denied their rights? In much of the world, they could be criminally prosecuted for loving each other this way, and might be persecuted severely in addition.

Read the interview below and see for yourself what they have to say about the love they share. You may think this relationship is interesting, or it might make you uncomfortable, or you might find it ideal, even highly erotic, but whatever your reaction, should lovers like these be denied equal access to marriage or any other rights simply because they love each other this way?

Also please note that someone you love, respect, and admire could be in a similar relationship right now. Should they be attacked and denied rights because of the "incest" label? 

NOTE: This interview has some sexually explicit descriptions inherent to the interviewees’ life experiences and development.

*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe yourselves.

Emma: My family is English, but we’ve been living in France for over 20 years. We originally lived near London and moved to Paris because of my dad’s work. 

I’m 26 years old, caucasian, blond, green eyes. I’m 5’ 3” and not excessively athletic as I do my best to keep my weight down. That’s hard in France with all the delicious food, so I’m not skinny, but sort of a normal sized person.

My mum and dad raised me. They were always both present for me right from the start, sharing my upbringing, my education. When I was younger, my parents both worked in London, so sometimes it was my mum who came home first to pick my brother and I up from school, sometimes it was my dad when my mum was working late.

I did the major part of my education here in France - given that when I arrived in France aged six, I didn’t speak or understand a word of French, but now I’m fully bilingual, which is a great advantage when working with international clients. Jobwise, I’m a PA for a Media Events company in Paris that works internationally. We organise PR and advertising events. And no, I’m no “Emily in Paris,” even if my colleagues and I have watched the series and laughed a lot about some of the PR campaigns featured in the episodes.

I like swimming. We have a pool. I like movies, concerts, traveling and nudism camping holidays.

I have an elder brother who is 28 years old, who also works in the same company but in the Events Logistics Department.

John: I’m from a middle class family from London. I met my late wife at school, we fell in love and when I was 20 and she was 19, we had our first child / our son - then Emma a couple of years later. Yes, we were a bit young to become parents, but we somehow made it work, thanks to the help of our parents. 

My father worked in import/export so I naturally got a job with him, moving up over the years, before taking over from him. I work in import/export of electronics, hifi and other audio/video equipment. Then I had a business opportunity to move to France and take over an office in Paris. I’m nearly 49, already a silver fox as some say; quite tall, I swim and play tennis to stay fit. 

We own a nice family house on the outskirts of Paris, with quite a bit of land and a small forest all around. I bought it while looking for a quiet and secluded area to get away from the busy Paris work environment. 

I’ve been very fortunate with my investments, giving my family enough to live a very comfortable life and little worries about money.

I’m a real geek for technology and gadgets, going to specialized exhibitions - for work, but also to get to see all the new stuff - I like doing nudism camping. We did this a lot back then with my late wife before we had our kids and later with them too, first at some campsites in England, then in France. One outside Paris, another in the South West and our favorite one in the South of France at the Cap d’Agde naturism center.

The Point

An adult,

regardless of gender, orientation, race, or religion

should be free to share

love, sex, kink, residence, relationships, and marriage

with any and all consenting adults,

without fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Love Must Win

Love Will Win

Juneteenth

June 19 is a holiday in the US. It’s still new as an official holiday, so it’s still not officially observed everywhere it should be.

It’s a celebration of African American freedom.

Freedom is still a work in progress.

For example, African Americans who are LGBTQ+, nonmonogamous, and/or consanguinamorous are still denied basic rights.

Let’s keep evolving so that everyone will have their rights, including the freedom to marry and the freedom to be together how they mutually agree, including sharing love, sex, kink, residence, partnership, and more.

Intergenerational Relationships Aren't Automatically Abusive

After I boosted my post "Intergenerational Relationships Can Work" on the (DEFUNCT) Tumblr counterpart to this blog. (And again, we are talking about ADULTS.) This prompted someone to anonymously message that Tumblr blog...

Oh, hey! Somehow I didn't notice you supported intergenerational relationships, and I checked your answers to common objections and there was no reference to it, so may I direct you to a couple of links you might find interesting? They are against intergenerational relationships, but they might have notions you haven't considered.

