>>536330915
>>536330815
>>536329615
>>536328207
Stuff like this is exactly why siblings should be allowed to enter into civil unions. The fact that civil unions continue to exist after the legalisation of gay marriage necessarily implies that civil unions are not a means to circumvent marriage laws, nor inherently symbolic of romantic relationships, nor even made redundant or null and void by the legalisation of gay marriage. Rather, civil unions exist to provide certain legal protections to people living together outside of the institution of marriage. Hence, even straight couples are allowed to enter into civil unions, so if civil unions exist outside of marriage, then sibling pairings cannot be excluded in good faith. By nature of being non-marital, civil unions should be legally immune from existing incest laws as a matter of sexual matters not being relevant to civil unions whatsoever. Forbidding siblings from entering civil unions is simply unjust and unconstitutional.

Of course, there are practical reasons siblings might want to enter into a civil unions. Many siblings do indeed live together, often because the economy sucks, or one is simply a dependent. By their blood alone, these people don't have the same legal protections in property, assets, tax, et cetera as any two non-related people living together in a non-sexual relationship. This is simply absurd and needs to be challenged in court.