Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Asking a Good Question

Discussions like the one below pop up everywhere. This one at collegenet.com was started by who asked, "Is incest always bad?"
Recently a father and daughter were charged with two counts of third degree felony incest, both facing up to 5 years in prison. The father is 52 years old and the daughter is 24 years old. They both knew they were biologically related and it was a consensual relationship. The daughter was adopted as a child and then found her father when she was 21. They got to know each other and a year after they met, they started having sexual relations.

She is referring to this case in Utah.
If the incest is consensual should they still be tried?

No, they shouldn't. They should be free to be together and to marry, if that is what they want.
Would you condone this relationship if they truly loved each other even though they are related?

Of course I would.
Would you still consider it wrong if they didn't know they were blood related?

It isn't wrong even when people do know they are blood related.

was first to respond.


I would condone the relationship because I don't care what other people do in the comfort of their own home. Two people engaging in a relationship with their family members doesn't force me to do the same. People can do what they want.

I don't think knowing you're in a relationship with a family member makes incest worse. At its core, the relationship is based on love and caring for the other person. If you're oblivious to the incest, it shouldn't affect your relationship. Why do couples have to cater to the desires of other people? They should only care about each other's opinion.
Thank you! wrote...
This child is more like to be born with defects, mental disabilities, a great amount of allergies. I am getting this information from experience. From underpriviledged countries, this has been true for all children born from an incest relationship.
Not true! Most are healthy.
I have heard many stories about these situations yet I have no scientific evidence to prove my point.
There's a reason for that. ...
There's nothing actually wrong with it, some cultures indulge, people have been doing it for millennia, but it has been beaten into us since birth that such things are wrong, unholy, dirty, whatever you want to call it. Fathers and daughters or siblings have been getting hitched and popping out kids forever. Look at the history of certain royal families from almost any culture and you'll find tons of incest.
was familiar with the term Genetic Sexual Attraction, which is a good sign...
And like many have mentioned before me... what about children? We surely all know or know of at least one child that struggles because of the parents whether they are gay or interracial or an unpopular religion... Can you imagine being the child of two blood relatives?
Many people are.
Life would be hard enough with that torment but statistics show the child would also be plagued with birth defects. 
Again, not true. If people could see just how many people they've encountered who have close genetic relatives for parents, they'd be shocked at how many there are and how most of them are doing well, thankyouverymuch.
I honestly feel that bringing a child into the world from an incestuous relationship would be cruel.
Stigmatizing love, especially taking it out on the children of the lovers, is cruel.

...
The term "consensual incest" is somewhat of an oxymoron. Incest by its very definition is detrimental to the human race so the notion that it would ever be consensual seems odd in itself.
Wha...? Huh? OK, assuming sex between adults is "detrimental to the human race" (it isn't), people do consent to do things that are detrimental to the human race. But we're talking sex and a relationship. Consensual. Not an oxymoron. Not detrimental to the human race.
Without ruining my morning breakfast, if I found out I was dating my biological father I would be pretty turned off to say the least.
Some people have thought that, but when they've experienced GSA they have been surprised.


Like others have said from a biological stand point I have to say that it is bad and shouldn't happen. The risk for genetic defects is very high and the population relies on genetic variation for long term survival, and that is why there are some many genetic variation possibilities built into sexual reproduction.

This confuses the situation, as if Melinder is saying if it weren't for anti-consanguinamory laws, she (and everyone else) would only be having children with close relatives. Is there something she wants to tell us? The question isn't, "Should everyone be forced to only reproduce with their close relatives?" It is "Should consenting (meaning if they want) adults be free to have sex without criminal prosecution?" Remove anti-consanguinamory laws, and the vast majority of children will still be born to people who aren't close relatives. 


Like avillalp, I had no idea that incest was even a crime. Sure, I see the danger in it, but I don't think it should be illegal if the two people consent to the relationship.

I don't think they should be tried and I don't think anyone should be able to choose who you're allowed to be in a relationship with besides you.

I think about it this way, and this kind of relates to a forum that greycloudbear posted yesterday... if someone with HIV/Aids wanted to have a child, it would be wrong to tell them that they can't. There is a chance that the child will have HIV/Aids, but there is also a chance that they will be perfectly fine. Doing a quick search, aids.gov says that an untreated expecting mother has a "25% chance of passing the virus to her baby."

With incest (father-daughter), there isn't an exact percentage because there are so many other factors that play into it. Even if it is higher than 25%, they should be able to choose and love on their own. 

Thank you! also brought some education to the conversation...
The kids argument is fallacious because not ALL kids born of incest will be born of defects. It only increases the likelihood. There are lots of things that can increase a child's risk of being born with defects. Should we ban women over 40, women who smoke, women undergoing cancer treatments, women taking certain medications, women with genetic diseases, etc. from having children? No, of course not. The likelihood of a child being born with defects is not a determinant for who is allowed to have children and with whom. Do I think it's fair for people with known high-risk backgrounds to have kids who might be born with defects? No, not really, but until we get into the business of regulating who gets to have kids, it's not really my place to say.
Thank you!

All that said, let's not forget that the Russian monarchy died out in large part due to their history of incest - nearly every male in the family was born with hemophilia because they would often marry brothers and sisters to preserve family purity.

Uh, I think the Russian monarchy died out because of lead poisoning.
then returned to the thread she started..,
Like most of you also, I agree that it should not be illegal; why is the government always trying to get in our beds?! In Virginia, we have a law that states one may not have sex other than that of in the missionary position and one cannot have sex with the lights on. I don't even understand how that became a law, just let us live our sex lives in peace!
Please.

...
As someone else had previously mentioned, making any form of relationship incest/gay/polygamous illegal is outrageous!
But this person does have reservations...

