Kissing Sibs (SCOTUS & incest)

NRO ^ | August 04, 2005 | Matthew J. Franck

[JimWforBush]

Isn't this the same topic Santorom got jump on for a few years ago, the whole slippery slope of Lawrence v. Texas

[thoughtomator]

Neither attempted to deny their crime, and they were both convicted and sentenced to prison — eight years for him and five for her.

Um, WTF? Same exact crime, yet he got 60% more jail time? Is this pure anti-male bias or is there more to it?

[Timm]

They sent adults to prison for this? This is an example of vicious prosecutors and judges who need power taken away from them.

[TChris]

Justice Kennedy refused to accept the notion that "the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law."

That one statement alone should result in Kennedy's impeachment. If this philosophy were to expand, it would literally mean the end of the rule of law. For what are criminal laws, if not the codification of the "moral views" of the majority?

Why is theft illegal? Because the majority have said it is immoral.

Why is murder illegal? Same reason.

To so broadly prohibit the constitutionally provided means of exercising the moral judgment of the majority of our citizens is a direct blow to the very principles upon which our nation is founded. It is reprehensible that a justice of SCOTUS would utter such vile thoughts!

[neverdem]

Isn't this the same topic Santorom got jump on for a few years ago, the whole slippery slope of Lawrence v. Texas

IIRC, yes. IMHO, public health arguments apply in both cases, especially when the statists require mandatory seatbelt use and prohibitions on second hand smoke.

[Uncle Fud]

prohibit the constitutionally provided means of exercising the moral judgment of the majority of our citizens is a direct blow to the very principles

Not quite sure about that.

Surely, you must agree that there are some elements of individual liberty regarding which the majority has no right to legislate.

I suspect that Justice Kennedy (although I disagree with many of his decisions) feels the same way, although he would draw the line differently.

[BenLurkin]

Very interesting article but I think the author is wrong about the significance of the high court's choice of standard of review in the Lawrence case. Using the rational basis test does not elevate the rights to a higher status than "fundamental" simply because the governmental entity in question failed (in the minds of SCOTUS) to establish a rational basis for its statute.

For this reason he is also probably wrong when he says: "But no fourth option truly presents itself, for there is no form of legal reasoning that can distinguish a “right” to commit homosexual sodomy from a “right” to marry your sister and raise a family." A court may very well find a rational basis for prohibiting incestuous marriage.

[45Auto]

Here's the nut of the matter:

"The case for homosexual sodomy is not weak under the Court’s reading of the Constitution — it is extraordinarily strong. Hence the argument is very powerful, on logical grounds, for an expansive interpretation of its meaning and scope, which lends support to Muth’s view that the right should encompass consensual adult incest as well."

Let the black-robed vultures squirm their way out of this one.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yep.

And lest we forget bestiality...

[L98Fiero]

So laws you don't agree with should be ignored?

[biblewonk]

Um, WTF? Same exact crime, yet he got 60% more jail time? Is this pure anti-male bias or is there more to it?

That bothered me more than any other aspect of this whole thing actually.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I had to disagree with his article, because there is a fundamental difference. The incest case was about two people who got married illegally. So, despite the author's claim that they are similar, they aren't. The cited case specifically stated it was not dealing with whether the couple could get married, nor about whether the government had to acknowledge it. It was in fact simply whether two adults could do what they wanted in private.

And it was because of this that the judges couldn't find any legitimate government function which would justify the prohibition. They couldn't find anything in the record about how the government was effected.

In the incest case, the couple was married, which meant the government had been involved, and therefore could say they had an interest in promoting only certain unions.

I don't disagree with Scalia's dissent in the cited case, but I think the author of this piece is a little out to lunch.

[newgeezer]

That bothered me more than any other aspect of this whole thing actually.

Why? ("Weaker vessel," etc.)

[biblewonk]

Why indeed.

[Tribune7]

Isn't this the same topic Santorom got jump on for a few years ago, the whole slippery slope of Lawrence v. Texas

And what happens when it involves a fellow and his 18-year-old daughter?

Our court -- and legal establishment -- is trying to destroy this country.

[bk1000]

" Um, WTF? Same exact crime, yet he got 60% more jail time? Is this pure anti-male bias or is there more to it?"

Had he married his brother instead of his sister there would be no problem.

[BykrBayb]

Here's one for the moral absolutes ping list.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the miserable ping. I'll do the list right now. If you ping me to something that I don't ping out, re-ping me - I get swamped sometimes!

[BykrBayb]

Okay. I try to take it easy on you. I know you have a very busy list.