Incest Repellent? If gay sex is private, why isn't incest?

Slate ^ | 4/23/03 | William Saletan

[MineralMan]

"Bizzarre...I had no idea:

First cousins may legally marry in: AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA
and Washington DC "

Interesting, huh? Most people don't know this stuff. They just assume that first cousins can't marry, but they're wrong. And, in fact, should a first-cousin couple marry, say, in CA, they can move to a state that prohibits first cousin marriages and their marriage is recognized as valid.

[RipSawyer]

"not at all convinced Bill Clinton isn't the spawn of such a union."

Are you trying to give incest a bad name? A union with Beelzebub is not covered under the definition.

[RipSawyer]

"Those are the only cases we ever hear of because incestuous relationships between adults are almost never prosecuted. In fact, I can't remember ever hearing of such a prosecution, even though the incidence is not all that low."

By the way, have you seen the X-files episode about the family named "Peacock".

[CaptRon]

Especially if we're going to reorder society based simply on how one prefers to get his or her jollies.

[ellery]

That's a fair argument...but then, by that logic, shouldn't New York be able to legalize gay marriage? Currently, the federal Defense of Marriage act prohibits that.

[MineralMan]

"By the way, have you seen the X-files episode about the family named "Peacock".
"

Sorry, I don't watch the program. Never have.

[discostu]

The difference is that incest is bad for the genepool and gays don't breed.

[ChadGore]

Re: I'm a lifestyle conservative and an orientation liberal.

??
I don't even think the writer knows what that means.

[RAT Patrol]

Especially if we're going to reorder society based simply on how one prefers to get his or her jollies. Exactly. At this guy took an honest look at it though. But what you said is exactly correct.

[headsonpikes]

To paraphrase you, 'the larger issue is this. What is the reach of Government'?

The world is not perfectable; although it is tempting to employ the awesome power of the State to improve the world and its inhabitants, every attempt to do so has resulted in evils unimaginable to the naive idealists who championed these vain crusades.

Choose your own examples; they are innumerable.

[William McKinley]

Didn't read the article, did you?

Saletan addresses this point. Several states allow cousins to marry if they provide documentation of sterility. Other states outlaw this. What is the legal basis for laws that deny, say, a brother and sister from marrying if the brother has had a vasectomy?

That's the point Saletan is making. The basis is the same as for sodomy laws. And if that basis is struck down, then there is no legal basis for outlawing a number of things that pretty much everyone agrees should be outlawed.

[NCLaw441]

Incest does not necessarily involve a minor. Sex with a minor is covered under statutory rape laws. Incest only concerns the family relationship between those having sex. Force is also not an issue.

[William McKinley]

To say the Courts are not a remedy if a state chooses to persecute a class of citizens may be Constitutional

That isn't what I said, and it is not even a close enough paraphrasing for me to address.

[NCLaw441]

Incest is relative.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Incest as a non-violent sexual practice among consenting adults is constitutional, but incestual marriages can be banned because governments can regulate contracts. The whole notion of contracts are based on that the state will make them binding, so states (of the feds) can choose which contracts they want to stand behind. Homosexuality is the same way. Private moral repugnancy has NOTHING to do with constitutionality. We're not a theocracy.