Equal Protection Under the Law

Matthew Galluzzo, lawyer for Columbia University professor David Epstein, who'd been criminally prosecuted over consensual adult incest, wrote to Yes But However and made the legal case [link may no longer be working] for striking down laws against consensual consanguineous sex, while still trying to hint at a personal disapproval of such sex.

Second, I am a criminal defense attorney and not a religious leader or political activist, and accordingly, my argument is a legal one, not a moral or political one. I have never argued that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of incest, nor would I. I have never argued that the two are somehow similar biologically, psychologically, or ethically…

The comparison between the two is purely a legal one, and the legal argument that I am making is not a novel one – in fact, no less a legal scholar than Justice Scalia has already made it. I suggest that you read his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, but I will summarize the case for you:

This is very, very important.

Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but up until 2003, homosexual sodomy was still illegal in Texas and a few other states. Mr. Lawrence was arrested in Texas after being caught in the act by police officers in his own home, and was convicted of a crime as a result! He challenged the constitutionality of the state ban on sodomy, and initially lost because the Supreme Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of a similar state-level ban on sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986.

However, in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned its own recent decision in Bowers v. Hardwick and declared that Mr. Lawrence had a constitutional right to engage in sodomy in the privacy of his own home, and that public opinion about the morality of such conduct was no longer a valid basis to deny him that liberty.

This same reasoning can be applied to poly and consanguineous sex.

In the dissenting opinion, Scalia countered that as a result of this logic, there is a very valid argument to be made that there is now a constitutional right to engage in acts of consensual adult incest. That is the argument that I am now making on behalf of my client, and i explained that to both ABC News and the Huffington Post.

I hope his argument works.

If your counter-argument is that incest ought to be illegal because it is always coercive (and thus, the ban on it is necessary to advance a compelling state interest), then I ask you the following questions:

1) Should it be illegal for a 33 year old sister and a 34 year old brother to have sex with each other? Is that relationship really coercive?

Very good question, because of course it shouldn’t be illegal. Also, for people who claim that all parent-adult child sex is coercive, I want to know at what point the coercion shifts to the child, given that some aging parents exhibit increasing dependence on their child?

2) Should all coercive sex result in an arrest? If so, the police would need to start arresting bosses for having sex with their secretaries, rich older men for having sex with younger less-wealthy people, and so on, and so on. Fortunately for them, there is nothing in the New York penal law that makes “coercive” sex illegal in the absence of force.

John Romano indicates that he is his not on board with solidarity, but doesn’t refute Galluzzo’s points.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,consanguineous,courts,incest,lack of equality harms,prosecution,solidarity,USA

Equal Protection Under the Law

Matthew Galluzzo, lawyer for Columbia University professor David Epstein, who'd been criminally prosecuted over consensual adult incest, wrote to Yes But However and made the legal case [link may no longer be working] for striking down laws against consensual consanguineous sex, while still trying to hint at a personal disapproval of such sex.

Second, I am a criminal defense attorney and not a religious leader or political activist, and accordingly, my argument is a legal one, not a moral or political one. I have never argued that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of incest, nor would I. I have never argued that the two are somehow similar biologically, psychologically, or ethically…

The comparison between the two is purely a legal one, and the legal argument that I am making is not a novel one – in fact, no less a legal scholar than Justice Scalia has already made it. I suggest that you read his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, but I will summarize the case for you:

This is very, very important.

Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but up until 2003, homosexual sodomy was still illegal in Texas and a few other states. Mr. Lawrence was arrested in Texas after being caught in the act by police officers in his own home, and was convicted of a crime as a result! He challenged the constitutionality of the state ban on sodomy, and initially lost because the Supreme Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of a similar state-level ban on sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986.

However, in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned its own recent decision in Bowers v. Hardwick and declared that Mr. Lawrence had a constitutional right to engage in sodomy in the privacy of his own home, and that public opinion about the morality of such conduct was no longer a valid basis to deny him that liberty.

This same reasoning can be applied to poly and consanguineous sex.

In the dissenting opinion, Scalia countered that as a result of this logic, there is a very valid argument to be made that there is now a constitutional right to engage in acts of consensual adult incest. That is the argument that I am now making on behalf of my client, and i explained that to both ABC News and the Huffington Post.

I hope his argument works.

If your counter-argument is that incest ought to be illegal because it is always coercive (and thus, the ban on it is necessary to advance a compelling state interest), then I ask you the following questions:

1) Should it be illegal for a 33 year old sister and a 34 year old brother to have sex with each other? Is that relationship really coercive?

Very good question, because of course it shouldn’t be illegal. Also, for people who claim that all parent-adult child sex is coercive, I want to know at what point the coercion shifts to the child, given that some aging parents exhibit increasing dependence on their child?

2) Should all coercive sex result in an arrest? If so, the police would need to start arresting bosses for having sex with their secretaries, rich older men for having sex with younger less-wealthy people, and so on, and so on. Fortunately for them, there is nothing in the New York penal law that makes “coercive” sex illegal in the absence of force.

John Romano indicates that he is his not on board with solidarity, but doesn’t refute Galluzzo’s points.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,consanguineous,courts,incest,lack of equality harms,prosecution,solidarity,USA

A Love That Should No Longer Be Denied

Mark Matousek, who has spent three years researching a book about ethics, wrote at PsychologyToday.com about one ethical question asked of him.

And just yesterday, minding my own business, I was asked a question at a dinner table full of liberals that stopped me in my tracks, morally speaking:

Is it ever OK to have consensual sex with someone in your family?

Yes, it usually is OK.

The question came from an attractive woman in her late 40s. My immediate response was, absolutely not.

That can be a typical response.

Years before, she and her half-brother had fallen madly in love. It was one of those requited-but-not-consummated, and never talked about, loves, and after high school the half-siblings had gone their separate ways, seeing each other only very rarely at family reunions. (They shared a mother but had different fathers).

In the past year, she continued, this woman had reconnected by telephone with this half-brother, who lived on the West Coast (we were in New York City). Both of them were now divorced and their phone calls were starting to turn steamy. The brother wanted to meet in Vegas for a long weekend. If she agreed to this illicit interlude, she was sure that things would finally become sexual between them.

Good for them. Sounds like they should have stayed together originally in the first place, but prejudice was keeping them apart.

I told her to go to Vegas.

Good for Matousek!

Why would they say no to the chance at love?

The pressure of bigotry and bigoted laws. Otherwise, there is no reason.

It seemed foolish and sad to turn away from such a gift.

I agree.

They should have the freedom to be together for a weekend or for life. They may have a beautiful, passionate relationship together for the rest of their lives. They should not be fired, bullied, nor arrested, nor should they be denied the freedom to marry, if that is what they want.

If you recognize yourself in this example (or have any life story that is remotely like this), please give an update. You can comment here (anonymously, if you want) or email me: fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com

See Ten Myths About Sibling Consanguinamory

Read more »

Posted in: allies,brother-sister,consanguineous,lack of equality harms,love,siblings

A Love That Should No Longer Be Denied

Mark Matousek, who has spent three years researching a book about ethics, wrote at PsychologyToday.com about one ethical question asked of him.