My last opinion on this topic, as much I don't support incest I do not wish to outlaw it and say that no one else may engage, is that incestual relationships with minimize people's families. The way I see it is that you are brought into this world by two people who must unconditionally love you no matter what, some are lucky to have a number of siblings to do the same. On top of that you have both of your parents' parents and your parents' siblings and their kids to also love you unconditionally. Even with the smallest possible family that leaves you with 6 people who will care for you no matter what. To marry someone outside of your family gives you atleast 6 more people to love you unconditionally.
There is no guarantee that parents will love their own children and treat them right. Many don't. Some people don't have any siblings, and single children do quite well, on average. Some people are born after one, some or all of their genetic grandparents have died, or are not raised near their grandparents. Also, some people are raised by one parent, whether due to divorce or break up, death, casual sex, incarceration, adoption or foster care, or use of donated sperm/eggs/embryo.

There may good reasons why any two people should not be lovers or not marry or not have children, but it should be up to them to make those decisions. Prejudice and discrimination, including criminalization or the denial of equal access to marriage, should not be a factor. Once again in this discussion, the opposition to relationship rights was almost entirely based on Discredited Arguments #1 and 18.

There is still no good reason why an adult should be denied the right to marry (or have sex with) any and all consenting adults.

Asking a Good Question

Discussions like the one below pop up everywhere. This one at collegenet.com was started by who asked, "Is incest always bad?"
Recently a father and daughter were charged with two counts of third degree felony incest, both facing up to 5 years in prison. The father is 52 years old and the daughter is 24 years old. They both knew they were biologically related and it was a consensual relationship. The daughter was adopted as a child and then found her father when she was 21. They got to know each other and a year after they met, they started having sexual relations.

She is referring to this case in Utah.
If the incest is consensual should they still be tried?

No, they shouldn't. They should be free to be together and to marry, if that is what they want.
Would you condone this relationship if they truly loved each other even though they are related?

Of course I would.
Would you still consider it wrong if they didn't know they were blood related?

It isn't wrong even when people do know they are blood related.

was first to respond.


I would condone the relationship because I don't care what other people do in the comfort of their own home. Two people engaging in a relationship with their family members doesn't force me to do the same. People can do what they want.

I don't think knowing you're in a relationship with a family member makes incest worse. At its core, the relationship is based on love and caring for the other person. If you're oblivious to the incest, it shouldn't affect your relationship. Why do couples have to cater to the desires of other people? They should only care about each other's opinion.
Thank you! wrote...
This child is more like to be born with defects, mental disabilities, a great amount of allergies. I am getting this information from experience. From underpriviledged countries, this has been true for all children born from an incest relationship.
Not true! Most are healthy.
I have heard many stories about these situations yet I have no scientific evidence to prove my point.
There's a reason for that. ...
There's nothing actually wrong with it, some cultures indulge, people have been doing it for millennia, but it has been beaten into us since birth that such things are wrong, unholy, dirty, whatever you want to call it. Fathers and daughters or siblings have been getting hitched and popping out kids forever. Look at the history of certain royal families from almost any culture and you'll find tons of incest.
was familiar with the term Genetic Sexual Attraction, which is a good sign...
And like many have mentioned before me... what about children? We surely all know or know of at least one child that struggles because of the parents whether they are gay or interracial or an unpopular religion... Can you imagine being the child of two blood relatives?
Many people are.
Life would be hard enough with that torment but statistics show the child would also be plagued with birth defects. 
Again, not true. If people could see just how many people they've encountered who have close genetic relatives for parents, they'd be shocked at how many there are and how most of them are doing well, thankyouverymuch.
I honestly feel that bringing a child into the world from an incestuous relationship would be cruel.
Stigmatizing love, especially taking it out on the children of the lovers, is cruel.

...
The term "consensual incest" is somewhat of an oxymoron. Incest by its very definition is detrimental to the human race so the notion that it would ever be consensual seems odd in itself.
Wha...? Huh? OK, assuming sex between adults is "detrimental to the human race" (it isn't), people do consent to do things that are detrimental to the human race. But we're talking sex and a relationship. Consensual. Not an oxymoron. Not detrimental to the human race.
Without ruining my morning breakfast, if I found out I was dating my biological father I would be pretty turned off to say the least.
Some people have thought that, but when they've experienced GSA they have been surprised.


Like others have said from a biological stand point I have to say that it is bad and shouldn't happen. The risk for genetic defects is very high and the population relies on genetic variation for long term survival, and that is why there are some many genetic variation possibilities built into sexual reproduction.

This confuses the situation, as if Melinder is saying if it weren't for anti-consanguinamory laws, she (and everyone else) would only be having children with close relatives. Is there something she wants to tell us? The question isn't, "Should everyone be forced to only reproduce with their close relatives?" It is "Should consenting (meaning if they want) adults be free to have sex without criminal prosecution?" Remove anti-consanguinamory laws, and the vast majority of children will still be born to people who aren't close relatives. 


Like avillalp, I had no idea that incest was even a crime. Sure, I see the danger in it, but I don't think it should be illegal if the two people consent to the relationship.

I don't think they should be tried and I don't think anyone should be able to choose who you're allowed to be in a relationship with besides you.

I think about it this way, and this kind of relates to a forum that greycloudbear posted yesterday... if someone with HIV/Aids wanted to have a child, it would be wrong to tell them that they can't. There is a chance that the child will have HIV/Aids, but there is also a chance that they will be perfectly fine. Doing a quick search, aids.gov says that an untreated expecting mother has a "25% chance of passing the virus to her baby."

With incest (father-daughter), there isn't an exact percentage because there are so many other factors that play into it. Even if it is higher than 25%, they should be able to choose and love on their own. 

