Posted on 03/23/2007 5:32:56 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Edited on 03/23/2007 5:59:48 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The BBC recently ran a story about a German couple named Patrick and Susan. The couple has been living together unmarried for the past six years and has four children. In a continent full of unmarried couples with children, this particular pair stands out--because they are brother and sister.
As a young child, Patrick was given up for adoption. He finally met his mother and the rest of his biological family, including Susan, seven years ago. After their mother died, the two became, in the BBC's words, "lovers."
When German authorities learned about the "relationship," they placed three of their children--two of whom have disabilities--in foster care and charged Patrick with incest. Patrick has already served two years and faces more jail time.
While this story is certainly sordid, unfortunately, it's not unique. What makes it noteworthy is that the couple is challenging German laws against incest in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court.
As the couple's lawyer, Endrik Wilhelm, told the BBC, "this law is out of date, and it breaches the couple's civil rights." According to the lawyer, the "couple [is] not harming anyone," and the ban "is discrimination."
To those like Juergen Kunze, a geneticist at Berlin's Charite Hospital, who cite the genetic risks to the offspring of incest, Wilhelm replies: "Why are disabled parents" or "people with hereditary diseases [and] women over 40" allowed to have children?
Anyone who claims to be surprised by this case has not been paying attention to American law. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court found that "consenting" adults had a right to privacy when it comes to sexual relations--any kind of sexual relations. As Justice Scalia pointed out in his stinging dissent, the logic employed by the majority of the court could be applied to laws against "bigamy, same-sex marriage [and] adult incest."
If you deny that there's a "substantial government interest in protecting order and morality," as courts increasingly are doing, where do you draw the line? Certainly not at same-sex "marriage," as we have seen. The fact is that, as Dr. Kunze puts it, laws like these "based on long traditions in Western societies" have not been stopping courts lately.
The ugly truth is that, absent a "substantial government interest in protecting order and morality," the incestuous couple has the better argument. In a culture where personal autonomy trumps long-established moral traditions, our revulsion does look like the kind of prejudice that Lawrence rejected as the basis for laws.
Like I said, none of this should come as a surprise. Instead, it ought to serve as a warning of where the law is headed. Let's pray that this time we don't need a rampaging T-Rex to confirm our worst fears.
Today's BreakPoint offer: "Marriage in America: BreakPoint Goes to the Heart of the Marriage Debate" (CD).
For further reading and information:
Roberto Rivera, "The Ballad of Patrick and Susan," The Point, 8 March 2007.
Tristana Moore, "Couple Stand by Forbidden Love," BBC News, 7 March 2007.
BreakPoint Commentary No. 050817, "Taking the Plunge: A Case of Incest."
BreakPoint Commentary No. 060106, "Further Down the Slope: Massachusetts Senate Bill 938."
Robert George, "Rick Santorum is Right," National Review Online, 27 May 2003.
Chuck Colson is the Chairman and Founder of BreakPoint and of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Well, first things first. There are four children of this union. Are any of them having genetic abnormalities, like compromised immune systems, for example? This ought to be the first concern, with their parents a very distant second.
After incest, the right to procreate with your pet will be next!
Yea, one of them sits on the back porch and plays a banjo.
The fact that you can't procreate with your pet is irrelevant in that some normal couples can't procreate either. Let Fido and Freda adopt and we can all be forced to pretend it's a family.
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Spot!
In short, it should not be illegal for me to impose my own values upon another in response to any of their actions. As it stands today, we are forced to condone all manner of revolting behavior or be in violation of the law - oh, and not just condone it, but actively SUBSIDIZE depravity by picking up the tab for the negative consequences. Both mechanisms that act to squash individual moral choice need to be extinguished.
Well, from the info in the article the oldest child would now be about 5 - barely enough to play a banjo, but old enough for some abnormalities to show.
Ok, ok … so he will be playing the banjo on the back porch in the future … shees. ;)
Hard to say with just that.
Ugh.
You nailed it. You can apply your words to any issue the 'Nanny Staters' and sexual freaks of today want to impose upon the rest of us.
Well said!
However, they should not be allowed to have children together, and the sister should had her tubes tied. If they wanted to have kids, then they should adopt.
Looks like two children have abnormalities.
What the Gay marriage fans are likely to say when Gay marriage is compared to Incestuous Marriage is that Gay marriage does not have the genetic risk. If people want a certain kond of fun they will find ways to rationalize it.
Post #7. Well said.
Jerry Springer Law.. Anyone Anytime Anywhere for any reason...
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.