And just yesterday, minding my own business, I was asked a question at a dinner table full of liberals that stopped me in my tracks, morally speaking:

Is it ever OK to have consensual sex with someone in your family?

Yes, it usually is OK.

The question came from an attractive woman in her late 40s. My immediate response was, absolutely not.

That can be a typical response.

Years before, she and her half-brother had fallen madly in love. It was one of those requited-but-not-consummated, and never talked about, loves, and after high school the half-siblings had gone their separate ways, seeing each other only very rarely at family reunions. (They shared a mother but had different fathers).

In the past year, she continued, this woman had reconnected by telephone with this half-brother, who lived on the West Coast (we were in New York City). Both of them were now divorced and their phone calls were starting to turn steamy. The brother wanted to meet in Vegas for a long weekend. If she agreed to this illicit interlude, she was sure that things would finally become sexual between them.

Good for them. Sounds like they should have stayed together originally in the first place, but prejudice was keeping them apart.

I told her to go to Vegas.

Good for Matousek!

Why would they say no to the chance at love?

The pressure of bigotry and bigoted laws. Otherwise, there is no reason.

It seemed foolish and sad to turn away from such a gift.

I agree.

They should have the freedom to be together for a weekend or for life. They may have a beautiful, passionate relationship together for the rest of their lives. They should not be fired, bullied, nor arrested, nor should they be denied the freedom to marry, if that is what they want.

If you recognize yourself in this example (or have any life story that is remotely like this), please give an update. You can comment here (anonymously, if you want) or email me: fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com

See Ten Myths About Sibling Consanguinamory

Read more »

Posted in: allies,brother-sister,consanguineous,lack of equality harms,love,siblings

More States Allow First Cousins to Marry Than Gays

You may have seen this picture (now outdated.) It shows that (heterosexual, monogamous) first cousins can legally marry in more US states than (monogamous) same-sex partners. Now, 9 states and Washington, D.C. allow gays and lesbians to marry one partner, with restrictions. See this map for laws regarding consanguineous sex and marriage, and this map for laws regarding same-sex marriage. Marriage is regulated at the state level in the US, which is why different states have different laws, but there are federal (national) programs and policies that treat people differently based on marital status. Currently, DOMA (which I like to call the Denial of Marriage Act), a federal law, prevents federal programs from recognizing legal same-sex marriages, but in June 2013 the US Supreme Court will likely overturn it.

Another way federal law has intruded into the freedom to marry is a denial of the polygamous freedom to marry. IIRC, if was over a hundred years ago that the Supreme Court denied that freedom. (It wasn’t all that long ago the court denied the right to gay sex in private, but fortunately it has since overturned that ruling.)

It is ridiculous for any of the states to deny the same-sex freedom to marry, and it is ridiculous for any of the states to deny the consanguineous freedom to marry. We can see from the many states that allow first cousins to marry, and for the many countries that do so, that there is no problem with it. We can also see from the states that have the same-sex freedom to marry, as well as countries like our neighboring Canada, that there’s nothing wrong with letting people have that freedom.

Every US state should back full marriage equality. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. If a woman wants to marry her cousin, she should have that right, even if that cousin is female, even if that cousin is already married, if all involved consent. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later, either through a victory at the Supreme Court or by getting a Marriage Equality Amendment. This is no mere philosophical matter. This is about real people who denied equality right now. There are people who have to move, or at least travel, if they want to get married. There are also adults who are in happy, healthy, lasting marriages (though not legally recognized) who can't even be open to others about their relationship without risking prosecution. Prosecution, for loving each other! Thankfully, most same-sex couples not longer have that problem, but not all same-sex couples.

When someone shares that picture with you, it perhaps a good comment would be, “That is terrible. EVERY state should allow gays, lesbians, AND first cousins to marry. An adult should be free to marry any consenting adults.” As always, feel free to link to this or any other entry here if you'd rather save yourself the time.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,DOMA,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,same-sex,solidarity,USA

More States Allow First Cousins to Marry Than Gays

You may have seen this picture (now outdated.) It shows that (heterosexual, monogamous) first cousins can legally marry in more US states than (monogamous) same-sex partners. Now, 9 states and Washington, D.C. allow gays and lesbians to marry one partner, with restrictions. See this map for laws regarding consanguineous sex and marriage, and this map for laws regarding same-sex marriage. Marriage is regulated at the state level in the US, which is why different states have different laws, but there are federal (national) programs and policies that treat people differently based on marital status. Currently, DOMA (which I like to call the Denial of Marriage Act), a federal law, prevents federal programs from recognizing legal same-sex marriages, but in June 2013 the US Supreme Court will likely overturn it.

Another way federal law has intruded into the freedom to marry is a denial of the polygamous freedom to marry. IIRC, if was over a hundred years ago that the Supreme Court denied that freedom. (It wasn’t all that long ago the court denied the right to gay sex in private, but fortunately it has since overturned that ruling.)

It is ridiculous for any of the states to deny the same-sex freedom to marry, and it is ridiculous for any of the states to deny the consanguineous freedom to marry. We can see from the many states that allow first cousins to marry, and for the many countries that do so, that there is no problem with it. We can also see from the states that have the same-sex freedom to marry, as well as countries like our neighboring Canada, that there’s nothing wrong with letting people have that freedom.

Every US state should back full marriage equality. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. If a woman wants to marry her cousin, she should have that right, even if that cousin is female, even if that cousin is already married, if all involved consent. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later, either through a victory at the Supreme Court or by getting a Marriage Equality Amendment. This is no mere philosophical matter. This is about real people who denied equality right now. There are people who have to move, or at least travel, if they want to get married. There are also adults who are in happy, healthy, lasting marriages (though not legally recognized) who can't even be open to others about their relationship without risking prosecution. Prosecution, for loving each other! Thankfully, most same-sex couples not longer have that problem, but not all same-sex couples.

When someone shares that picture with you, it perhaps a good comment would be, “That is terrible. EVERY state should allow gays, lesbians, AND first cousins to marry. An adult should be free to marry any consenting adults.” As always, feel free to link to this or any other entry here if you'd rather save yourself the time.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,DOMA,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,same-sex,solidarity,USA

Kelsey's Law Bans Cell Phone Use for Teen Drivers

Kelsey Raffaele killed at 17

As of today, Michigan roads have become a little bit safer.  On January 8^th, 2013 Governor Rick Snyder signed into law Public Act 592 of 2012, also known as Kelsey’s Law.  The new law, which takes effect today, is named in honor of Kelsey Raffaele, 17, of Sault Ste. Marie, who died tragically in a cellphone-related automobile crash in 2010.

The law bans 16 and 17 year old drivers with a level 1 or a level 2 driver’s license under Michigan’s graduated licensing system from using a handheld phone while driving. 

A level 1 driver has the most restrictions, while a level 2 driver only has a few restrictions –such as the number of passengers allowed and limits on nighttime driving.  A teen who is at least 17 and has at least six months of driving experience as a level 2 driver may qualify for a level 3 license- the typical, unrestricted MI driver's license.

Violation of the law is a primary offense, meaning police can pull over a young driver for no other reason than being on a cell phone.  However, both the governor’s office and law enforcement spokespersons signaled that, in most cases, Kelsey’s Law will be enforced only after detection of another moving violation; this will effectively making enforcement of the law secondary.