Thank you! also brought some education to the conversation...
The kids argument is fallacious because not ALL kids born of incest will be born of defects. It only increases the likelihood. There are lots of things that can increase a child's risk of being born with defects. Should we ban women over 40, women who smoke, women undergoing cancer treatments, women taking certain medications, women with genetic diseases, etc. from having children? No, of course not. The likelihood of a child being born with defects is not a determinant for who is allowed to have children and with whom. Do I think it's fair for people with known high-risk backgrounds to have kids who might be born with defects? No, not really, but until we get into the business of regulating who gets to have kids, it's not really my place to say.
Thank you!

All that said, let's not forget that the Russian monarchy died out in large part due to their history of incest - nearly every male in the family was born with hemophilia because they would often marry brothers and sisters to preserve family purity.

Uh, I think the Russian monarchy died out because of lead poisoning.
then returned to the thread she started..,
Like most of you also, I agree that it should not be illegal; why is the government always trying to get in our beds?! In Virginia, we have a law that states one may not have sex other than that of in the missionary position and one cannot have sex with the lights on. I don't even understand how that became a law, just let us live our sex lives in peace!
Please.

...
As someone else had previously mentioned, making any form of relationship incest/gay/polygamous illegal is outrageous!
But this person does have reservations...

My last opinion on this topic, as much I don't support incest I do not wish to outlaw it and say that no one else may engage, is that incestual relationships with minimize people's families. The way I see it is that you are brought into this world by two people who must unconditionally love you no matter what, some are lucky to have a number of siblings to do the same. On top of that you have both of your parents' parents and your parents' siblings and their kids to also love you unconditionally. Even with the smallest possible family that leaves you with 6 people who will care for you no matter what. To marry someone outside of your family gives you atleast 6 more people to love you unconditionally.
There is no guarantee that parents will love their own children and treat them right. Many don't. Some people don't have any siblings, and single children do quite well, on average. Some people are born after one, some or all of their genetic grandparents have died, or are not raised near their grandparents. Also, some people are raised by one parent, whether due to divorce or break up, death, casual sex, incarceration, adoption or foster care, or use of donated sperm/eggs/embryo.

There may good reasons why any two people should not be lovers or not marry or not have children, but it should be up to them to make those decisions. Prejudice and discrimination, including criminalization or the denial of equal access to marriage, should not be a factor. Once again in this discussion, the opposition to relationship rights was almost entirely based on Discredited Arguments #1 and 18.

There is still no good reason why an adult should be denied the right to marry (or have sex with) any and all consenting adults.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Last Words From Death Row

By: Timothy P. Flynn

This post is straight from Texas, our most prolific death penalty state.  Texas has executed over 800 death row inmates since the SCOTUS ruled in 1976 that the death penalty was not cruel and unusual punishment after all.

A typical death house drill includes the condemned selecting and consuming one last meal and, just prior to execution, is provided an opportunity to make a statement.  In Texas, these statements have been posted to this Texas Department of Corrections link, along with a brief summary of the inmate's capital conviction.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure.  Some of the most hardened inmates decline comment.  Others make one last assertion of innocence.  Invocations of Allah and Jesus abound; saying goodbye to family and loved ones, promising to wait for them on the other side; exhortations to the system that crushed them and to the brothers they left behind on the row.

Charles Thomas O'Reilly, the recently retired warden of the Huntsville Unit, the prison that houses the death house, presided over 140 executions; the most in Texas history.

The death penalty is and has always been a divisive issue in America.  32 states have death penalty sentencing statutes to the 18 that have banned such punishment, including, most recently, New York, and New Jersey in 2007, and Illinois in 2009.

In the 1972 case of Furman v Georgia, the SCOTUS suspended capital punishment on the basis of the 8th Amendment bar against cruel and unusual punishment.  Then four years later, SCOTUS reinstated capital punishment for murder convictions, provided a trial was bifurcated into two segments: a guilt phase, and a punishment phase where the trier of fact gives separate and specific consideration to the punishment and the convicted defendant has the opportunity to present evidence on mitigation.

Last week, Kimberly McCarthy was executed in Texas.  She was the 500th person in Texas to be executed since it resumed executions in 1982, and the 13th woman to be executed in the United States since the 1976 resumption of the death penalty.

Back in 1998, Karla Faye Tucker was another infamous female death row inmate at the Huntsville Unit.  She was the subject of the book Crossed Over.

Truly, do not mess with Texas.  Texans are willing to walk the fine line between the fair and the harsh.

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com




Why Polyamory Will Gain Acceptance Faster

It’s not going to take as long for polyamorists to get our freedoms, including the freedom to marry, as it is taking (monogamist) gays and lesbians.

First, I need to have a bit of clarification here. Polyamory has always been around with some public awareness, whatever forms it has taken or whichever labels have been applied, especially if we go with the broad term ethical nonmonogamy instead.

What I mean is that in the US, as well as many other countries, there was a sustained period of trying to force everyone, or at least everyone but the elite, into heterosexual, gender-roled, married monogamy with spouses that were “acceptable” by class, race, religion, etc. Those deemed not suitable for marriage were often kept out of public life in general. For example, people with certain disabilities were expected to stay home or be institutionalized so as to not cause discomfort to people who would be uneasy around them. That oppression is in the process of being dismantled. We are ending the prosecutions, the persecutions, the stigmatizing, and everything else that makes it so people go into hiding (or hiding an important part of who they are) because of who they are and who they love.

