Laws Vary Regarding Relationships Between Consenting Adults

We've heard so many different misunderstandings about laws as they apply to relationships and sex between consenting adults. Here in the US, it is especially understandable because laws vary from state to state. There are, of course, fifty states, but there are also other jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia, territories, such as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and there are also federal laws, military codes, and laws that apply to "Indian reservations" (small areas where indigenous peoples have some level of self-determination).

If you are concerned about the laws where you are or where you're considering moving, it would be a good idea to see if the laws of that location are searchable online and to consult an attorney who specializes in family or criminal law for that jurisdiction. An experienced lawyer can tell you about how often a law is enforced even if it is still in effect, and might be able to point out ways someone could make it less likely they'd ever be prosecuted.

Some states have laws still on the books that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The only reason to still have those laws is a deranged hope that the Court decision will eventually be reversed.

Unmarried sex or cohabitation, interracial relationships, same-sex relationships, certain sex positions, even using contraception or sex toys have all been illegal in some places in the US. It might seem shocking, but it is true.

As the show "Sister Wives" detailed, Utah had been the last state to enforce a law against polyfidelity, or at least saying more than one person is your spouse. We're not even talking about insurance coverage or anything like that. Simply saying that you have more than one spouse has been illegal. It's outrageous, but true.

When it comes to consanguinamory, confusion ranges from "I thought it was illegal everywhere for cousins to have sex" to "There are no laws against consenting adults having sex, no matter how closely related." Both statements are false.

The fact is, first cousins are incarcerated for having sex in a handful of US states. But about half of US states will allow first cousins to legally marry (and the list of states isn't what stereotypes would have you believe), although some of them have some restrictions. That leaves many states where where they can have sex, live together, raise children together, but can't legally marry. Outrageous, but true.

As far as relatives closer than that, in general, 47 states have laws against relatives closer than first cousins having sex. Ohio allows siblings to be together. Rhode Island and New Jersey have no laws against adults being together, no matter how closely related. Some other states apparently haven't criminalized sex between adults and their uncles or aunts (outside of old, overturned laws that criminalized unmarried sex, given that these people weren't allowed to marry.)

None of the states will knowingly allow relatives closer than first cousins to legally marry, with certain exceptions in certain states for uncles and nieces, for example, mostly a nod to traditions from foreign cultures. Traditions are not respected, however, when it comes to having more than one legal spouse.

Note that these criminalization laws and laws denying marriage rights tend to apply to genetic ("blood") relatives even if they were legally adopted to different families and never met until well into adulthood.

Some states may have relied on criminalization of homosexuality (which was overturned) and thus might not have anti-incest laws that technically criminalize same-sex consanguinmory. Laws can get very specific, outlawing certain sex acts but not others between certain people. Yes, as silly as it sounds, some specific sex acts that don't harm anyone have been illegal in some places.

The patchwork of unjust laws needs to be changed. There shouldn't be anywhere in the US (or any other country for that matter) where consenting adults are denied their basic rights to have a mutual relationship that includes whatever form of sex they want to have, living together, and, if they want, marriage, or any other union or partnership offered under law. Nobody should fall in love and then worry that if they move for a job they won't be able to marry in their new state or might even be criminals.

There's no good reason to deny these rights. In the US, it should be obvious that legal precedents have determined that such discrimination is unjust and unconstitutional. But people are understandably confused as many unjust laws are still enforced.

Pledge For Candidates Seeking Elected Office

In November, some US states will elect their Governor and state legislators. In addition, all of the House of Representatives will be up for election and a third of the Senate.

We should insist political candidates take this pledge:

I, _________, hereby affirm I do and will support the rights of all adults to marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, cohabitation, and personal consortium, and any of those without the others, and that these rights shall not be abridged nor denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, ancestry, consanguinity, affinity, or number of participants; that all should live without discrimination and pursue their consensual relationships with each other regardless of gender, sexuality, or relationship diversities.

Feel free to adapt this to your country, territory, or province.