A violation of the law will result in a civil infraction with a fine to be determined by the local jurisdiction, and could cause the level 1 or 2 driver’s license period to be extended.  No points will be assigned to the driver's record and drivers will not be punished for using a vehicle's integrated hands-free phone system or for using cell phones to report an emergency.

 

Officers say that Kelsey's Law is not about punishing teenagers driving on a probationary license, but all about saving lives.  We here at the Law Blogger could not agree more.

Nationally, car crashes are the leading cause of death for young drivers.  In 2011, 154 fatal crashes in Michigan were caused by a driver under 21. So far this year, there have been more than 300,000 crashes due to cellphones in the US, and not all of these crashes are attributable to teen-drivers.

While an all-out cell phone ban for all drivers would be overreaching, we do believe teen-drivers often learn behaviors from their parents, who may be multitasking [talking, texting and e-mailing] while driving.  We note that it is illegal in Michigan for any driver to text while driving and believe it’s important for parents to set a good example.

Michigan roads are a bit safer today thanks to Kelsey’s Law.  Yet, one has to wonder how much safer Michigan roads could be if experienced drivers took heed of the new law, even though it does not apply to them.

As the bumper sticker says, “Get off the phone and drive!”

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: criminal defense lawyer,Kelsey Raffaele,motor vehicle code,Roberto Bihar,texting

They Know Equality Will Happen

Steve Sailer wrote at vdare.com that we'll eventually get the polygamous freedom to marry, and he says it will happen because of African immigrants. I get the impression he's not happy about it and is being sarcastic when referring to racism.

Whether someone is a bigot or not, it is good that more and more people realize we will get full marriage equality. We've seen that over the last few days when it comes to the DOMA and PropH8 cases before the US Supreme Court, and how defeated the anti-equality mouthpieces are sounding.

The sooner opponents of equality realize that it is inevitable, the sooner they can put their resources to things like, oh, protecting children (and adults) from predators. I know denying basic rights to other adults is high priority and all, but once they realize equality is going to happen whether they like it or not, they're less likely to waste their time and money.

They've claimed their opposition to equality has been for the protection of women and children. In their convoluted desperation, maybe some of them actually believe it. But every dollar or minute spent fighting another adult's right to marry is a dollar or minute that can't be spent feeding the hungry, sheltering, the homeless, treating the sick, or fighting crimes against children.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,children,courts,DOMA,freedom to marry,Islam,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polygamy,prejudice,Proposition 8

They Know Equality Will Happen

Steve Sailer wrote at vdare.com that we'll eventually get the polygamous freedom to marry, and he says it will happen because of African immigrants. I get the impression he's not happy about it and is being sarcastic when referring to racism.

Whether someone is a bigot or not, it is good that more and more people realize we will get full marriage equality. We've seen that over the last few days when it comes to the DOMA and PropH8 cases before the US Supreme Court, and how defeated the anti-equality mouthpieces are sounding.

The sooner opponents of equality realize that it is inevitable, the sooner they can put their resources to things like, oh, protecting children (and adults) from predators. I know denying basic rights to other adults is high priority and all, but once they realize equality is going to happen whether they like it or not, they're less likely to waste their time and money.

They've claimed their opposition to equality has been for the protection of women and children. In their convoluted desperation, maybe some of them actually believe it. But every dollar or minute spent fighting another adult's right to marry is a dollar or minute that can't be spent feeding the hungry, sheltering, the homeless, treating the sick, or fighting crimes against children.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,children,courts,DOMA,freedom to marry,Islam,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polygamy,prejudice,Proposition 8

The Same-Sex, Polygamous, and Consanguineous Freedom to Marry

There have been a lot of bus sightings lately here in the US. Prejudiced politicians, talking heads, and some ministers try to scare people by saying that if we allow people to have their basic right to same-gender marriage, then soon a man will be able to be married to several female slaves, some of them little girls, and it will all be perfectly legal.

Instead of challenging these bigots by presenting the dichotomy between consenting adults sharing love and coercion and child abuse, all too many people throw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus. Specifically, some LGBT rights and same-gender freedom to marry journalists and bloggers disavow the polygamous or consanguineous freedom to marry. In doing so, through throw some LGBT people under the bus, too, as there are some LGBT people who are polyamorous and/or cosanguinamorous. This should not happen, nor should hetero nonconsanguineous poly people fail to stand up for the same-gender or consanguineous freedom to marry, nor should hetero consanguineous couples fail to stand up for the same-gender or polygamous freedom to marry.

True, most same-sex marriages have nothing to do with polygamy, or consanguinamory ("incest"). These freedoms are not all the same freedoms, but they are all part of full marriage equality.

We need solidarity, because equality just for some is not equality.

Stand up to the bigots by asking them, "What is wrong with letting consenting adults love and marry each other?" If they appeal to their personal feelings or religious beliefs, politely assure them they are entitled to pursue the marriages they want, but not to impose their personal dislikes or religion on everyone else.

Read more »

Posted in: marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity

The Same-Sex, Polygamous, and Consanguineous Freedom to Marry

There have been a lot of bus sightings lately here in the US. Prejudiced politicians, talking heads, and some ministers try to scare people by saying that if we allow people to have their basic right to same-gender marriage, then soon a man will be able to be married to several female slaves, some of them little girls, and it will all be perfectly legal.

Instead of challenging these bigots by presenting the dichotomy between consenting adults sharing love and coercion and child abuse, all too many people throw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus. Specifically, some LGBT rights and same-gender freedom to marry journalists and bloggers disavow the polygamous or consanguineous freedom to marry. In doing so, through throw some LGBT people under the bus, too, as there are some LGBT people who are polyamorous and/or cosanguinamorous. This should not happen, nor should hetero nonconsanguineous poly people fail to stand up for the same-gender or consanguineous freedom to marry, nor should hetero consanguineous couples fail to stand up for the same-gender or polygamous freedom to marry.

True, most same-sex marriages have nothing to do with polygamy, or consanguinamory ("incest"). These freedoms are not all the same freedoms, but they are all part of full marriage equality.

We need solidarity, because equality just for some is not equality.

Stand up to the bigots by asking them, "What is wrong with letting consenting adults love and marry each other?" If they appeal to their personal feelings or religious beliefs, politely assure them they are entitled to pursue the marriages they want, but not to impose their personal dislikes or religion on everyone else.

Read more »

Posted in: marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity

Civil Rights Just For Some

Some people support increasing the freedom to marry, but not full marriage equality. Most of these people can’t give a good reason why they have that view. Joanna supported same-sex couples (nonconsanguineous?) but was very careful to make it clear that she didn’t support consenting adults having consanguineous sex. But the good news is she did recognize she didn’t know why. So she asked about this.

Around the world (as far as I know,) incest - and I will define that as any sexual or romantic relationship between two people of the same family (obviously aside from a husband or wife) that branches out to at least 3rd cousins - is widely unaccepted.

This is false. In some cultures, marrying a cousin is a norm. There are states in the US where first cousins can legally marry. Closer relatives can marry in some other countries. See this map.

Okay so with that in mind, I just wonder why it is so intolerable.