Polyamorists haven't had a "Stonewall" moment. Many people cite the Stonewall Riots of 1969 as the start of gay and lesbian people fighting back against such persecution. It has been 44 years and same-gender couples are still barred from legally marrying in most US states and LGBT people still need employment protections (ENDA). But the momentum is rapidly building, especially with the recent Supreme Court actions on DOMA and PropH8 and the death of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for military service, and all of the public figures who are coming out in support of the same-gender freedom to marry. There have been so many advancements since 1969.

Note that earlier in the 1960s, the US adopted laws to protect racial minorities nationwide, and the Loving v. Virginia case struck down bans on the interracial freedom to marry, over a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Women got the vote nationwide in 1920 and have made much progress, but are still on the journey.

So will polyamorists have to wait a couple of generations?

Happily, the answer is no. Here why:



1) Momentum. Note that gay civil rights have made progress much faster than feminist and racial civil rights. Likewise, rights for nonmonogamists and people who don’t want to marry at all will not take as long as gay rights. Momentum is building, and polyamorists should be exceedingly appreciative of the work done by the racial, feminist, gay, and lesbian civil rights champions.

2) Smaller opposition. Opposition to polyamory and the polygamous freedom to marry comes almost entirely from specific segments of religious conservatives, more and more of whom are warming up to the fact that civil marriages are not a threat to their churches and that it is destructive and wasteful to concentrate on trying to control adult relationships, especially when it comes to people who are not members of their church. There are some who oppose the polygamous freedom to marry out of concern for tax/benefit issues, but those concerns can be addressed without denying any adults the freedom to marry.

3) Less motivated opposition.
Most of the above considered “line in the sand” to be the same-gender freedom to marry and are already resigned to polygamous freedom to marry upon national establishment of the same-gender freedom to marry. While some monogamist LGBT people bristle at the connection, what matters is that a connection exists in the mind of those who oppose the freedoms and they do not want to continue fighting one freedom if the other is established. Those who identify as LGBT monogamists have much more in common with those who identify as heterosexual monogamists than some heteros realize, but in the prejudiced mind, monogamist LGBT people and polyamorists are in the same big “other” category.

4) More existing understanding. Some strictly heterosexual people are disgusted by the thought of gay sex and much of the now-diminishing opposition from heterosexuals to the same-gender freedom to marry came from that. Or, if not disgusted, they (especially males) simply couldn’t understand how someone might find someone of the same gender sexually or romantically attractive. But almost everyone can understand (or has personally experienced) being romantically or sexually attracted to more than one person at the same time. They’ve had the feelings themselves; this is one reason they bring up polyamory when discussing the freedom to marry. While someone may not personally want to pursue polyamory, they are more likely to avoid opposing those who do. Also, for religious conservatives, there is a heritage of polyamory in their traditions and clear scriptural prohibitions are lacking in most traditions’ scriptures.

5) Strict monogamy is rare. Most people are mostly or strictly heterosexual in how they see themselves and live, even if they’ve had some experiences with someone of the same gender. Very few people are truly and strictly monogamists sexually, emotionally, romantically over the course of a lifetime. Extending rights to polyamorous people, including the polygamous freedom to marry, deals with a reality that everyone has experienced. For example, if someone has children with more than one person, and they are all agreeable to a marriage structure involving three or more people, why deny them that? Relationships, including marriage, usually involve more than one bond (erotic, romantic, friendship, cohabitational, parental, legal, financial, professional, shared interests) between the people involved, and sometimes one of those bonds may diminish or end with one person and begin or increase with another, but there is no reason to end the earlier relationship; there could be good reasons nobody wants to end the relationship. For example, a woman might share sex, residence, children, and a business with one man, and sex, romance, friendship, and a love of theatre with another.

6) Political compatibility. Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives can all find much to like in polyamory, which is why you can find polyamorists in just about all areas of the political map. Polyamorists who are progressives see cooperative and efficient living in polyamory. Libertarians (who generally oppose government restriction on adult behavior that doesn’t violate another’s property or person) and conservative polyamorists like the idea of people relying on each other rather than a government program.

7) Increased compassion. More and more people now recognize that letting consenting adults have their relationships and love each other as they want is the right thing to do, and opposing relationships between consenting adults is not only mean-spirited, but a waste.

8) Experience. While many LGBT people are monogamists, some socially/politically active LGBT people are polyamorists or poly-friendly, and they are already motivated and working towards full marriage equality, and experienced in advancing these civil rights.

While some people fighting for LGBT rights or the same-gender freedom to marry only care about LGBT rights and monogamy, or even reject association with or comparison to polyamorists (including LGBT polyamorists) others have shown solidarity. Polyamorists owe a great deal of thanks to those in the racial, feminist, gay and lesbian civil rights movements for opening minds and establishing rights for adults, as well as continuing solidarity in the fight for those rights. Polyamorists will get their rights faster not because the movement is stronger than the LGBT rights movement, but rather exactly because the LGBT rights movement has been so strong.

Relationship rights and full marriage equality for all adults is going to happen. We’re trying to make it happen sooner rather than later.

We Get Letters

Here are a couple of comments that were left here on the blog recently. Both were left by people who wish to remain anonymous.

Left on this page...   
Thank you so much, I've been looking for some information about all of this that isn't talking about 'rape'. I've just started being intimate with my father who I had only met a handful of times through my life. I feel better knowing that there are people out there that understand the complex emotions that come with this kind of relationship.
And left on this page...
I am so happy I found this. My parents divorced when I was 6 and my sister was 2. We were reunited after ten years. We began a sexual relationship shortly after that. We stopped when I turned 18 and joined the army. Both of us were miserable for ten years trying to find someone we truly loved. The reality is that we do not love anyone else as much as we love each other. We have lived as a married couple for 12 years now. I can not imagine living without her.
My heart is always warmed when people let me know how this blog is helping them.

