Skip to comments.Lawful incest may be on its way (Santorum was right)
Posted on 05/02/2007 10:27:48 AM PDT by Uncledave
WHEN THE BBC invited me onto one of its talk shows recently to talk about the day's hot topic -- legalizing adult incest -- I thought of Rick Santorum.
Back in 2003, as the Supreme Court was preparing to rule in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging the constitutionality of laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy, then-Senator Santorum caught holy hell for warning out that if the law were struck down, there would be no avoiding the slippery slope.
"If the Supreme Court says you have the right to consensual sex within your home," he told a reporter, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
It was a common-sensical observation, though you wouldn't have known it from the nail-spitting it triggered in some quarters. When the justices, voting 6-3, did in fact declare it unconstitutional for any state to punish consensual gay sex, the dissenters echoed Santorum's point. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are . . . called into question by today's decision," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the minority. Now, Time magazine acknowledges: "It turns out the critics were right."
Time's attention, like the BBC's, has been caught by the legal battles underway to decriminalize incest between consenting adults. An article last month by Time reporter Michael Lindenberger titled "Should Incest Be Legal?" highlights the case of Paul Lowe, an Ohio man convicted of incest for having sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I’m not advocating incest by any means, but prosecuting a man for having sex with his 22 year old step-daughter, as creepy as that is, seems wrong, assuming this was consensual. I’m not even sure that’s technically incest in the first place. Would Woody Allen be criminally prosecuted in Ohio?
Not that it makes it right, but is it really "incest" if it's his stepdaughter?
They aren’t related so it isn’t incest.
It’s a bit creepy though.
Emotionally, it is incest. Just like Woody Allen with his stepdaughter.
“Not that it makes it right, but is it really “incest” if it’s his stepdaughter?”
Only if while her parent (how long?) he legally adopted her.
Many step-parents do not adopt previous children coming into there new marriage.
Perhaps the OH law (stupidly) defines incest to include adult step-children, otherwise how could the DA think this charge could stick?
We need to bring shame back to its rightful place in society. You can’t legislate morality but social mores need to be voiced by one’s peers. We need MORE judgment by others, not less. Even if certain acts are technically legal, like adult incest, they are WRONG and people need to say so fearlessly.
I agree. Creepy perhaps. Illegal, no. Steps or in-laws are not blood kin. Greg and Marsha Brady could have had sex and it would not have been incest. I think incest pertains to blood kin.
While I realize that every generation has pointed to events that mark the end of days,....
I don’t know when they were ever written with such a bold,broad markers as we have now!
I don’t think a guy showing off his wife/daughter is going to meet up with a lot of social acceptance anywhere, even in the most liberal areas. I hope I’m right in saying this!
I don’t know where their “definition” of incest comes from, but I’m pretty sure “step” is not in there...........
Of course we’re on a slippery slope. the same arguments that are being made for same sex marriage can be made for incest or any other twosome or group relationship.
In Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas, he pointed out this reasoning, and that the case could be the end of any type of “morals” legislation. If we’re going to say anything consenting adults do is ok, then that anything can be things we would rather not think about. It goes beyond consenting homosexual relationships.
Sadly I don’t think I’d win if I was every on a game show called “Know Your Ohio Revised Code”
The state of Arkansas is rejoicing!!!!!!
Yeah, and also what if she's hot?
Technically, sex with one’s stepdaughter might be sexual battery:
ORC 2907.03 Sexual battery.
(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply: ... (5) The offender is the other persons natural or adoptive parent, or a stepparent, or guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis of the other person.
Don’t know if that applies once the step-daughter reaches adulthood, though.
If you're not advocating it, why does it seem wrong?
Marsha Brady? What would Cindy think?
West Virginia is in ecstasy!........
Having said that, it should come as no surprise that the advocates of this change would choose a nonsense complaint to show why the change should be made. This has been the exact tactic towards the entire arena of laws that touch on sexual activity, the acme of which is that we allow millions of abortions for the sake of the few pregnancies that come from rape or incest.