Some people find the idea disgusting, sometimes because of how they feel about their own family members. Then, some of those people try to extrapolate that disgust into “everyone should be like me” and insist something must be wrong with people who aren’t like them, and this they become intolerant. Some people, for various reasons (prejudices, personal feelings, misinformed, sense of superiority) want people to only be allowed to have monogamous heterosexual relationships with partners who aren’t close relatives. And for some people, it is a matter of denial; they are attracted to a family member but don't want to admit it.

Again, I DO NOT SUPPORT INCEST, but I wonder why we are so against it. Basically, I know that I think it's unacceptable, but I don't know why I think it's unacceptable.

If she did some more thinking, she'd see the condemnation is not based on reality.

The main reason I can think of us being so against it is because when two people of the same family reproduce, their baby will most likely be deformed or have some sort of defect.

Most people do not believe sex is only for reproduction. But the assertion is incorrect. The baby will not “most likely be deformed.” Most babies born to these relationships are healthy.

To me, that seems like a valid reason to stay away from your brother, sister, and cousin.

It would be a valid reason not to reproduce with them… if it was true, which is isn’t.

Now, follow me with this one. Let me just say before I get any further that I SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF GAYS, and I support gay couples, I don't think they're freaks or morally wrong, I don't think that they deserve anything less than straight people do, and I don't think that being gay is a choice.

Good.

So if we're following this whole not really being able to reproduce idea, then why is it okay in my eyes for two gay people to be together, when they can't even make a baby at all?

We don’t require people to reproduce. I’m not sure why, in her eyes, same-sex relationships were okay but consanguineous relationships were not. She would know better than us, and she wasn't able to tell us why. People who have that position should reconsider it. Why would anyone deny the freedom to marry to these lovers?

Read more »

Posted in: children,consanguineous,freedom to marry,incest,marriage equality,myths,prejudice

Civil Rights Just For Some

Some people support increasing the freedom to marry, but not full marriage equality. Most of these people can’t give a good reason why they have that view. Joanna supported same-sex couples (nonconsanguineous?) but was very careful to make it clear that she didn’t support consenting adults having consanguineous sex. But the good news is she did recognize she didn’t know why. So she asked about this.

Around the world (as far as I know,) incest - and I will define that as any sexual or romantic relationship between two people of the same family (obviously aside from a husband or wife) that branches out to at least 3rd cousins - is widely unaccepted.

This is false. In some cultures, marrying a cousin is a norm. There are states in the US where first cousins can legally marry. Closer relatives can marry in some other countries. See this map.

Okay so with that in mind, I just wonder why it is so intolerable.

Some people find the idea disgusting, sometimes because of how they feel about their own family members. Then, some of those people try to extrapolate that disgust into “everyone should be like me” and insist something must be wrong with people who aren’t like them, and this they become intolerant. Some people, for various reasons (prejudices, personal feelings, misinformed, sense of superiority) want people to only be allowed to have monogamous heterosexual relationships with partners who aren’t close relatives. And for some people, it is a matter of denial; they are attracted to a family member but don't want to admit it.

Again, I DO NOT SUPPORT INCEST, but I wonder why we are so against it. Basically, I know that I think it's unacceptable, but I don't know why I think it's unacceptable.

If she did some more thinking, she'd see the condemnation is not based on reality.

The main reason I can think of us being so against it is because when two people of the same family reproduce, their baby will most likely be deformed or have some sort of defect.

Most people do not believe sex is only for reproduction. But the assertion is incorrect. The baby will not “most likely be deformed.” Most babies born to these relationships are healthy.

To me, that seems like a valid reason to stay away from your brother, sister, and cousin.

It would be a valid reason not to reproduce with them… if it was true, which is isn’t.

Now, follow me with this one. Let me just say before I get any further that I SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF GAYS, and I support gay couples, I don't think they're freaks or morally wrong, I don't think that they deserve anything less than straight people do, and I don't think that being gay is a choice.

Good.

So if we're following this whole not really being able to reproduce idea, then why is it okay in my eyes for two gay people to be together, when they can't even make a baby at all?

We don’t require people to reproduce. I’m not sure why, in her eyes, same-sex relationships were okay but consanguineous relationships were not. She would know better than us, and she wasn't able to tell us why. People who have that position should reconsider it. Why would anyone deny the freedom to marry to these lovers?

Read more »

Posted in: children,consanguineous,freedom to marry,incest,marriage equality,myths,prejudice

SCOTUS Hears Same Sex Marriage Cases Today

We've been watching the gay-marriage case, Hollingsworth v Perry, for two years; here's a link to our first post detailing case.  Two well-funded homosexual couples from California, one gay, one lesbian, challenged California's proposition 8 in federal court back in 2008, and the case finally will be orally argued tomorrow at the SCOTUS.

Their lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies of Bush v Gore fame, are well-suited to the task of bringing the couples' privacy-based arguments to the Supreme Court.  Olson was Solicitor General under President Bush; he appears to have changed his stripes for this one.

Since that original post, two other consolidated federal cases have made their way through the federal court system and will be argued before the SCOTUS on Wednesday.  United States v Windsor challenges the denial of federal benefits for gay couples under the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].

As many as 17 states have filed amicus briefs in opposition to gay marriage.  Court watchers are bracing for a seminal ruling along the order of the High Court's Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Others say, "not so fast."  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one such voice.  She has made a series of public comments lately critical of such sweeping decisions; they go too far too fast says Ginsburg.

A less judicially active approach in the Roe v Wade would have been to strike down the Texas anti-abortion law on an "as applied" basis, but leaving the broader constitutional questions to be determined on a state-by-state basis.  Of course, this is not what the Roe v Wade Court did; the political and cultural fall-out continues to this day.

Considering possible outcomes in the gay-marriage cases being argued today, the post-modern SCOTUS faces the choice of invalidating California's Proposition 8, and if they do, whether they do so in a broad or narrow fashion.  Expect concurring and dissenting opinions; perhaps even a plurality decision which, by its nature, has a less-binding effect on subsequent courts.

Either way, we will keep our readers posted when the decision is announced at some point in June like we did when New York legalized same-sex marriage in June of 2011.  The results from these cases will be important to Michigan which, like California, passed a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be a status limited to heterosexual couples.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: 14th Amendment,California,David Boies,Hollingsworth v Perry,Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Proposition 8,Roe v Wade,same-sex marriage,SCOTUS,Ted Olson,Texas,United States v Windsor

Kudos to Senator Claire McCaskill

US Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, wrote this on her tumblr...

I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

Thank you, Senator! I agree that an adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults!

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality. 

Please, Senator McCaskill, don't forget your polyamorous and consanguinamorous constituents, too. Equality "just for some" is not equality.

Tomorrow is the day the US Supreme Court takes up marriage. They should make a bold move for the rights of all adults.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,same-sex,USA

Kudos to Senator Claire McCaskill

US Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, wrote this on her tumblr...

I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

Thank you, Senator! I agree that an adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults!

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality. 

Please, Senator McCaskill, don't forget your polyamorous and consanguinamorous constituents, too. Equality "just for some" is not equality.