Unfortunately, people who have been in, are currently in, or may be entering into consanguinamorous relationships don't have many places to find other in the same situation for reasonable discussion on the matter, despite the fact that these relationships are common enough that everyone knows someone who is in one, whether they know it or not. If one tries a general relationship forum, they may encounter much prejudice and hostility, if the administrators even allow them to participate. There is at least one forum dealing with Genetic Sexual Attraction that takes a tone unwelcoming to those in lasting, happy relationships. While there are several forums that discuss consanguinamory in a supportive or encouraging way, they seem to be more about erotica and fantasy than dealing with real-life issues of relationships and living with something that is discriminated against in law and public opinion. Most people who are happy in their relationships are not going to bother with forums, either due to lack of interest, time constraints, or a perceived risk to their relationship and freedom.

The best place I know of for discussing the consanguinamorous life is Kindred Spirits forum, which is free to the user. If you go there, be sure to immediately read and follow all of the rules, or you'll be kicked right off.

We Get Letters

Here are a couple of comments that were left here on the blog recently. Both were left by people who wish to remain anonymous.

Left on this page...   
Thank you so much, I've been looking for some information about all of this that isn't talking about 'rape'. I've just started being intimate with my father who I had only met a handful of times through my life. I feel better knowing that there are people out there that understand the complex emotions that come with this kind of relationship.
And left on this page...
I am so happy I found this. My parents divorced when I was 6 and my sister was 2. We were reunited after ten years. We began a sexual relationship shortly after that. We stopped when I turned 18 and joined the army. Both of us were miserable for ten years trying to find someone we truly loved. The reality is that we do not love anyone else as much as we love each other. We have lived as a married couple for 12 years now. I can not imagine living without her.
My heart is always warmed when people let me know how this blog is helping them.

Unfortunately, people who have been in, are currently in, or may be entering into consanguinamorous relationships don't have many places to find other in the same situation for reasonable discussion on the matter, despite the fact that these relationships are common enough that everyone knows someone who is in one, whether they know it or not. If one tries a general relationship forum, they may encounter much prejudice and hostility, if the administrators even allow them to participate. There is at least one forum dealing with Genetic Sexual Attraction that takes a tone unwelcoming to those in lasting, happy relationships. While there are several forums that discuss consanguinamory in a supportive or encouraging way, they seem to be more about erotica and fantasy than dealing with real-life issues of relationships and living with something that is discriminated against in law and public opinion. Most people who are happy in their relationships are not going to bother with forums, either due to lack of interest, time constraints, or a perceived risk to their relationship and freedom.

The best place I know of for discussing the consanguinamorous life is Kindred Spirits forum, which is free to the user. If you go there, be sure to immediately read and follow all of the rules, or you'll be kicked right off.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

By: Timothy P. Flynn

A secret court; something very offensive to our Democracy.  Even as lawyers, we here at the Law Blogger had never heard of such a stealth tribunal until Edward Snowden blew the whistle on one of its rulings [i.e. the FISA Court's "classified" order to turn over all of Verizon's phone tracing data to the NSA].

Actually, the FISA Court has been around since the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  Following the September 11th terrorist attacks on our country back in 2001, FISA has been repeatedly amended, primarily through the Patriot Act.

Not surprisingly, since 9/11, FISA has expanded steadily along with the powers of the FISA Court.  The Bush Administration based its warrantless wiretapping practice on FISA; the Obama Administration, to the surprise of many of its supporters, has not only continued the program, but expanded the scope of electronic surveillance to apparently everyone in America.

The Edward Snowden case has shined a light on the 11-member FISA Court.  What that light has shown is that the secret court has evolved from providing quick case-by-case rulings on electronic surveillance scenarios, to building a body of "classified" constitutional decisions that are now hefting the weight of judicial precedent; all without a scintilla of public scrutiny.

We here at the Law Blogger would like to know:  who is on this secret court?  What decisions are they making that may affect our right to privacy?  And do we even still have a right to privacy while connected to the internet or connected to a cell phone?

The FISA Court's recent classified decisions have become so constitutionally significant that a recent NYT article compares the secret court to a "parallel Supreme Court".

One example of the shrouded jurisprudence emanating from the FISA Court is the application of the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment in terrorism cases.  Normally, law enforcement cannot conduct a search or seizure of a person without a warrant based on probable cause.

In 1989, SCOTUS created the "special needs" exception to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement in the context of public transportation.  SCOTUS ruled that public railway workers could be drug-tested by the government without a warrant on the basis that the minimal privacy intrusion of the worker was superseded by the need for public transportation safety.

Apply this logic to the modern terrorism cases, and any matter that evokes our "national security" opens the door for the FISA Court to invoke the "special needs" exception.  This fast-expanding exception is now poised to swallow the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement whole.

Although we do not get to read the secret court's decisions, from which there is a very limited and rarely used appeal process, we are told -via the NYT- that a sturdy pillar of jurisprudence and precedent has arisen from the FISA Court: the collection of Metadata does not offend the 4th Amendment.

Well, ok, if the Star Chamber says so.  But we here at the Law Blogger thought that ours was an adversarial justice system characterized by thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Post Script: October 15, 2013 - The FISA has given the green light in several of its recent cases for the NSA to continue to collect cell phone use data on U.S. Citizens.  We wonder if our emails are also subject to NSA scrutiny...

www.clarkstonlegal.com


Friday, July 5, 2013

Polyamory Still Rising

If you'll pardon the expression, an awareness of polyamory continues to undergo an erection in the public consciousness, with the pace accelerating over the last week or two. One of many examples is this piece by Kjeld Lindsted at policymic.com...   
For anyone new to the term, Polyamory comes in as many varieties as there are participants. Relationship structure is not defined in the community, individuals do what works best for them. If there is any sweeping feature defining polyamory it's probably communication. In fact, while very little research has been done (though this is starting to change) the available data strongly suggests that polyamorous individuals are actually better at maintaining (and navigating) relationships than most monogamous people; and herein lies the golden egg behind the movements growing success.
I do believe that monogamy is best for some, but polyamory is best for others.