From what I could see, the objections to intergenerational relationships (generally meaning 20 or more years difference in age) or even just age-gap relationships (less than 20, but, say ages 18 vs. 24 or 30 vs. 45) were all variations on the "power imbalance" argument.

Lies and Damned Lies About Polygamy

[Note: I am bumping up this previous entry because it is as relevant as ever. Polygamy is not something to escape from, fear, or prosecute. Abusive people are. Polygamy doesn't harm women, children, or teen boys, abusers do. The same goes for monogamy.]

Good ol’ tool of anti-equality forces, Professor Joe Henrich of the University of B.C., is back in the news. This article comes with a picture of Bountiful, B.C. (which is NOT the picture shown here) along with this text…

New research says that polygamy, which is practiced in Bountiful, B.C., leads to increased crime.

Right. Everyone avoids driving near Bountiful because of the high crime rate.

Prof. Joe Henrich found that when rich men take more than one wife, it leaves a deficit of women leading to increased fighting and competition for the remaining women.

Got that? You non-wealthy or unmarried guys are just a bunch of criminals.

Henrich is taking about women as though they have no minds of their own and are nothing but property, akin to cars.

Rich men can “take” more than one woman, marriage or not. Shall we ban all nonmonogamy? Or, since it might lower the crime rate according to this line of thinking, shall we require a woman to find an unmarried man and keep him busy so he won’t go around being a violent criminal?

"You have low-status men who are desperate for resources," said Henrich, a professor in the departments of psychology and economics. "More polygamy leads to a greater proportion of unmarried men, which leads to increased crime."

How does Henrich explain “low status” men who marry a woman and support her decision to not earn income as she tends to the children or earn less income than she and their children will spend? Wouldn’t it make sense, in Henrich’s view, for such men to never marry and have children, so as to be less “desperate for resources?”

Henrich and his co-authors studied societies where polygamy is prevalent, trying to discover the consequences.

Did they also conclude that polygamy causes high amounts of melanin?

"The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women," said Henrich. "The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behaviour to gain resources and women."

I wonder why the article doesn’t cite examples?

I also wonder how much funding for this, or how much of Henrich’s pay, comes from the very government that has banned the polygamous freedom to marry and is actively attacking polygynous families?

We’ve already debunked all of this here, here, here, here, here, and here. We will need many more dung beetles to clear this pile up.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. These excuses to deny full marriage equality are flimsy masks that fail to hide festering bigotry.

Discovering Consanguinamory in the Family Tree

I am [or, had been] active on [a certain Big Online Portal's question and answer service], especially when it comes to explaining the importance of relationship rights, full marriage equality, and decriminalizing consanguinamory. Someone had this question...

Family Tree Concerns..?
My Grandfather recently passed away and my Grandmother told us all that her and my Grandfather were never married, they had always celebrated an anniversary (or so we thought,) but didn't understand while she waited till he died before telling us. After further research into my family tree I have discovered that my Grandmother married her Uncle (is this incest!?!), my Mother feels all weird because it feels like her life has been a lie and the only person she could have asked and got a proper answer was her Dad but now he's gone so we are both just looking for some advice or if anyone has been or is going through a similar situation...

This was my answer, which was chosen as the best answer (thankyouverymuch)...
= = = =
Here's what matters: Was your grandfather a good person? A good spouse to your Grandmother? A good parent? A good grandparent? THAT is what matters, not any genetic or legal relation to your grandmother. There's no lie about any of that. Your mother's life is no different now than it was before she knew that information. She's just allowing cultural prejudices to influence her reaction. Your grandparents had what is called a common-law marriage. As long as they were good to each other, that is what matters.

You didn't make it clear, but it appears you mean your grandfather was the brother of one of your grandmother's parents (he would still be an "uncle" to her if he had, at one time, been married to one of your grandmother's parents' sisters without any biological relation to your grandmother). Assuming there was a genetic connection (though it is possible he had been adopted into the family, too), that is still no reason for alarm. This is much more common than people think. People are finding out about this through DNA testing and family records, although family records don't always reveal the truth. If you go back further, it is virtually guaranteed you'll find you have consanguineous ancestors.