Tomorrow is the day the US Supreme Court takes up marriage. They should make a bold move for the rights of all adults.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,same-sex,USA

Real Issues Surrounding a Real Experience

Genetic Sexual Attraction is experienced by up to half of all pubescent or post-pubescent people involved in:


1. reuniting with a close pubescent/post-pubescent genetic relative for the first time since one of them was seven years of age or younger

...or...

2. meeting a close pubescent/post-pubescent genetic relative for the first time.


It can be an extremely intense or overpowering attraction on a physical, sexual, and/or emotional level, and is a natural reaction to the circumstances.

Here are a few common examples to give you and idea:

1. A woman gives up her son for adoption at birth. Twenty years later, that son finds his birth mother, and she experiences GSA.

2. A stormy marriage ends while the wife is pregnant or when they have a toddler (a girl). The ex-husband virtually disappears, or the ex-wife deliberately disappears with the girl. Twenty years later the biological father and daughter reunite, and they both experience GSA.

3. A man has a son with his first wife and they divorce. Years later, the man, living some ways away, remarries and has a daughter with his new wife. The daughter does not meet her half brother until they are post-pubescent, and she experiences GSA.



GSA can be a result with these facts of life, some of which are increasing with our highly mobile populations and emerging connectivities:

1. egg and sperm donation
2. embryo and child adoption
3. one night stands, short relationships, and secret affairs that result in children (sometimes without the father even knowing)
4. incarceration, divorce, and estrangement or sole custody orders

GSA appears to occur along sexual orientation lines, which means a heterosexual man and his heterosexual genetic son who are reunited or meet for the first time are unlikely to experience GSA. However, if one of them is gay or bisexual, he may experience GSA.

GSA almost always involves some pain, sometimes much pain for many people.

Most people know what it is like to be strongly attracted to someone who isn’t mutually attracted to them, or is “off limits” for whatever reason. With GSA, it can be like that, only much worse.


Sometimes, GSA is mutually occurring, meaning at least two of the individuals are attracted to each other. In such cases, problems may include:

1. Feeling alone or like nobody understands. GSA is still underrepresented in media and research, and anti-consanguinamory laws and prejudices don’t help change this. Supportive communities are forming, however.

2. Internalized feelings of confusion or shame due to societal or cultural prejudices against consanguinamory.

3. Acting on the attraction would go against existing vows to others, or the mere existence of the attraction is causing neglect to existing relationships or jealousy from existing partners.

4. General disapproval or jealousy from other family.

5. General social prejudice, bullying, or discrimination.

6. Criminalization of consensual sex between, or denial of marriage rights to, close genetic relatives.

7. One of them is under the legal age of consent for their jurisdiction (think of an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old where 18 is the age of consent.)

8. Incompatibility. If not ourselves, we all know someone who has been mutually attracted to someone with whom he or she is incompatible in a way that is impossible or extremely difficult to resolve.

9. Abuse. As above, we all know some relationships can involve abuse. In some GSA cases, the abuse may have been one of the contributing factors to the original separation. If an abusive person hasn’t changed, it can be expected that person will be abusive to the person with whom he or she has reunited or met. Toxic people should be avoided, regardless of your genetic or social relation to them.

10. General disruption of normal life. (You’re happy, you have a life you like, living where you like, and then all of a sudden someone who lives away from you comes into your life and you’re intensely attracted, and even if this is a mostly positive thing, change can be stressful.)

This blog is a sex-positive blog that supports the rights of any consenting adults to share love, sex, residence, and marriage. That includes people experiencing GSA. Not everyone who has experienced GSA agrees with such a position. Some of those who do not agree with this blog’s position discourage any sex between close genetic relatives, some between parents with their genetic adult children. It is important for those seeking assistance in navigating the stormy seas of GSA know where people who are giving them advice are coming from. If someone is against any sex outside of marriage and thinks only two, heterosexual, nonconsanguineous people should have the right to marry, or thinks there should never be any sex between close genetic relatives, that is important to know.

The problems surrounding GSA are made worse by laws, discrimination, prejudices, and blanket condemnation against consanguinamory (consensual incest); discouraging open, honest and inclusive discussion; and a lack of research. There are still not many places where someone experiencing GSA can get help, and the last thing they need when they seek help is finger pointing and someone pushing their personal sexual morality on them.

This is the best FREE GSA-specific forum I know about.

See:

Genetic Sexual Attraction Can Lead to Lasting Love

Hate Hurts

The Two Main Paths to Consanguinamory


Suppression Brings Ongoing Pain


Hate Adds Pain to Genetic Sexual Attraction

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,cheating,consanguineous,GSA,lack of equality harms

Real Issues Surrounding a Real Experience

Genetic Sexual Attraction is experienced by up to half of all pubescent or post-pubescent people involved in:


1. reuniting with a close pubescent/post-pubescent genetic relative for the first time since one of them was seven years of age or younger

...or...

2. meeting a close pubescent/post-pubescent genetic relative for the first time.


It can be an extremely intense or overpowering attraction on a physical, sexual, and/or emotional level, and is a natural reaction to the circumstances.

Here are a few common examples to give you and idea:

1. A woman gives up her son for adoption at birth. Twenty years later, that son finds his birth mother, and she experiences GSA.

2. A stormy marriage ends while the wife is pregnant or when they have a toddler (a girl). The ex-husband virtually disappears, or the ex-wife deliberately disappears with the girl. Twenty years later the biological father and daughter reunite, and they both experience GSA.

3. A man has a son with his first wife and they divorce. Years later, the man, living some ways away, remarries and has a daughter with his new wife. The daughter does not meet her half brother until they are post-pubescent, and she experiences GSA.



GSA can be a result with these facts of life, some of which are increasing with our highly mobile populations and emerging connectivities:

1. egg and sperm donation
2. embryo and child adoption
3. one night stands, short relationships, and secret affairs that result in children (sometimes without the father even knowing)
4. incarceration, divorce, and estrangement or sole custody orders

GSA appears to occur along sexual orientation lines, which means a heterosexual man and his heterosexual genetic son who are reunited or meet for the first time are unlikely to experience GSA. However, if one of them is gay or bisexual, he may experience GSA.

GSA almost always involves some pain, sometimes much pain for many people.

Most people know what it is like to be strongly attracted to someone who isn’t mutually attracted to them, or is “off limits” for whatever reason. With GSA, it can be like that, only much worse.


Sometimes, GSA is mutually occurring, meaning at least two of the individuals are attracted to each other. In such cases, problems may include:

1. Feeling alone or like nobody understands. GSA is still underrepresented in media and research, and anti-consanguinamory laws and prejudices don’t help change this. Supportive communities are forming, however.

2. Internalized feelings of confusion or shame due to societal or cultural prejudices against consanguinamory.

3. Acting on the attraction would go against existing vows to others, or the mere existence of the attraction is causing neglect to existing relationships or jealousy from existing partners.

4. General disapproval or jealousy from other family.

5. General social prejudice, bullying, or discrimination.

6. Criminalization of consensual sex between, or denial of marriage rights to, close genetic relatives.

7. One of them is under the legal age of consent for their jurisdiction (think of an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old where 18 is the age of consent.)

8. Incompatibility. If not ourselves, we all know someone who has been mutually attracted to someone with whom he or she is incompatible in a way that is impossible or extremely difficult to resolve.

