[NeoCaveman]

Looks like Santorum was right.

I'd love to hear how the Supremes can uphold this (anti-incest)law in light of the reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas.

[MarkL]

I'd love to hear how the Supremes can uphold this (anti-incest)law in light of the reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas.

Here's my guess at what the reasoning would be... "Homosexual sex is a Constitutionally protected human right, but incest isn't... Because it's "icky!" And because I say so, `cause I'm a judge!

Mark

[lainde]

Bump!

[cake_crumb]

"Looks like Santorum was right."

Yes he was.

Even the question of WHEN DID THE (sexual) TRAINING START? is moot in light of the SCOTUS decision.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I'd love to hear how the Supremes can uphold this (anti-incest)law..."

From the article: "Incestuous marriages are forbidden in all states, in part due to fears about genetic mutation."

In Lawrence, the rights of two individuals to enter into a private and intimate relationship were defined. Incest laws protect the rights of innocent individuals, the possible offspring of the relationship.

In some States, in order for first cousins to marry, they must first prove that there are no possibilities of an issue from the marriage.

The SCOTUS decision in Lawrence vs. Texas addressed a very specific point, it did not create the sort of slippery slope we are so fond of predicting here in FR.

[stevio]

I'd love to hear how the Supremes can uphold this (anti-incest)law in light of the reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas.

I think this should be pushed in front of the so called Supremes. Also multiple people and animals. Let's break this thing now instead of a slow death.