[JimWforBush]

Isn't this the same topic Santorom got jump on for a few years ago, the whole slippery slope of Lawrence v. Texas

[thoughtomator]

Neither attempted to deny their crime, and they were both convicted and sentenced to prison — eight years for him and five for her.

Um, WTF? Same exact crime, yet he got 60% more jail time? Is this pure anti-male bias or is there more to it?

[Timm]

They sent adults to prison for this? This is an example of vicious prosecutors and judges who need power taken away from them.

[TChris]

Justice Kennedy refused to accept the notion that "the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law."

That one statement alone should result in Kennedy's impeachment. If this philosophy were to expand, it would literally mean the end of the rule of law. For what are criminal laws, if not the codification of the "moral views" of the majority?

Why is theft illegal? Because the majority have said it is immoral.

Why is murder illegal? Same reason.

To so broadly prohibit the constitutionally provided means of exercising the moral judgment of the majority of our citizens is a direct blow to the very principles upon which our nation is founded. It is reprehensible that a justice of SCOTUS would utter such vile thoughts!

[BenLurkin]

Very interesting article but I think the author is wrong about the significance of the high court's choice of standard of review in the Lawrence case. Using the rational basis test does not elevate the rights to a higher status than "fundamental" simply because the governmental entity in question failed (in the minds of SCOTUS) to establish a rational basis for its statute.

For this reason he is also probably wrong when he says: "But no fourth option truly presents itself, for there is no form of legal reasoning that can distinguish a “right” to commit homosexual sodomy from a “right” to marry your sister and raise a family." A court may very well find a rational basis for prohibiting incestuous marriage.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yep.

And lest we forget bestiality...

[CharlesWayneCT]

I had to disagree with his article, because there is a fundamental difference. The incest case was about two people who got married illegally. So, despite the author's claim that they are similar, they aren't. The cited case specifically stated it was not dealing with whether the couple could get married, nor about whether the government had to acknowledge it. It was in fact simply whether two adults could do what they wanted in private.

And it was because of this that the judges couldn't find any legitimate government function which would justify the prohibition. They couldn't find anything in the record about how the government was effected.

In the incest case, the couple was married, which meant the government had been involved, and therefore could say they had an interest in promoting only certain unions.

I don't disagree with Scalia's dissent in the cited case, but I think the author of this piece is a little out to lunch.

[BykrBayb]

Here's one for the moral absolutes ping list.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes & Homosexual Agenda Two-fer Ping.

Well, well, well. What exactly was it Santorum said about a "slippery slope"? Do the words "screaming nosedive" mean anything to you?

Here's my take: If there are no moral absolutes, unchangeable right and wrong, then every single ethicl/moral issue is now on the table, up to and including bestiality, child/adult sex, consensual cannibalism, involuntary euthanasia, and anything else your (and THEIR) fevered brain can come up with.

It's all on the table now. If the mind of man is the arbiter of right and wrong, the law of the jungle will be the law of the land. If "God says it's wrong so it's wrong" doesn't count, the end of civilization is nigh. And I mean that seriously.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

[monday]

Let me break this down so it is easy to understand. Incest isn't banned because it is icky. Incest is banned, and is icky, because the children produced by such a union are inbred, and genetically inferior, and often deformed and/or retarded.

Incest is banned not only for the good of the children but for the genetic health of the human species. There is no constitutional right to produce mutated children.

[Pilsner]

This year the Texas Legislature made is a second degree felony -- maximum punishment 20 years in prison -- to commit incest by having sexual relations with your first cousin.

The Texas Legislature did not see fit to change the law that makes it a third degree felony -- maximum punishment 5 years in prison -- to commit incest by having sexual relations with your sister.

The legislative update I heard that at, being full of South Texas lawyers, blamed this discrepancy on the proclivities of Legislators from East Texas, near the Arkansas and Louisiana borders.

[IamConservative]

Hillbilly to son: "Son, never marry a virgin. If she ain't good enough fer her own family, she ain't good enough fer 'arn."

[Graymatter]

Keep it up, lefties. Never thought I'd see the day when a major political party extinguished itself, but your moment is coming.

[trubluolyguy]

"Oh there's no slippery slope..."


Says the lie-berals as their constituents are f---ing their siblings.

[TheForceOfOne]

West Virginia ping! :P

[RightWingAtheist]

Up next for the SCOTUS:

As creator Matt Groening described them: "Brothers or lovers, possibly both"