9. Abuse. As above, we all know some relationships can involve abuse. In some GSA cases, the abuse may have been one of the contributing factors to the original separation. If an abusive person hasn’t changed, it can be expected that person will be abusive to the person with whom he or she has reunited or met. Toxic people should be avoided, regardless of your genetic or social relation to them.

10. General disruption of normal life. (You’re happy, you have a life you like, living where you like, and then all of a sudden someone who lives away from you comes into your life and you’re intensely attracted, and even if this is a mostly positive thing, change can be stressful.)

This blog is a sex-positive blog that supports the rights of any consenting adults to share love, sex, residence, and marriage. That includes people experiencing GSA. Not everyone who has experienced GSA agrees with such a position. Some of those who do not agree with this blog’s position discourage any sex between close genetic relatives, some between parents with their genetic adult children. It is important for those seeking assistance in navigating the stormy seas of GSA know where people who are giving them advice are coming from. If someone is against any sex outside of marriage and thinks only two, heterosexual, nonconsanguineous people should have the right to marry, or thinks there should never be any sex between close genetic relatives, that is important to know.

The problems surrounding GSA are made worse by laws, discrimination, prejudices, and blanket condemnation against consanguinamory (consensual incest); discouraging open, honest and inclusive discussion; and a lack of research. There are still not many places where someone experiencing GSA can get help, and the last thing they need when they seek help is finger pointing and someone pushing their personal sexual morality on them.

This is the best FREE GSA-specific forum I know about.

See:

Genetic Sexual Attraction Can Lead to Lasting Love

Hate Hurts

The Two Main Paths to Consanguinamory


Suppression Brings Ongoing Pain


Hate Adds Pain to Genetic Sexual Attraction

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,cheating,consanguineous,GSA,lack of equality harms

Feminism and Full Marriage Equality

I'm bumping up this older entry because it still applies.



From recent comments on this blog:

Macha wrote about those who say an adult woman can’t consent to sex with her biological father…

I think this is partly rooted in the prejudiced and false belief that women (especially young women) don't want and aren't interested in sex, so if a younger woman is in a sexual relationship with an older man, she must have been coerced, ergo the man is just an abuser. Our society doesn't want women to have the power to consent. We perpetually deny the possibility that women have the ability to make conscious and deliberate choices about their sex lives, infantilizing them from womb to tomb.

Liz, who has a spousal relationship with her brother and a beautiful, healthy baby girl with him wrote about those who don’t want her to have that freedom…

There are no good arguments against incest, just the same old excuses over and over again. We need to make people realize that while they may not love family in that way, there are many adults that do and those people should be allowed to live and love the way they want to.

Full marriage equality is inseparable from feminism.

That a woman should be free to make her own decisions about her body and her associations is reinforced in full marriage equality.

With full marriage equality, a woman is free to live with, date, love, marry, and divorce any consenting adults she chooses.

This includes, among other things:

Her freedom to marry another woman.

Her freedom to marry more than one woman.

Her freedom to marry a woman who is already married.

Her freedom to marry a woman or women to whom she is closely related.

Her freedom to marry a man who is already married.

Her freedom to marry more than one man.

Her freedom to marry a man or men to whom she is closely related.

And, if she wants, her freedom to marry one unmarried man to whom she is not closely related.

A woman should have her choice, and not have those who aren’t a party to the marriage or relationship deny her her choices. These are the same freedoms a man should be able to pursue, because full marriage equality is about gender equality, not about denying or controlling women, their bodies, and their sexuality. Full marriage equality allows people to have the relationships they choose, and as such, does not hurt anyone.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,law,marriage equality,solidarity

Feminism and Full Marriage Equality

I'm bumping up this older entry because it still applies.



From recent comments on this blog:

Macha wrote about those who say an adult woman can’t consent to sex with her biological father…

I think this is partly rooted in the prejudiced and false belief that women (especially young women) don't want and aren't interested in sex, so if a younger woman is in a sexual relationship with an older man, she must have been coerced, ergo the man is just an abuser. Our society doesn't want women to have the power to consent. We perpetually deny the possibility that women have the ability to make conscious and deliberate choices about their sex lives, infantilizing them from womb to tomb.

Liz, who has a spousal relationship with her brother and a beautiful, healthy baby girl with him wrote about those who don’t want her to have that freedom…

There are no good arguments against incest, just the same old excuses over and over again. We need to make people realize that while they may not love family in that way, there are many adults that do and those people should be allowed to live and love the way they want to.

Full marriage equality is inseparable from feminism.

That a woman should be free to make her own decisions about her body and her associations is reinforced in full marriage equality.

With full marriage equality, a woman is free to live with, date, love, marry, and divorce any consenting adults she chooses.

This includes, among other things:

Her freedom to marry another woman.

Her freedom to marry more than one woman.

Her freedom to marry a woman who is already married.

Her freedom to marry a woman or women to whom she is closely related.

Her freedom to marry a man who is already married.

Her freedom to marry more than one man.

Her freedom to marry a man or men to whom she is closely related.

And, if she wants, her freedom to marry one unmarried man to whom she is not closely related.

A woman should have her choice, and not have those who aren’t a party to the marriage or relationship deny her her choices. These are the same freedoms a man should be able to pursue, because full marriage equality is about gender equality, not about denying or controlling women, their bodies, and their sexuality. Full marriage equality allows people to have the relationships they choose, and as such, does not hurt anyone.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,law,marriage equality,solidarity

Stanford Journal Article: Remove Laws Against Consensual Incest

Clare Theresa Kasemset wrote “Should Consensual Incest Between Consanguine Adults Be Restricted?” It is found in Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology &; Society, Vol 2, No 1 (2009)
NOTE: Comment left by Anonymous gives this link: http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/view/137

The abstract says…

Many states outlaw sexual intercourse between adults who are closely related by blood, such as first cousins. This paper first gives an overview of recent news involving this type of incest and the current legal restrictions surrounding it. It then lays out arguments in favor of either stricter regulation or more lenient treatment. Finally, it proposes and justifies an alternate solution to legal restrictions.

She starts off with the “ick” factor.

Because the term “incest” can apply to such a wide variety of situations, people often confuse their feelings about incest with their feelings about pedophilia, rape, and adultery. The fact that incest often involves those acts, which seem obviously destructive and wrong, makes people associate it with grievous harm. Most news cases about incest report sexual relations between a parent or stepparent and a child.

That’s because consensual incest rarely comes to the attention of the news media.

To avoid the confusion of incest with other sexual crimes, this paper will restrict its scope to the issue of incest between consenting adults who are related by blood.

That is what I call “consanguineous sex”.

What sort of restrictions should be placed on consensual sexual intercourse between biologically related individuals?

None, if they are adults.

She goes on to write about the Stuebing-Karolewski case in Germany...

The lovers, Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski, were separated at birth when Patrick was adopted by a family in another city.

When they met again, they were already past childhood. Although not legally married, they have had four children together. Three of their children have been placed in foster care, presumably because incestuous couples are somehow unfit for parenting, though the exact reasons are unclear from news articles. In addition, Patrick has served two years in prison for the crime of incestuous sexual intercourse. Even though he has undergone a vasectomy, he may still serve future terms in prison for that
crime (Moore, 2007).

