Replies

it's generally agreed that incest prohibitions pass the rational review threshold due to the state's interest in regulating inbreeding..

OK, but your argument here sets a bad precedent :

If the state has an interest (question: what type of interest, and would it hold up in a court of law?) in regulating (read: preventing) the effects of inbreeding (read: deformity or undesriable mental or physical traits) what is to prevent the government from preventing breeding by other "undesirables" that has a self-proclaimed "interest" in breeding? Preventing two alcoholics from having kids? Forcing abortions on pregnant mentally disabled people? Making it a felony for obese people to have children since their kids will likely be obese, thus being a burden on health resources and generally being unpleasant to look at.

It dangerously comes close to setting a precedent for a form of eugenics.

Let me add the usual disclaimer that I think incest is abhorrent, although to be fair, marriage between cousins -including first cousins- is legal in something like 30 states (not all of them redneck states either), and America is one of the few places where there is a taboo on it in Western Civilization, and studies show that there is not that much risk of heightened genetic deformity in the offspring of incestious parents.

However, you can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. You can't say on the one hand that government shouldn't be allowed in the bedrooms because government doesn't have the right to judge whether the acts of these people are moral or not, and then say that it is OK in some cases to judge these people's acts as moral or immoral. Because then it becomes obvious that we're making subjective judgements on morality based on popular opinion. Gays are popular, relatively speaking. Incestious cousins are not. But our Constitution is founded on principle, not trends. What goes for one interest group should go for another.

And anyway, your argument doesn't hold based on the idea that there is a health interest in preventing incestuous sex because one could also make the argument that gay sex puts a burden on the healthcare system by allowing the convenient spread of HIV and a myriad of other STDs. Again, these are subjective opinions, but to say it's OK for gays but not for others is clearly playing favorites.

Let's face it, all these laws are based on morality. And that's *JUST FINE* because the 10th Amendment generally allows states to make laws to reflect their own values and morality, provided they don't violate the Constitutional rights we all possess.