Replies

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.

June 26 - US Supreme Court decision finding a Texas anti-sodomy statute to violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

Lawrence v. Texas (02-102) ("When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.")
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (overturned in Lawrence "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.")
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (post-Bowers affirmation of privacy under due process); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (post-Bowers rejection, under equal protection, of legislation targeted against non-heterosexuals)