The writer then goes into issues of solidarity...
Ironically, however, there is something of a disconnect in the LGBT community when it comes to recognizing polyamory. Standing on the edge of success (or perhaps tipping into success) the gay rights movement has been hesitant to embrace other forms of relationship freedom for fear of tossing free ammunition to conservative opposition. While there is some merit to these fears, giving into them ultimately undermines the legitimacy of both movements. Some LGBT proponents have even gone so far as to suggest that polyamory is a "choice" while being gay is genetic. Oh how the tables turn ... There is of course no substance to the argument, research repeatedly shows that many sexual preferences are biological in origin and that most of the rest are shaped early, but its all too easy to look the other way once your particular group has achieved some measure of success.

We should all stand up for the rights of ALL consenting adults.

Polyamory Still Rising

If you'll pardon the expression, an awareness of polyamory continues to undergo an erection in the public consciousness, with the pace accelerating over the last week or two. One of many examples is this piece by Kjeld Lindsted at policymic.com...   
For anyone new to the term, Polyamory comes in as many varieties as there are participants. Relationship structure is not defined in the community, individuals do what works best for them. If there is any sweeping feature defining polyamory it's probably communication. In fact, while very little research has been done (though this is starting to change) the available data strongly suggests that polyamorous individuals are actually better at maintaining (and navigating) relationships than most monogamous people; and herein lies the golden egg behind the movements growing success.
I do believe that monogamy is best for some, but polyamory is best for others.

The writer then goes into issues of solidarity...
Ironically, however, there is something of a disconnect in the LGBT community when it comes to recognizing polyamory. Standing on the edge of success (or perhaps tipping into success) the gay rights movement has been hesitant to embrace other forms of relationship freedom for fear of tossing free ammunition to conservative opposition. While there is some merit to these fears, giving into them ultimately undermines the legitimacy of both movements. Some LGBT proponents have even gone so far as to suggest that polyamory is a "choice" while being gay is genetic. Oh how the tables turn ... There is of course no substance to the argument, research repeatedly shows that many sexual preferences are biological in origin and that most of the rest are shaped early, but its all too easy to look the other way once your particular group has achieved some measure of success.

We should all stand up for the rights of ALL consenting adults.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Equality, Life, Liberty, and Happiness


Thursday is Independence Day in the US, considered our country's birthday. Connected to the day is the Declaration of Independence, which touts equality and notes that we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, equality was reserved for white, landowning, heterosexual, Christian males. Great strides have been made to extend equality to everyone else. As we know, equality just for some is not equality. In recent times, we have seen the death of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for military service and just the other day we saw the burials of Prop H8 of at least part of DOMA.

President Obama and more states have evolved to support the limited same-gender freedom to marry. More people are coming out of the closet, and more allies are coming out in support of equality.

But we’re still on our journey. Equality, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are, in many places in the US, and at the national government level, still denied to LGBT people. Even more so, these rights are denied to the polyamorous and the consanguinamorous.

Let’s keep moving forward so that an adult, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender, is free to pursue love, sex, residence and marriage with any and all consenting adults, and not be denied liberty, employment, housing, or anything else.

This isn't just a philosophical thing or a principle. There are people, good people, who are hurt by ongoing discrimination, prejudice, and ignorance. There are people just being themselves, hurting nobody, and people who are in loving, healthy relationships who are being denied their rights, who have to hide who they are or their love for each other, who constantly endure people proclaiming that the love they share is sick or disgusting or makes them worthy of being subjected to abuse or death. There are teenagers who have simply behaved as normal teenagers with each other and haven't hurt anybody (including each other or themselves) who are being lied to and told that nobody else is like them and they are depraved. That's no way to have to live, it certainly isn't liberty, and it squashes the pursuit of happiness.

They need to know they are not alone, and there's nothing wrong with them.

We need independence from hate and ignorance. So let's keep evolving America, and encourage other countries to do the same.

Equality, Life, Liberty, and Happiness


Thursday is Independence Day in the US, considered our country's birthday. Connected to the day is the Declaration of Independence, which touts equality and notes that we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, equality was reserved for white, landowning, heterosexual, Christian males. Great strides have been made to extend equality to everyone else. As we know, equality just for some is not equality. In recent times, we have seen the death of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for military service and just the other day we saw the burials of Prop H8 of at least part of DOMA.

President Obama and more states have evolved to support the limited same-gender freedom to marry. More people are coming out of the closet, and more allies are coming out in support of equality.

But we’re still on our journey. Equality, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are, in many places in the US, and at the national government level, still denied to LGBT people. Even more so, these rights are denied to the polyamorous and the consanguinamorous.

Let’s keep moving forward so that an adult, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender, is free to pursue love, sex, residence and marriage with any and all consenting adults, and not be denied liberty, employment, housing, or anything else.

This isn't just a philosophical thing or a principle. There are people, good people, who are hurt by ongoing discrimination, prejudice, and ignorance. There are people just being themselves, hurting nobody, and people who are in loving, healthy relationships who are being denied their rights, who have to hide who they are or their love for each other, who constantly endure people proclaiming that the love they share is sick or disgusting or makes them worthy of being subjected to abuse or death. There are teenagers who have simply behaved as normal teenagers with each other and haven't hurt anybody (including each other or themselves) who are being lied to and told that nobody else is like them and they are depraved. That's no way to have to live, it certainly isn't liberty, and it squashes the pursuit of happiness.