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:

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.

Consulting An Attorney If You Can't Legally Marry

If we had relationship rights for all, including full marriage equality, so many of the troubles facing so many people would go away.

But we don't have that yet.

So people in certain relationships face discrimination ranging from employment and housing discrimination, to denial of the freedom to marry, to imprisonment.

In the US, the people who help you with matters of law are called lawyers or attorneys. Other terms might be used in other countries.

In the US, you still can't be legally married to more than one person at the same time, and you can't be married to someone who is "too closely" related to you. (How close is "too close" varies by state.)

If you are in such a relationship, you can still have certain things similar to being legally married, such as:

• shared financial accounts and investments
• shared purchases, ownerships, and sales
• sharing a residence
• beneficiary or reciprocal beneficiary status
• hospital visitation
• being able to make decisions for one another should one of you become unable to communicate or dementia, memory loss, or mental illness necessitates someone else make decisions on your behalf

Without being legally married and without having paperwork that says otherwise, partners are not treated as next of kin or survivors; a biological or legal relative, even if estranged, indifferent or hostile will usually be considered next of kin, be able to make medical decisions, exclude partners from hospital visits, and claim ownership of the person's estate when they pass.

It might be worth it for you and your partner(s) to consult a family law and/or estate planning attorney. A good attorney can come up with the paperwork that will allow you to be responsible for each other, before and above anyone else.

DO NOT tell the attorney, no matter how kind and trustworthy, you’re lovers. They don’t need to know that and it can only cause problems. Rather, explain what it is you want, which might involve joint ownership or control of something financial, “power of attorney,” "medical power of attorney," reciprocal beneficiaries, and whatever else. Explain you want to be able to make decisions for each other and visit each other, before/above anyone else. You want to be considered primary next of kin to each other, you want custody of your minor children to go to each other in the event one of you passes - if that's what you want.

Over the years, some partners have used adoption, with one partner legally adopting their adult partner(s).

What options work best for you and your partner(s) can be determined if you hire a good lawyer. Lawyers aren't cheap, but depending on what you want, their help can be worth it.

Keep in mind that in situations in which genetic relatives were raised apart, they are often not considered family for things like inheritance, but are still treated like family when it comes to prosecuting them for being together. That is just one example of why they might need the help of an attorney and yet shouldn't tell the attorney if they are lovers.

Is There Any Sexuality You Don't Support?

Someone asked me that question privately.

If by sexuality, one means gender identity or sexual orientation… I support people being free to be themselves, as long as they don’t force themselves on others (like predators of children).

Regarding sex…

I believe in the basic human rights of freedom of religion, association, expression, and assembly. Anything consenting adults do together should be up to them, and should not be something to be subjected to criminal prosecution, discrimination, or bullying. Nor should minors close in age be prosecuted or forced into “treatment” for having sex with each other.

I don't consider rape, assault, or child molestation to be "sex." I'm all for prosecuting for those.

I think if someone is at the age of consent for sex, that age of consent should also apply to being recorded or photographed. If someone wants to make videos of themselves to take pictures of themselves or let someone else do it, and they want to show it to others, and another person of the age of consent wants to view it, fine.

Regarding marriage…

I support the right to marry for everyone. An adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults.

But…

My support of legal rights and protections does not mean I personally support all sex or marriages.

For example, I think it is a bad idea for, say, a woman who needs monogamy to have sex on the first date, and if a friend like that wants my "support" I would tell her no, it is a bad idea.

Another example… I think it is safe to say we’ve all known people who announced they were going to get married and we cringed (if only inside) because we didn’t think they were right for each other, or perhaps in a place in their lives where they were ready to be married.

I am also against cheating (but again, I don’t think it should be a criminal matter). Cheating is when someone breaks an existing vow to another through action, rather than informing the person(s) with whom they have the vow that the agreement is ending. There are married couples who have agreements that allow one or both of them to have sex with other people, and per those agreements doing so would not be cheating.