You don't have to go too far back in anyone's family tree to find these kinds of things. I doubt there is a person out there whose ancestry has nothing like this.

In other words.... you and your family are as normal as everyone else.
= = =

Just about everyone has incestuous childbearing in their family tree. In some cases, someone was raped, which of course is a horrible, or there was cheating. In other cases, it was true love between people who were not cheating on anyone. If the law prevented them from legally marrying or from telling the truth, that is a problem, a terrible problem, of the law, and just one of many reasons we need full marriage equality. It is not something wrong with the lovers.

Frequently Asked Question: Why Is Incest Illegal?

It shouldn’t be illegal anywhere, as you’ll see. As always, we note that we are talking about consensual incest (consanguinamory), such as between consenting adults, and between minors close in age. We are not talking about anything involving coercion or force or molestation. There are laws against rape, assault, and molestation, and they should remain. We are talking about consensual incest, consanguineous sex and marriage, and consanguinamory, whether initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction or not.

Short answer: It isn’t illegal everywhere, but where it is, it is the lingering result of sex-police holdovers, superstition, prejudice, and legislative inertia.

Long answer:

Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the US, Monday is a holiday, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. He was a giant in the fight for civil rights.



Many decades after he was assassinated, the fight for civil rights continues.

History is on our side. All consenting adults will be free to exercise their rights to share love, sex, kink, residence, and marriage.

Are you like those who kept trying to keep some people second-class citizens, or are you like the people who marched with King?

This is how you can help.

A Cruel Double Standard

I've considered adding another entry to the Discredited Arguments page, because I've heard and read people say that people in consanguinamorous relationships (or step or adoptive relationships that have gone romantic) don't need the freedom to marry because they're already family. In addition to being as senseless as telling a woman she can't marry her sister's husband's brother (which is legal and does happen) because they are already family, the statement can bring up a very cruel double standard.

In many situations involving Genetic Sexual Attraction, the lovers are not legally family for the purposes of insurance, benefits, taxes, hospital visitation, next of kin, etc. because they were adopted into or born into (via sperm, egg, or embryo donation) different families. Also, in many places, when a married woman gives birth, the child is legally her spouse's child as well. What if, due to sex with someone other than her spouse, the woman's child is genetically a half-sibling to another married couple's child, and as adults they decide they'd like to marry?

The double standard is that, while these genetically related people don't enjoy the benefits of being family, in places that still have ridiculous laws discriminating against consensual adult incest, they are considered family and thus can (and are) criminally prosecuted for consensual sex or at least denied their right to marry.

You're not family so you can't get the benefit of being family. You are family so you are going to be prosecuted for having loved each other in sexual way. That's cruel.

As an example, if something were to happen to Melissa and she ended up in a hospital, her adoptive parents could bar Matthew and Linda from even being by her side, let alone making decisions about her care, even though Matthew and Linda are, for practical purposes, her spouses. She would be married to them if she could, but the law isn't there yet.

Those who are sharing, or want to share their lives as spouses or partners often do need the same rights, benefits, and protections as any other spouses, and there’s no good reason to deny them their fundamental right to marry. Also, marriage automatically provides for next-of-kin status, which is especially important when there is some discord between at least one of the lovers and legal family members outside of the consanguinamorous relationship.

There are many cruel double standards when trying to tell other consenting adults how to love each other. GSA or not, consanguinamorous people need discriminatory laws to be done away with, and need access to the protections provided by marriage, if they want them. This is yet another reason we need full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

Answering Arguments Against Polyamory

People who insist monogamy is the only acceptable relationship model, or that polyamorists should not have the same rights for their relationships as monogamists, almost always cite a few often-repeated reasons as to why. If you're polyamorous, you’ve probably heard most of these reasons, whether from coworkers, family, or complete strangers. Although I’m going to focus on polyamorous relationships, most of these are also applicable to open relationships, swinging, swapping, nonmonogamous sex, and ethical nonmonogamy in general whether the people involved identify as polyamorous or not.

Just about any objection people have to polyamory or other forms of ethical nonmonogamy fit into these common arguments, perhaps with different wording. Just so that you know, when I use the term “polygamy” I am referring to a subset of polyamory that involves marriage (whether by law, ceremony, or declaration of those involved), involving three or more spouses, whatever the structure of the relationship or the genders involved, as long as all involved are consenting adults.