It’s horrible that the law would try to keep consenting adults apart.

A similar case showed up in U.S. courts in 1997, when siblings Allen and Patricia Muth were charged as being unfit parents on the grounds of their incestuous relationship, and their child was taken into foster care.

Allen and Patricia had been separated from three months after Patricia’s birth until after their childhood. In a later court case, the couple was also convicted of incest, a crime for which Allen served eight years in prison and Patricia served four.

Outrageous.

She then gets into…

Arguments in Favor of Restricting Consensual Incestuous Activity

First up on the “mutant baby” argument, which has been refuted. See #18.

Second, almost all Americans find incest to be an offensive practice (citation needed).

Ah yes. The “I don’t like it” argument, which has been refuted. See #3

Third, the vast majority of people in this country have deep-seated beliefs that incest is immoral.

Again, this has been refuted as a justification. See #1-5

Then she gets to…

Arguments Against Restricting Consensual Incestuous Activity

Based on the lack of good arguments to keep restrictions, no argument against the restrictions should be needed. First up is that consenting adults should be allowed their sexuality.

Those in favor of legalizing incest first argue that incest does not cause enough harm to justify its prohibition.

Harm comes from child molestation and rape, neither of which involves consensual incest.

If Lawrence v. Texas (2003) allowed homosexuality to be practiced without government interference, even though it offends many other citizens, the government should take the same attitude towards incest. While it is true that homosexuality is not as universally offensive as incest, the threshold above which a percentage of the population qualifies as “universal” is arbitrary.

Actually, I would not be surprised in the least if it could be determined that significantly more people have engaged in consanguineous sex, or fantasized/thought positively about it, or lusted after or admired a close relative than have done the same regarding or with a nonconsanguineous same-sex partner.

How about, in support of such activity/relationships, we cite enjoyment by participants? Isn’t that a good argument? There are a lot of people who experience pleasure, empowerment, confidence, comfort, support, and many other good things as a result of their encounters or relationships.

Having been a little disappointing, she moves on to conclusions.

Supporters of incest rights argue convincingly against using the offense principle or legal moralism to justify banning incest. In general, the American government has been moving away from justifying its laws based on those principles, as Scalia noted in Lawrence v. Texas (Jacoby,2005). However, the arguments based on the harm principle merit further consideration.

If we must.

However, there are many actions that raise the risk of some harm, such as driving a car, which the government allows its citizens to do. The government only bans an action when it considers the risk of harm from an action to be too high, as with riding a car without a seatbelt.

So, does this mean that birth control should be required, in violation of reproductive rights? She doesn’t say.

If incest [between first cousins] should be banned, women above the age of 40 should also be banned from sexual intercourse. Moreover, there are many other groups that bear offspring with a high risk of having harmful disorders, whether genetic or not, and these groups would have to be banned from sexual intercourse as well. For example, people with HIV are not currently barred from sexual activity, even though the offspring of HIV infected women have a 25% chance of being infected with HIV (HIV/AIDS, 2004)—a number much higher than the 6% risk of birth defects for children of first-cousin couples (Rowlatt, 2005).

Clearly, this is not an option.

Given that the risk of harm is significant for multiple generations of incestuous mating, should the government attempt to restrict incest in families that have a history of interbreeding?

If the government were to implement a restrictive policy that only targeted this type of incest, it would need to keep track of family histories and choose an arbitrary value above which an incestuous couple’s risk of giving birth to children with defects would be considered too high. Such a policy would be extremely impractical to implement.

Not to mention invasive.

She cites education as an alternative.

The government should consider changing its measures in the manner outlined above, rather than continuing to enforce unreasonable laws.

Agreed! Thank you! Consenting adults have rights to share love, sex, residence and marriage, and the law should not trample on those rights.

Read more »

Posted in: academia,allies,breaking up homes,brother-sister,children,consanguineous,Germany,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,law,media,myths,persecution,prejudice,prosecution,siblings,stigma

Stanford Journal Article: Remove Laws Against Consensual Incest

Clare Theresa Kasemset wrote “Should Consensual Incest Between Consanguine Adults Be Restricted?” It is found in Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology &; Society, Vol 2, No 1 (2009)
NOTE: Comment left by Anonymous gives this link: http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/view/137

The abstract says…

Many states outlaw sexual intercourse between adults who are closely related by blood, such as first cousins. This paper first gives an overview of recent news involving this type of incest and the current legal restrictions surrounding it. It then lays out arguments in favor of either stricter regulation or more lenient treatment. Finally, it proposes and justifies an alternate solution to legal restrictions.

She starts off with the “ick” factor.

Because the term “incest” can apply to such a wide variety of situations, people often confuse their feelings about incest with their feelings about pedophilia, rape, and adultery. The fact that incest often involves those acts, which seem obviously destructive and wrong, makes people associate it with grievous harm. Most news cases about incest report sexual relations between a parent or stepparent and a child.

That’s because consensual incest rarely comes to the attention of the news media.

To avoid the confusion of incest with other sexual crimes, this paper will restrict its scope to the issue of incest between consenting adults who are related by blood.

That is what I call “consanguineous sex”.

What sort of restrictions should be placed on consensual sexual intercourse between biologically related individuals?

None, if they are adults.

She goes on to write about the Stuebing-Karolewski case in Germany...

The lovers, Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski, were separated at birth when Patrick was adopted by a family in another city.

When they met again, they were already past childhood. Although not legally married, they have had four children together. Three of their children have been placed in foster care, presumably because incestuous couples are somehow unfit for parenting, though the exact reasons are unclear from news articles. In addition, Patrick has served two years in prison for the crime of incestuous sexual intercourse. Even though he has undergone a vasectomy, he may still serve future terms in prison for that
crime (Moore, 2007).

It’s horrible that the law would try to keep consenting adults apart.

A similar case showed up in U.S. courts in 1997, when siblings Allen and Patricia Muth were charged as being unfit parents on the grounds of their incestuous relationship, and their child was taken into foster care.

Allen and Patricia had been separated from three months after Patricia’s birth until after their childhood. In a later court case, the couple was also convicted of incest, a crime for which Allen served eight years in prison and Patricia served four.

Outrageous.

She then gets into…

Arguments in Favor of Restricting Consensual Incestuous Activity

First up on the “mutant baby” argument, which has been refuted. See #18.

Second, almost all Americans find incest to be an offensive practice (citation needed).

Ah yes. The “I don’t like it” argument, which has been refuted. See #3

Third, the vast majority of people in this country have deep-seated beliefs that incest is immoral.

Again, this has been refuted as a justification. See #1-5

Then she gets to…

Arguments Against Restricting Consensual Incestuous Activity

Based on the lack of good arguments to keep restrictions, no argument against the restrictions should be needed. First up is that consenting adults should be allowed their sexuality.

Those in favor of legalizing incest first argue that incest does not cause enough harm to justify its prohibition.

Harm comes from child molestation and rape, neither of which involves consensual incest.

If Lawrence v. Texas (2003) allowed homosexuality to be practiced without government interference, even though it offends many other citizens, the government should take the same attitude towards incest. While it is true that homosexuality is not as universally offensive as incest, the threshold above which a percentage of the population qualifies as “universal” is arbitrary.