They need to know they are not alone, and there's nothing wrong with them.

We need independence from hate and ignorance. So let's keep evolving America, and encourage other countries to do the same.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Polyamorists React to Court Decision on DOMA

First and foremost, I join with many others in congratulating everyone in the US who will be able to marry the person they love and have that marriage be recognized under federal law, due to the Supreme Court decision on DOMA. Enjoy, all you newlyweds!

As readers of my blog are well aware, we have a long way to go on relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults, but progress is better than no progress.

The court decision has resulted in much discussion in polyamory and polgamy circles, and by journalists who cover them.

At Radical Poly Agenda, this was the initial posting reacting to the decision.



Over at BuzzFeed, an article went up about polygamists celebrating the DOMA ruling. Though polygamy only technically means multiple marriage, we all know that it’s traditionally associated with certain fundamentalist religious practices. As more articles like this appear, it’s going to be important for polyamorists to make our voices heard as well, and to clarify how we differ in practice from one-sided patriarchal polygamy.

Over at Poly In the Media, Alan offered a little round-up of his own, featuring a handful of articles about multi-partner marriage that have cropped up in the past few days.

At Modern Poly, several new articles with a variety of perspectives on the theme of marriage were published in June, just ahead of the court’s ruling.
A great round-up by RPA.
As I’m in the early stages of planning my own (non-legal) wedding with one of my partners, this is all a very timely discussion for me. The jury is still out among poly activists as to whether marriage rights are really something we consider a pressing issue, though the majority of us seem to feel we’d like to have that right (or to see marriage de-regulated entirely) someday.
A subsequent update had this...
The fact that some plural marriages, like plenty of monogamous marriages, happen in a problematic way is not a moral argument against the entire institution. I don’t believe that poly marriage is right around the corner. But if I’m going to defend the ethical implications of it, I’m going to do so in a way that says “if this happened tomorrow, so what? Have you stopped and thought about whether there’s really anything ethically different about this than about monogamous marriage, gay or straight?”
The best answer to bigots who ask, "Is polyamorous marriage next?" or "Is polygamy next?" or "What's next?" is to ask, "What's is the problem with letting consenting adults marry?"

The blog entries deal with the larger issues of societal conventions.
And I feel like we can say “you know, I really just want to marry two people and live in the suburbs” and leave it at that. Or we can have these conversations about radically challenging the dominant power structures. And I think we can do both of these things at the same time; I’m living with my partners in the suburbs, after all. But I think if we allow marriage to become the entirety of the conversation, we’re really missing out on a much larger and more important opportunity to situate ourselves as part of a broader system of hierarchies and oppressions.
I do understand the point RPA is making. Marriage is not everything when it comes to rights. But marriage equality is the focus of this blog. So let's make the most of these moments and keep momentum building.

Polyamorists React to Court Decision on DOMA

First and foremost, I join with many others in congratulating everyone in the US who will be able to marry the person they love and have that marriage be recognized under federal law, due to the Supreme Court decision on DOMA. Enjoy, all you newlyweds!

As readers of my blog are well aware, we have a long way to go on relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults, but progress is better than no progress.

The court decision has resulted in much discussion in polyamory and polgamy circles, and by journalists who cover them.

At Radical Poly Agenda, this was the initial posting reacting to the decision.



Over at BuzzFeed, an article went up about polygamists celebrating the DOMA ruling. Though polygamy only technically means multiple marriage, we all know that it’s traditionally associated with certain fundamentalist religious practices. As more articles like this appear, it’s going to be important for polyamorists to make our voices heard as well, and to clarify how we differ in practice from one-sided patriarchal polygamy.

Over at Poly In the Media, Alan offered a little round-up of his own, featuring a handful of articles about multi-partner marriage that have cropped up in the past few days.

At Modern Poly, several new articles with a variety of perspectives on the theme of marriage were published in June, just ahead of the court’s ruling.
A great round-up by RPA.
As I’m in the early stages of planning my own (non-legal) wedding with one of my partners, this is all a very timely discussion for me. The jury is still out among poly activists as to whether marriage rights are really something we consider a pressing issue, though the majority of us seem to feel we’d like to have that right (or to see marriage de-regulated entirely) someday.
A subsequent update had this...
The fact that some plural marriages, like plenty of monogamous marriages, happen in a problematic way is not a moral argument against the entire institution. I don’t believe that poly marriage is right around the corner. But if I’m going to defend the ethical implications of it, I’m going to do so in a way that says “if this happened tomorrow, so what? Have you stopped and thought about whether there’s really anything ethically different about this than about monogamous marriage, gay or straight?”
The best answer to bigots who ask, "Is polyamorous marriage next?" or "Is polygamy next?" or "What's next?" is to ask, "What's is the problem with letting consenting adults marry?"

The blog entries deal with the larger issues of societal conventions.
And I feel like we can say “you know, I really just want to marry two people and live in the suburbs” and leave it at that. Or we can have these conversations about radically challenging the dominant power structures. And I think we can do both of these things at the same time; I’m living with my partners in the suburbs, after all. But I think if we allow marriage to become the entirety of the conversation, we’re really missing out on a much larger and more important opportunity to situate ourselves as part of a broader system of hierarchies and oppressions.
I do understand the point RPA is making. Marriage is not everything when it comes to rights. But marriage equality is the focus of this blog. So let's make the most of these moments and keep momentum building.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Bus Sighting in Defense of Limited Same-Gender Freedom to Marry

Last week, the US Supreme Court took a step forward by advancing the limited same-gender freedom to marry by overturning a key provision of the federal DOMA law, and letting stand a federal court's decision overturning California's PropH8, which banned same-gender marriages in the state. This has prompted varied reactions, mostly celebratory, across the country. However, those who oppose equality have been expressing their displeasure, of course. At theunion.com, someone by the name of Richard Hill wrote a letter that asked if "incest" was next.

