Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway
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.

14 posted on 07/25/2003 10:48:01 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (This tagline has been deleted by the Moderators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dubyaismypresident
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

76 posted on 07/25/2003 11:21:03 AM PDT by MarkL (OK, I'm going to crawl back under my rock now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: dubyaismypresident
Bump!
85 posted on 07/25/2003 11:35:56 AM PDT by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: dubyaismypresident
"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.

135 posted on 07/25/2003 1:20:04 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: dubyaismypresident
"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.

145 posted on 07/25/2003 1:46:03 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (I am la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: dubyaismypresident
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.

200 posted on 07/16/2004 12:55:15 PM PDT by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson