(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of children, and any children conceived in an incestuous relationship are at an elevated risk of having both major birth defects and other subtler physical defects. That by itself ought to be enough to maintain a ban on incestuous relationships.
These people don't need prison, they need some serious psychiatric help.
---Allen and Pat didn't "have to be bright," the judge growled from the bench, to know that having sex with each other was wrong.---
And evidently you don't have to be bright to be a judge either.
What's next? "A Boy and His Dog"?
The feeling I got was that most of them thought incest (and bigamy) should be legal, but in the case of incest, certain restriction (sterilization or guarantee that the child would be aborted if it had defects, or other guarantees about finanical committement) would be applied.
The left doesn't have any kind of problem with incest, they just don't get emotional about it, and to be honest, I would rather not get them motivated into pushing it, after what happened with this Lawrence case.
I don't get it, why would one perversion be allowed yet not another? I mean it's only fair right?
How soon till NAMBLA floats a test case?
Society is pretty fallen these days, and is getting worse.
I blogitized this.
As Scalia has said many times since "The Constitutional Right to Privacy" was conjured up from penumbras and emanations, "Privacy to do what?". Without an answer to that question the right to privacy gives cover to any kind of pernicious act.