However, if someone tells me they are happily involved with their close biological relative, or two close biological relatives, and none of them are cheating to do it, then yes, I support them. I support happy, healthy same-gender relationships, interracial relationships, polyamorous relationships, intergenerational relationships (adults), and consanguinamorous relationships.

I am sex-positive. Sex is a good thing for many reasons. We’d be better off if more people were having more sex and sex that was more satisfying to them. So generally, I “support sex.” Those who don’t think sex is a good thing or talk as though it isn’t may be doing it wrong, or may have forgotten what it is like (certain asexuals excepted).

What about you? Are you sex-positive?

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!

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #7

“What’s next?” “Where do we draw the line?” What's wrong with letting consenting adults have the freedom to love each other as they want and agree? Who has a problem with that? Rather than coming up with convoluted schemes for which groups of people will get which rights, why not support the rights of all adults? It’s really quite simple:

The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.

(Adapt that to your country, province, etc.)


There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #6 

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #8

How Consanguineous Lovers Can Avoid Trouble

Believe it or not, there are still criminal laws in many places criminalizing consensual sex between adults, and there are still police officers who will investigate people for this "crime," still prosecutors who will take the case before a court, and still judges and jurors who will convict people and sentence them to prison. There are still social workers who will take children away from good parents because those parents love other adults.

It doesn't matter to them how loving the relationships are. It doesn't matter if they love each other more than they could love others, it doesn't matter if the lovers didn't even meet each other until they were adults. It apparently doesn't matter to the people interfering that every dollar or minute they spend trying to stop consenting adults from loving each other is a dollar or minute that could instead go into protecting people, especially children, against predators.

In addition to this persecution of consanguinamorous people, there aren't any protections against other forms of discrimination against the consanguinamorous, such as employment discrimination. There are still many states that don't have protections for LGBTQ+ people, either, and polyamorous people are even less protected than monogamous LGBTQ+ people.

I sometimes forget that people don’t follow the news and law as closely as I do for this blog, so they may be unaware of these things. So I want to share with you what I've learned.

First, note the disclaimer that there is an ever-present at the bottom of this blog. I'll mostly repeat it here:

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.

My Quotes Are Found in the Darndest Places

There's a video on YouTube in which I am quoted about consanguinamory.

The title of the video is "Why Incest Should be Legalized!"

The relevant segment starts about ten minutes in.

My quote shows up just before 22 minutes along, presented to a live audience.

As you'll see, this isn't advocacy. Rather, it's more like a prank or an exercise.

However, since YouTube allows comments, it would be great if you could add some appropriate, relevant comments and encourage others to as well. Thank you!

In case the video isn't visible or playable below, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMRNbsobE5M

If You Get Called to Jury Duty

What should you do if you are called to jury duty and are faced with being placed on a criminal case against someone you think is being prosecuted under an unjust law, such as a law against adult unmarried cohabitation, or against polyfidelity (as Utah has had on the books), or against consanguinamory? NOTE: THIS IS A PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY, NOT LEGAL ADVICE.


The Basics of Criminal Case Juries in the US

Here in the US, people being accused of criminal activity have a right to a trial by jury or they can go with having a judge decide their case. If they go with a jury trial, the judge pretty much acts like a referee until the jury reaches a decision. The decision will be in the hands of the jury, not the judge. The judge should give you no indication of whether they think the defendant is guilty or not.

For a criminal conviction, the jury of twelve people has to unanimously decide the person on trial is "guilty" and it is supposed to be because the prosecution proved their case for guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." If just one person (or, up to eleven people) on the jury says "not guilty" and won't budge, the case ends in a mistrial and the prosecutor can try again with another jury. If all twelve say "not guilty" then the accused is cleared of that crime and can't be retried for the same crime for the same incident. People can appeal after they've been convicted of a crime, but their appeal usually won't get them cleared.

Mothers, Sons, and the Law

I'm continuing a series here of answers I posted to Quora that got attacked by censors.

