[Luis Gonzalez]

I truly doubt it.

There's a sea of difference between two consenting, unrekated adults, and incest.

And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation.

[nickcarraway]

And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation.

It might not be easy to prove their is a high enough risk of genetic mutations. See some of the posts on this thread. Plus, does that mean their is a ``compelling state interest'' in eugenics?

[NeoCaveman]

And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation.

What if the father got a vasectomy(sp?) or if she was barren?

[Jeff Gordon]

And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation.

If papa is shooting blanks no genetic mutation is possible. The very week argument of "compelling State interest" evaporates. I assume that even you would not object to an incestous marriage where one or both parties are sterile.

[gogeo]

I truly doubt it. There's a sea of difference between two consenting, unrelated adults, and incest. And there is a "compelling State interest" in protecting the offspring from genetic mutation. Uh, Luis, 30 years ago, some "right-wing, fundamentalist christian" types stated their fear...that gays would one day want to marry. They were laughed at. The recent SC decision wasn't settled on equal protection grounds. It was based upon privacy rights for consenting adults.