1. “It is disgusting.” Also known as the “ick” or “eww” factor, this explains why the person using the argument would not want to have a polyamorous relationship, but their own personal disgust is not a justification for preventing other people from having a polyamorous relationship. Some people are disgusted by the idea of heterosexual sex, or their own parents having sex, but obviously this is not a justification to ban those things. Obviously, the consenting adults who want a polyamorous relationship aren’t disgusted by it. An effective response to this is “Don’t want a polyamorous relationship? Don’t have one.”

Frequently Asked Question: Can Siblings Marry?

The following is based on my understanding. I’m not at attorney and this should not be considered legal advice.

Can siblings marry?

I’m not aware of any government that will currently and knowingly marry full-blood siblings or recognize a marriage of full-blood siblings; rather, if it was discovered by the authorities after an official marriage was formed that the spouses were, in fact, siblings, the marriage would be dissolved and considered invalid. If the spouses knew they were siblings when they married, they would be subject to prosecution. If they discovered the genetic relationship after getting married, they would have to file for an annulment or dissolution or risk prosecution.

Where sibling consanguinamory isn’t still banned by law, siblings can have a wedding ceremony and live the married life, although under discrimination, as their government will not recognize their marriage and they will not get treated equally. Consulting a family law or estate attorney might be worth it for siblings who want some of the legal aspects of marriage. DO explain to the attorney of you genetic/legal relation as siblings. DO NOT tell the attorney you are lovers. Explain you would prefer each other to essentially be next of kin and reciprocal beneficiaries over and above anyone else (like your parents or another sibling); you want as much of a personal-social partnership as the law allows. 

Celebrating Progress, Looking Forward

Ten years ago, the US Supreme Court issued their decision recognizing a nationwide right to marry.

It was a great moment and we especially congratulate everyone celebrating their ten year wedding anniversary!

Many other countries have also made progress.

We are still moving forward to the goal of full marriage equality, so that an adult will be free to marry any and all consenting adults. Letting consenting adults have the relationships to which they mutually agree, including marriage, is supported by the US Constitution and basic human rights.

Thank you to all who have contributed to advancing these rights!

The Invisible Asterisk

Sometimes, when someone writes (or says) that they support the freedom to marry or, marriage equality, or #Marriage4All, #LoveMustWin,  or “love is love” or something like “The sex lives of consenting adults is nobody else’s business.,” there is an invisible asterisk. You know, one of these: *

What might really be going on is this…

“Consenting adults should be free to marry each other.”*

*Unless you mean something I don’t like or think is disgusting, like polygamy, open marriage, or consensual adult incest.



I don’t do that. There is no asterisk in this statement…

I support the rights of an adult to share love, sex, kink, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

There is no asterisk after “adult.” An “adult” includes any person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

“Any and all” means “any and all”. If an adult woman can vote, be Secretary of State (or Prime Minister, which we don't have in the US), serve as a Governor, be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, sign contracts, enlist in the military, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty (which we do have in many places in the US), and can consent to group sex with three cage fighters she just met, it seems to me an adult woman should also be free to have sex with and/or marry any consenting adult(s), even if that means another woman, or two women, or two men, or a woman and a man, or a married man (not hidden from his existing spouse), or her sister, whether an adopted sister, stepsister, half sister, or full blood sister. All of this goes for men, too, of course.

This basic right means all adults having the same right to not marry at all, and to divorce, and to be free of domestic violence. The basic freedom of association should mean that adults can share the entirety of love, sex, residence, and marriaqe, or any of those without the others, and any civil union or domestic partnership that is offered. That’s a funny thing called… equality. There is no good reason to deny equality. Now is the time to get it done.
So, do you support full marriage equality, or marriage “equality”*?

We Support Love and Affection

1. Are they capable of consenting to this?

2. Do they consent to this?

That's all that matters when it comes to lovers. Someone else's disgust or prejudices shouldn't matter.

If they have mutually agreed to make love, have sex, explore, experiment, or play, nobody else should try to stop them. If someone hasn't agreed, they should be free to opt out.