*****

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-illegal-for-a-mother-to-have-sex-with-her-own-son/answer/Keith-Pullman

Is it illegal for a mother to have sex with her own son?

Keith Pullman

I network with, interview, & befriend adults with consensual incest experience.2y

It’s still illegal for a woman who have sex with her adult son in 48 states in the US and many countries.

It isn’t illegal in the US states of Rhode Island & New Jersey, as well as various modern countries, including France and Spain.

Regardless of criminalization, there are mothers and sons having sex in just about every neighborhood on the planet, regardless of class or ethnicity. And there always have been. Sometimes the sex is a very casual “family-with-benefits” agreement, sometimes it is part of a spousal relationship lasting decades, and sometimes it is somewhere along the wide spectrum between.

Very few are ever caught & prosecuted where it is still illegal, but such lovers need to be carefulf in order to protect themselves and each other.

*****

NOTE: These specific answers in this series were "deleted" at Quora after being there for a while and being well-received. They were probably hidden from view because some bigot targeted me, as evidenced by the fact that many were deleted in rapid fire.

I have previously appealed such deletions successfully. However, whether or not my deleted answers are restored, I’ll be adding  them to this blog. You’ll see for yourself there’s no reason to delete these answers.

No Joy in Meadville?

What really happened in Meadville, Pennsylvania?

From meadvilletribune.com...

Timothy Travis Whitman, 42, who resides in [a redacted location in] Meadville, was arraigned Monday before Magisterial District Judge Samuel Pendolino. Whitman faces a second-degree felony charge of incest for a Jan. 23 incident that Meadville Police Department said took place in [a different location in Meadville]. A preliminary hearing in the case was scheduled for Feb. 13. Whitman remains in Crawford County jail, Saegertown, in lieu of $20,000 bond.

This is from the state law...

4302.  Incest.

(a)  General rule.--Except as provided under subsection (b), a person is guilty of incest, a felony of the second degree, if that person knowingly marries or cohabits or has sexual intercourse with an ancestor or descendant, a brother or sister of the whole or half blood or an uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the whole blood.

(b)  Incest of a minor.--A person is guilty of incest of a minor, a felony of the second degree, if that person knowingly marries, cohabits with or has sexual intercourse with a complainant who is an ancestor or descendant, a brother or sister of the whole or half blood or an uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the whole blood and:

(1)  is under the age of 13 years; or

(2)  is 13 to 18 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant.

Where to start?

1. He is charged with 4302a, so this was with another adult.

2. He has NOT been charged with assault; there is nothing in the report or the law that implies this was anything other than consensual. If it wasn't consensual, he should be charged with assault.

3. This law appears to criminalize even LIVING together. That is blatantly unconstitutional. However, the alleged crime is said to have taken place in a different location from his residence, so it isn't about living together, unless he and someone he lived with were caught together at another location.

It sure would be nice to have clarification in the news report.

It sure would be great if states no longer enforced or even had unconstitutional laws against adults sharing sex, a residence, or marriage.

It sure would be great if the court threw out these charges. If he assaulted someone, charge him with that. If he didn't assault anyone, leave him alone!

Most lovers never have to deal with this. Very few consensual lovers are arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned, but it does happen. People need to be careful.

Every state in the US needs relationship rights and full marriage equality.

How Nonmonogamous People Can Avoid Trouble

Believe it or not, there are still criminal laws in many places criminalizing consensual sex and relationships between adults.

It doesn't matter to them how loving, happy, and lasting the relationships are. It apparently doesn't matter to the people interfering that every dollar or minute they spend trying to stop consenting adults from loving each other is a dollar or minute that could instead go into protecting people, especially children, against predators.

In addition to the persecution and prosecution of consanguinamorous people, polyamorists, polygamists, and other ethical nonmonogamists can face discrimination and even prosecution.

Some awesome people put together a very helpful lists of state laws for polyamorous people in the US or considering moving to the US. First, note the disclaimer that there is an ever-present at the bottom of this blog. I'll mostly repeat it here:

Respect For Marriage Act

Like many countries, the US needs a national "Respect For Marriage Act."