This is not incest. Come back when there is a real story. This is just for theatrics. An adult stepdaughter...no blood is not incest. I definitely don’t want people to pass laws that advocate incest but at least get a case that we can legitimately complain about.
How soon before America goes back to calling female traits, observations, and attitudes as "people's," not "women's," "girl's," or "female's," as not to offend homosexuals, as Oprah led us in the 90's?
I used to work with a woman who married her step-brother. They were raised together since they were about 10-years-old. Totally gave me the heebie-jeebies.
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
“We need to bring shame back to its rightful place in society.”
It ain’t gonna happen anywhere this side of the Second Coming.
Yes, and Woody Allen ended up marrying his. But think of the bizarre permutations of the definition of “family.” (Like we don’t have enough of those already.)
“Greg and Marsha Brady could have had sex and it would not have been incest. I think incest pertains to blood kin.”
You are correct. Incest pertains to sexual relationshops involving blood kin, and blood kin only - be the “relationship” parent/child or sibling/sibling or, in most (if not all) states, cousin/cousin.
Abraham married his half-sister, Isaac and Jacob their cousins, and they all turned out okay........
I’ve heard Rudy can answer that.
We can only hope...
What if the stepdaughter was 12 yrs. old when it started? What if this guy had been at the girl for years before she decided that was what she wanted at the time of this guy’s arrest? There must be some morality in the laws if society wants to protect the innocents.
Rick Santorum was definitely right about this slippery slope.
I knew a woman like that, married her older stepbrother, they'd been raised together from at least that age, maybe younger.
Yeah, it was....creepy.
Yes you can. All laws are based on someone's assessment of what is moral. Whether or not you agree with that assessment is immaterial. You're still subject to penalties if you breach it.
Poor Jan! Always left out thanks to Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!
Ahem.... Why, pray tell?
I maintain that there is an agenda.
Homosexual marriage. Let's get people used to that idea. Sure, it starts out creepy but once they get used to it, it will seem like no big deal.
Marriage between step-siblings. Let's get people used to that idea. Sure, it starts out creepy but once they get used to it, it will seem like no big deal. I mean, it's not really incest.
Marriage between actual siblings. Let's get people used to that idea. Sure, it starts out creepy but once they get used to it, it will seem like no big deal.
And polygamy. And child-sex. And bestiality. And ...
What were the 3 Brady boys’ names?.........
I agree with your sensible post, of course.
But this phrase has stuck in my craw since the 1960s. You can't legislate morality? Really? Then what are laws against stealing and murder?
It seems to me that if you consent to the idea of a body of criminal law, you can't legislate anything but morality. Pursuant to that, I don't see why adultery, sodomy, suicide, public obscenity, or incest should be excluded from legal censure. They are not "victimless" crimes. Breaches of morals are serious breaches of public order, which belongs to everyone, and ultimately to God.
No part of the criminal law, even seemingly unarguable prohibitions against theft, treason, and murder, can survive in a society that refuses to criminalize immoralitybecause that is a society that has refused to recognize right and wrong.
Exactly. Except on the legislate morality part...I agree to the extent that the law cannot make the heart moral. But the law can and should legislate against certain acts of immorality. Their heart may be immoral but their actions don't have to be. Otherwise how can we have laws against public nudity or adult-child sex? On what basis is there even an age-of-consent? Or how about the limits placed on pornography? Why any consideration of decency at all? But you are right to say that the idea of shame should be enough to cover many things that the law does not address. But increasingly the law is actually being used to call that "hate speech" and "discrimination" and "bigotry." The law is not leaving the public with the tools to address immorality.
Abraham’s kid (Isaac) was okay.
Isaac’s kids, 50% okay.
Jacob’s kids, only 10% okay.
Law of diminishing returns, I guess. LOL
Peter, Gregg and who was the third? My kid would know - watches it in reruns! I can’t get over “Carol’s” hair.
Wait till the Muslims start advocating for first cousin marriage...it’s already a reality under our noses anyway.
I recommend an excellent article on the topic—very timely