We support consent. We support love and affection. Do you?

Bigotry & Repression Hurt But Support & Solidarity Help

There is so much hatred, exclusion, prejudice, discrimination, bullying, repression, oppression, and bigotry in this world.

But there is also love, inclusion, affection, kindness, support, freedom, growth, cooperation, and solidarity.

Your identity, your orientation, your relationship style is for you to discover and explore, often with the help of kindly lovers, mentors, teachers, friends, and family.

Who you are, who you love, and how you love shouldn’t be forced upon you. Indeed, it can’t be. Rather, hostile forces only stifle, repress, cover up, traumatize. They don’t truly change who you are.

If you prefer to be alone most of the time, that’s OK.

If you prefer to have one partner, that’s OK.

If you prefer to have multiple partners, that’s OK.

This shouldn’t be up to naysayers. The naysayers can decide for themselves. They shouldn’t decide for you. They shouldn’t get a say in who your partners are and how you share love, sex, play, and life.

What matters is that the partners have consented to be together, and to do what they’re doing.

Laws that attempt to deny this are unjust and destructive.

Media offerings that perpetuate harmful misconceptions are irresponsible.

Services, such as forums, comments sections, blogging platforms, and social media, which deny participants the freedom to discuss these things and advocate for equal rights of all are part of the problem rather than the solution. Naysayers who attempt to spread their bigotry hurt people.

This blog is here to help.

You are supported here.

We are in solidarity, and welcome solidarity.

Let’s keep evolving towards relationship rights and full marriage equality for all.

Love must win.

Is a Woman Unable to Consent to Marry Her Sibling?

[Bumping this up because it is still revelant.] I take the idea of consenting adults seriously. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion should be free to share love, sex, kink, residence, and marriage (or any other legal union offered) with any and all consenting adults.

This does not mean I think any given person is a good match for any other person, or that they are treating each other right. It just means whether or not they have a relationship and what they do together should be up to them, not anyone else.

Our laws are inconsistent about this. A 22-year-old woman living below the poverty level can legally consent to sign a prenuptial agreement and legally marry a 60-year-old male billionaire. She can have sex with the President of the United States, who obviously has much more power than her. The law in many places allows her to marry a complete stranger. Also, in most places, she can legally live with and consent to sex with a man who has what amounts to a harem, or she can consent to group sex with several weightlifting champions she’s never met before, or an older man who’s been her next-door neighbor since she was born and babysat her throughout her childhood, and is now living on death row as a convicted murderer. That’s all legal. However, in many places she’s still barred from legally marrying another 22-year-old woman, and in even more places, she is still barred from having consensual sex with, let alone marrying a full or half sibling, even if they weren’t raised together. I have yet to hear a reason justifying such discrimination that withstands scrutiny.

Some tweets were directed to me by a thoughtful person questioning brother-sister marriage, and those tweets deserve responses longer than I could post there, so I’m putting my response here.

The Secret of Siblings

We have another exclusive interview to bring you. 

People in consanguinamorous relationships are everywhere, though consanguinamorists tend to be closeted. Fortunately, some are willing to be interviewed for this blog. As a result, Full Marriage Equality has featured scores of exclusive interviews with lovers denied the freedom to marry and have that marriage treated equally under the law. Most can’t even be out of the closet or they’ll face persecution and prosecution under absurd incest laws, which, instead of focusing on abuse, also target consensual relationships.

The man interviewed below should be free to legally and publicly marry his lover, or simply be with her without having to hide, yet they can’t. Prejudice can be deadly. They are consenting adults; why should they have been denied their rights? In much of the world, they could be criminally prosecuted for loving each other this way, and might be persecuted severely in addition.

Read the interview below and see for yourself what he has to say about the love they share. You may think this relationship is interesting, or it might make you uncomfortable, or you might find it ideal, even highly erotic, but whatever your reaction, should lovers like these be denied equal access to marriage or any other rights simply because they love each other this way?

Also please note that someone you love, respect, and admire could be in a similar relationship right now. Should they be attacked and denied rights because of the "incest" label? 

*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe your background.

THIS INTERVIEW REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF THE INTERVIEWEE.