Our laws should ensure that an adult is free to marry any and all consenting adults, and have their marriages respected under the law, in courts, by schools, in hospitals, by insurance agencies, and so forth. This should be the case in every state, county, and city.

Ideally, we would adopt a Marriage Equality Amendment that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion.

There is no good reason to deny an adult, who is capable of consent, regardless of their age, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other personal characteristic, their rights to consent to relationships, love, sex, kink, residence, or marriage with any and all consenting adults.

Denying the polyamorous right to marry shouldn’t be part of any law. Equality “just for some” isn’t equality.

Let's support full marriage equality.

France Must Move Forward

The laws and people of France must move forward, not backward, when it comes to the rights of all adults to share love, sex, kink, residence, and marriage as they mutually agree.

This means consanguinamory must remain decriminalized. Furthermore, consanguinamorists should be free to marry.

Liberty demands this.

Equality demands this.

Fraternity demands this. (HELLO! What could be more fraternal than consanguinamory???)

Let's check in on what is going on in France right now, with this report at connexionfrance.com from Emma Morgan...

A new report aimed at improving the French state’s response to childhood and incestual sexual abuse does not include plans to ban incest in all its forms in France.

In France, there is no law in particular against two adults (those aged 18 and over) engaging in a consensual incestuous relationship or having children.

However, it is illegal when anyone under the age of 18 is involved, under a law which came into force in April 2021.

Adults should be free to have their relationships. Consenting adults having their freedom is an entirely different think that child abuse. The two should never be conflated!

In January this year, the French government announced that it intended to criminalise all incestuous relationships, whether those involved were children or adults.

That would be a a terrible injustice. Stick to going after child abusers, not people who are loving each other.

The state Commission indépendante sur l’inceste et les violences sexuelles faites aux enfants (Ciivise) has now collected 16,414 testimonies from victims of sexual violence over a year, and outlined five areas of improvement for authorities. 

Again, abuse and affection are two different things. How about collecting testimonies of love, joy, pleasure from consanguinamory? Abuse is a horror. Love is wonderful.

The resulting final report does not contain a recommendation to ban all forms of incest, but instead outlines plans to remove parental authority from parents who are convicted of having committed incestuous sexual violence on their child.

Again, two different things.

“[A sexual relationship] between a parent and a child always involves a form of control even when the child has reached adulthood, which is why incest is a specific act that requires specific legislation."

Oh really? When a 30 year-old man who is doing well in life meets a 55 year-old woman and they find each other irresistibly attractive, and they later realize he resulted from an egg donation by her, exactly who is exerting the control???

Let's be clear. Abuse, especially of children is a horror and resources should be directed at stopping it. Love and play between consenting adults is an entirely different thing. It's not a horror. It is delightful.

It is certain that right now, as you are reading this, there are close relatives in France who are making love. Ordinary French people. Extraordinary French people. Accomplished French people. Admired French people. Consanguinamorous people are everywhere, and always have been. Do not spit on their self-determination when it comes to their relationships.

They should be free to live their lives quietly, or come out of the closet, and to marry if they want, without being criminalized, bullied, harassed, or discriminated against.

We support love. Don't you?

Support For Full Marriage Equality

This is so good to see. 

More people in elected office and running for office should publicly endorse full marriage equality.

An adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults.

It’s that simple.

That should be the law in every nation.

Thank, you, Representative Val Demings.

See the tweet here. Interact with with replies at your own risk.

We Still Need Full Marriage Equality

With everything that's been going on, we're late noting that June 26, 2015 was the date the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the limited, monogamous same-sex freedom to marry nationwide. 

It was a joyous time of progress that should be remembered and celebrated. A belated Happy Anniversary to all who just marked their anniversary!

We must keep evolving towards full marriage equality, so that an adult is free to marry any and all consenting adults. We are in solidarity!

Let's keep making progress!!!