Skip to comments.Trying to outrun Lawrence
Posted on 08/29/2005 7:18:35 PM PDT by SaintDismas
I believe severe punishment is required in this case," the judge said at Allen and Pat's sentencing in November 1997. "I think they have to be separated. It's the only way to prevent them from having intercourse in the future."
Allen and Pat were lovers, but a Wisconsin statute enacted in 1849 made their sexual relationship a felony. The law was sometimes used to nail predators who had molested children, but using it to prosecute consenting adults -- Allen was 45; Pat, 30 -- was virtually unheard of. That didn't deter Milwaukee County Judge David Hansher, however. Nor did the fact that the couple was genuinely in love and didn't understand why their relationship should be a crime. 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.
He threw the book at them: eight years for Allen, five for Pat, to be served in separate maximum-security prisons, 25 miles apart.
If this had happened to a gay couple, the case would have become a cause celebre. Hard time as punishment for a private, consensual, adult relationship? Activists would have been outraged. Editorial pages would have thundered. Politicians would have called for the prosecutor's and judge's heads.
But Allen and Patricia Muth are not gay. They were convicted of incest. Although they didn't meet until Patricia was 18 -- she had been raised from infancy in foster care -- they were brother and sister, children of the same biological parents. They were also strongly attracted to each other, emotionally and physically. And so, disregarding the taboo against incest, they became a couple and had four children.
When Wisconsin officials learned of the Muths' relationship, they moved to strip them of their parental rights. The state's position, upheld in court, was that their "fundamentally disordered" lifestyle made them unfit for parenthood by definition. "A child raised by incestuous parents," it argued, "is a child raised in a home that mocks even the most rudimentary conception of family." Allen and Patricia's children were taken from them. Then they were prosecuted for incest and sent to prison.
I wrote about the Muths' case shortly after their conviction, asking why social liberals were not up in arms over it. Where were the people who always insist that the government should stay out of people's bedrooms? That what goes on between consenting adults is nobody's business but their own? That a family is defined by love, not conventional morality or deference to ancient taboos? The voices of "diversity" were nowhere to be heard. Patricia and Allen Muth were one "nontraditional" family it seemed no one cared to defend.
But then came Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court's decision in 2003 that the Constitution protects the freedom of Americans to engage in "the most private human conduct, sexual behavior," when it is part of a willing relationship between adults.
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in striking down the Texas law under which John Lawrence and Tyron Garner had been convicted of homosexual sodomy. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."
Armed with Lawrence's sweeping language, Allen Muth appealed his conviction.
The taboo against incest may be ancient, and most Americans may sincerely regard it as immoral or repugnant. But Lawrence was clear: "The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law." If the Supreme Court meant what it said, Muth argued, his and his sister's convictions for incest were every bit as unconstitutional as the Texas men's convictions for sodomy.
Earlier this summer, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Muth. But it did so on the strained and narrow ground that since Lawrence had dealt specifically with homosexual sodomy, it could not be invoked retroactively to overturn a conviction for incest. The opinion was written by Judge Daniel Manion, a Reagan appointee, and as legal scholar Matthew Franck observed, Manion must have been "desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the [Supreme] Court's recent precedents on sexual liberty."
But those consequences cannot be outrun forever. What Judge Manion declined to do, another judge may embrace. (Or perhaps the high court itself will: Muth has until Sept. 20 to file an appeal from the Seventh Circuit.) There is simply no principled escape from the logic of Lawrence: If the Constitution forbids the states to criminalize private sexual conduct between consenting adults, lovers who happen to be siblings can no more be considered lawbreakers than lovers who happen to be men.
Dissenting in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the decision "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation." It was a prediction the majority made no effort to refute.
©2005 Boston Globe
I hope this case does go to the top.
Posted earlier today
Missing from Mr. Jacobys accounting is that Allen and Patricia Muth abandoned their middle child, who was disabled, at the home of a baby sitter; this is how the couple came to the attention of Wisconsin, which subsequently moved to terminate their parental rights and charge them with incest. Both were convicted of violating Wisconsin Statutes § 944.06. Following the exhaustion of his state court remedies, Allen Muth filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. district court, asserting the unconstitutionality of Wisconsins anti-incest statute. The district court denied the petition, and in June the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed; you can read its opinion here.
Ah our justice system. One word. SUCKS!
Does that bother you? Or is this just a FYI so I can look up the thread. Thanx
Does which bother me? The SCOTUS decision that set us up for years and years of these stupid type of decisions? Yes, it bothers me that the activists did that.
No, silly, when you said that this was posted earlier. Sorry to admit, I was practicing. This is my second post of my Freeper career, LOL. Is it a courtesy to check and see if your article has been posted previously? If that is the common expectation, I will do so from now on! Thanx
Umm...I am not the one who commented on it being posted earlier. That was the poster after me.
BTW, welcome to Free Republic. And yes, it is a good idea to check before posting. :-)
:( I'm getting more retarded every day, LOL But unless I drink at least 5 cups of coffee in the a.m., my IQ and pulse rate are TOO LOW, lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.