You can read other interviews I have done here. As you'll see, there are people from all walks of life, around the world, who are in consanguinamorous relationships.

If you are in a relationship like this and are looking for help or others you can talk with, read this.

If you want to be interviewed about your "forbidden" relationship, or that of someone you know, connect with me by checking under the "Get Connected" tab there at the top of the page or emailing me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com or on Wire messaging app at fullmarriageequality, X/Twitter at FullMEquality, or Facebook. I usually check for private/direct messages and respond in less than a day, so if I don't it might mean your message didn't get delivered.

If you know someone who is in a relationship that's anything like this, or "taboo" or "forbidden," please read this.

Successful GSA Relationships

There is a split in the Genetic Sexual Attraction community, as I have noted before. I checked out a certain other site's posting with the same title as this entry. Below, I analyze what was written.

We often get this question- Are there any successful GSA relationships?

To answer the question... YES!

Are people in such relationships willing to do interviews that reveal their identities? Almost never.

Or the media will inquire about speaking with GSA couples living in the shadows of society afraid to announce they are actually reunited family members living as lovers.

I don't think many of those couples (or triads) are likely to keep in friendly contact with these negative naysayers. I know some who don't, and they ceased contact after they took over an established forum where people had long been contributing.

The more I work with the GSA community the more I hear about heartbreak and pain, because most often these relationships do not work.

Because that is that is who you attract! You take a negative attitude towards GSA and you offer sex-negative counseling for people who are having problems. What happy lovers are going to bother to come to you, especially if they have to pay money (leaving an clear, easily obtainable trail of evidence some ridiculous prosecutor could use) just to use your forum?

Most romantic/sexual relationships do not "work" if you mean by that "lasting for a lifetime and that lifetime not ending in the murder of one by the other." Most relationships break up, or most of us would still be in our first relationships. But there ARE lasting, happy, loving and very passionate relationships initiated through GSA.

California Voters: Yes on 3

Vote YES on Proposition 3!

If you’re a registered California voter, you might have received your Presidential Election ballot in the mail already.

If you’re not registered or not registered in your current location yet, you likely can still register for this election. Do so ASAP.

You should have multiple ways to vote in-person even if you don’t get a ballot in the mail or don’t want to use a mailed/mail-in ballot. You can also hand-deliver mail-in ballots.

Vote YES on Proposition 3 to advance the right to marry.

Here it is:

*****

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I

First—That Section 7.5 of Article I thereof is repealed.

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a

woman is valid or recognized in California.

Second—That Section 7.5 is added to Article I thereof,

to read:

SEC. 7.5. (a) The right to marry is a fundamental

right.

(b) This section is in furtherance of both of the

following:

(1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to

pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy

guaranteed by Section 1.

(2) The rights to due process and equal protection

guaranteed by Section 7.

*****

Here’s the link to the official voter information with the official language of the Proposition (it’s a PDF) if you want to see for yourself:

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop3-text-proposed-laws.pdf

If you want to see the current “in the book” law as of this posting, here it is:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=I

While Proposition 3 isn’t written like the Marriage Equality Amendment this blog endorses, Proposition 3 can enable the same result with some court cases and some follow-up legislation. It removes “dead” language from the California state constitution that was determined to be a violation of the US Constitution and it adds language to the state constitution emphasizing that marriage is a right. It is wonderful that it is written in a way that doesn’t restrict that right; rights are for all.

Let’s advance EVERYONE’S freedom to marry.

Yes on 3 in California!

"Can I Marry My Own Son?"

Asked and answered on Quora:

Yes, you can marry your son. IF either of the following are true…

1) You’re not listed on his birth certificate and your location uses birth certificates to determine eligibility for marriage, and you’re not his legally adoptive mother or father.

2) You don’t care about having your marriage registered with the government.

Unfortunately, full marriage equality doesn’t yet exist in laws. So, if you were able to the do the first option, it would only “work” so long as your true genetic relation wasn’t known to authorities. In many places, including 48 US states, you couldn’t even do option 2 (a private ceremony without a state marriage license) without risking criminal prosecution. Countless people have done this anyway, and few have been outed and prosecuted.

I advocate full marriage equality, including your freedom to marry.