Actually, I would not be surprised in the least if it could be determined that significantly more people have engaged in consanguineous sex, or fantasized/thought positively about it, or lusted after or admired a close relative than have done the same regarding or with a nonconsanguineous same-sex partner.

How about, in support of such activity/relationships, we cite enjoyment by participants? Isn’t that a good argument? There are a lot of people who experience pleasure, empowerment, confidence, comfort, support, and many other good things as a result of their encounters or relationships.

Having been a little disappointing, she moves on to conclusions.

Supporters of incest rights argue convincingly against using the offense principle or legal moralism to justify banning incest. In general, the American government has been moving away from justifying its laws based on those principles, as Scalia noted in Lawrence v. Texas (Jacoby,2005). However, the arguments based on the harm principle merit further consideration.

If we must.

However, there are many actions that raise the risk of some harm, such as driving a car, which the government allows its citizens to do. The government only bans an action when it considers the risk of harm from an action to be too high, as with riding a car without a seatbelt.

So, does this mean that birth control should be required, in violation of reproductive rights? She doesn’t say.

If incest [between first cousins] should be banned, women above the age of 40 should also be banned from sexual intercourse. Moreover, there are many other groups that bear offspring with a high risk of having harmful disorders, whether genetic or not, and these groups would have to be banned from sexual intercourse as well. For example, people with HIV are not currently barred from sexual activity, even though the offspring of HIV infected women have a 25% chance of being infected with HIV (HIV/AIDS, 2004)—a number much higher than the 6% risk of birth defects for children of first-cousin couples (Rowlatt, 2005).

Clearly, this is not an option.

Given that the risk of harm is significant for multiple generations of incestuous mating, should the government attempt to restrict incest in families that have a history of interbreeding?

If the government were to implement a restrictive policy that only targeted this type of incest, it would need to keep track of family histories and choose an arbitrary value above which an incestuous couple’s risk of giving birth to children with defects would be considered too high. Such a policy would be extremely impractical to implement.

Not to mention invasive.

She cites education as an alternative.

The government should consider changing its measures in the manner outlined above, rather than continuing to enforce unreasonable laws.

Agreed! Thank you! Consenting adults have rights to share love, sex, residence and marriage, and the law should not trample on those rights.

Read more »

Posted in: academia,allies,breaking up homes,brother-sister,children,consanguineous,Germany,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,law,media,myths,persecution,prejudice,prosecution,siblings,stigma

Polyamorous Triad Featured in South African News

Noor-Jehan Yoro Badat writes about polyamory at iol.co.za...

Before I met Mark, Kate and Alice at a Joburg restaurant, I learnt that they are considered the “poster children” of polyamory in South Africa. That is why, says Mark, they try to present a positive image to their community, despite some people’s disapproval of their unconventional bond.

There is a wide variety of polyamorous people. We come from all backgrounds. We are in every geographic region, every socioeconomic status, in just about every political or religious organization of any size. Some of us are are in open or partially open polycules, some of us are in closed polyfidelitous polycules, some of us aren't in a polycule at all right now. Some of the polycules are "Vs," some of them are triangles, some are quads, etc. Different polycules have different guidelines. Some of us are outspokenly out, some of us are quietly out, some of us are partially out, some of us are in the closet. Some of us live together, some of us don't. Some of us sleep in the same bed, some of us don't. Some of us only ever have one-on-one sex, some of us usually have sex that involves three or more lovers. Some of us are quite "vanilla" in or lovemaking (other than being in a polycule) and some of us are into BDSM or something else. Some of us want to have a recognized polyamorous marriage, some of us don't want to get married at all.

What I'm trying to say is that the only thing that all poly people have in common is that they are oriented towards, prefer, or are in relationships in which at least one person in the relationship seeks or has sex with or romantically or erotically loves more than one person, with the agreement of all involved.

The three have nothing against monogamy – they all started out that way. But Kate says she was “never very good” at committing to her partners.

Did she put it that way? Because many poly people are good at committing... so good, in fact, that they commit to more than one person.

Falling in love with Mark and accepting his deep feelings for Kate was hard and nerve-racking in the beginning, says Alice, who had always believed in monogamy.

“I was in two minds about being with two people, but willing to try anything… It took me a long time to be comfortable.” 

She’s not resentful of Mark’s time with Kate. “I have my moments of insecurity, but we even ourselves out and get past it,” adds Alice. 

“I do see myself spending the rest of my life with them.” 

They should be free to have that, without bullying or discrimination.

This accompanied the article...

Isn’t it just swinging with a fancier name?

Polyamory isn’t swinging, says sex educator Avri Spilka.
 

Swingers engage in purely sexual activities with other partners for reasons that include adding variety to their sex lives.

“I see an unwritten rule in swinging,” says Spilka. “You don’t fall in love. It’s physical, even affectionate, but it’s not seen as emotional.

“And that’s the difference with polyamory – it has an emotional aspect. Swinging is more sensory,” says Spilka, who herself is in a polyamorous relationship.

Polyamory has come out. There's no going back.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,boundaries,coming out,family reaction,love,media,open,polyamory,prejudice,swinging,triads

Shame on Grant County, Wisconsin

This was something I posted in 2010, and I'm bumping it up because it shows the importance of having relationship rights for all adults, and why the US Supreme Court should make a bold ruling for relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults.


In what has to be an update to case I wrote about back in May 2010, a 25 year-old Blue River, Wisconsin man is has been convicted of incest because of consensual sex with another adult.

A Grant County jury convicted a 25-year-old Blue River man of having sex with his 19-year-old sister at least 10 times in 2009.

The jury should have nullified.

David Bisbach is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 12 at 3:45 p.m. He faces a maximum fine of $25,000, imprisonment at a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 12 years, or both.

His sister is being charged, too.

Elizabeth Roen, Bisbach’s sister, is also scheduled to face charges during a jury trial on Oct 6 at 9 a.m. in Grant County Circuit Court.

So who exactly is the victim? This must have been consensual Why are consenting adults being prosecuted for private sex?

From an earlier story…

The man told investigators that his sister was the aggressor and she had filed court documents identifying him as the father of a child that she had in February, according to the complaint.

Sounds like she told the truth about who fathered her child. She could have lied and tagged some other guy for child support. It happens, especially if the falsely tagged man doesn’t see the paperwork in time to object because he doesn’t or no longer lives at the address provided on the paperwork. But that’s another story. She tells the truth about the father of her child, and the reward for her honesty is a criminal trial against both her and her brother.

For what? This is worse than a waste of public resouces. This is using public resources to persecute consenting adults for enjoying sex together in private. They should not only not be sent to prison, they should be allowed and encouraged to marry so that their child will have an intact family.

If you ever end up on a jury in a case like this, you do have the option of refusing to vote for conviction, even if the prosecution has proven their case. And you should, because there shouldn't be laws against against consensual sex. Laws should protect people, especially children from predators.... rapists, molestors. Laws should not interfere in loving relationships. Shame on the prosecutors for even bringing this case. Future generations are going to look back at this and think our generation was backward.

Read more »

Posted in: breaking up homes,brother-sister,consanguineous,courts,incest,lack of equality harms,love,persecution,siblings,Wisconsin