Writing a responding letter, rather than standing up for full marriage equality, Jim Richards of Nevada City threw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus. This is all too typical.
Richard Hill‘s letter to the editor, titled “Is incest next,” shows his lack of knowledge of biology. It has been known for long time that inbreeding leads to a higher probability of birth defects. The prohibition of incest and, thus, inbreeding is to protect the child produced by the couple, which makes sense as good science.

Thus, Richards invokes Discredited Argument #18. I thoroughly debunk that argument in this entry. Discrimination against consanguineous relationships has nothing to do with genetics. The prohibitions are rooted in traditions instituted to control the sexuality of others (the same reason for bans on same-gender relationships) and to reserve consanguinamory to the privileged. Inbreeding isn't even a factor in most consanguineous relationships.
Human beings form bonded pairs not just for the purpose of raising children but for the human need for companionship and love. If pairing was only for procreation, then couples would divide up after their offspring were grown. That doesn’t happen because people crave companionship. They want to be a couple. Society has developed hundreds of rules for married couples that improve their lives. Gay couples should also be able to take advantage of those rules as well.

Polyamorous and consanguinamorous relationships are about companionship and love, too. Also, there are many people who do break up after their offspring are grown, but he's right in that we don't limit marriage to people who are raising children. Everyone in consensual adult relationships should have equal access to their government and relationship rights.

Rather than coming up with convoluted schemes for denying rights to some people while recognizing the rights of others, how about we admit that equality just for some is not equality and support the rights of all adults to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults?

When a bigot says, "What's next?" we should respond with "Freedom for all consenting adults. What's wrong with that?"

Bus Sighting in Defense of Limited Same-Gender Freedom to Marry

Last week, the US Supreme Court took a step forward by advancing the limited same-gender freedom to marry by overturning a key provision of the federal DOMA law, and letting stand a federal court's decision overturning California's PropH8, which banned same-gender marriages in the state. This has prompted varied reactions, mostly celebratory, across the country. However, those who oppose equality have been expressing their displeasure, of course. At theunion.com, someone by the name of Richard Hill wrote a letter that asked if "incest" was next.

Writing a responding letter, rather than standing up for full marriage equality, Jim Richards of Nevada City threw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus. This is all too typical.
Richard Hill‘s letter to the editor, titled “Is incest next,” shows his lack of knowledge of biology. It has been known for long time that inbreeding leads to a higher probability of birth defects. The prohibition of incest and, thus, inbreeding is to protect the child produced by the couple, which makes sense as good science.

Thus, Richards invokes Discredited Argument #18. I thoroughly debunk that argument in this entry. Discrimination against consanguineous relationships has nothing to do with genetics. The prohibitions are rooted in traditions instituted to control the sexuality of others (the same reason for bans on same-gender relationships) and to reserve consanguinamory to the privileged. Inbreeding isn't even a factor in most consanguineous relationships.
Human beings form bonded pairs not just for the purpose of raising children but for the human need for companionship and love. If pairing was only for procreation, then couples would divide up after their offspring were grown. That doesn’t happen because people crave companionship. They want to be a couple. Society has developed hundreds of rules for married couples that improve their lives. Gay couples should also be able to take advantage of those rules as well.

Polyamorous and consanguinamorous relationships are about companionship and love, too. Also, there are many people who do break up after their offspring are grown, but he's right in that we don't limit marriage to people who are raising children. Everyone in consensual adult relationships should have equal access to their government and relationship rights.

Rather than coming up with convoluted schemes for denying rights to some people while recognizing the rights of others, how about we admit that equality just for some is not equality and support the rights of all adults to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults?

When a bigot says, "What's next?" we should respond with "Freedom for all consenting adults. What's wrong with that?"

When Polyamorists Become Parents

Red Peril writes on parenting and polyamory at More Than Nuclear. In this entry, Red addresses "But what about the children?" She mentions being subjected to insults because of her sexual and relationship orientation.
The assumption is that although it may be one thing to be non-monogamous without children, if you decide to start a family, it's really time to put all that aside and just be normal, for the sake of the children.

With that in mind, my theory about the spectrum of acceptance of alternative lifestyles runs broadly along these lines:
  1. Your way of life is immoral and you disgust me (no acceptance).
  2. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is okay, but don't rub my nose in it in public.
  3. I have no problem with you or your way of life, but I think that all children need one mother and one father, so you shouldn't ever have children.
  4. How you live, who you are or what you have chosen may or may not be for me, but it shouldn't prevent you from the same range of possible participation in society that everyone else has (full acceptance).
That's a good way of putting in as basic terms as possible.

Elizabeth Sheff has conducted some of the most extensive research into polyamorous parenting so far, and one of her interesting findings is that far from being confused or by their non-traditional families, children aged 5-8 with three or more parents barely seem to even notice. Children are pretty self-centred, and so how the adults in their life relate to each other isn't particularly important to them. "A 6-year-old may not think of someone as mommy's girlfriend, but think of that person as 'the one who brings Legos' or 'the one who takes me out to ice cream," Sheff explains. To think about it another way, if you had close relationships as a child with non-parental members of your biological family, how much thought did you give to the fact that your uncle was your mother's brother, or your grandmother was your father's mother? I'm willing to bet that that was far less important and interesting than the time the two of you spent together, and the bond that was personal to you.
Read the rest here.

How can it be bad for a child to see adults behaving is a loving, friendly, and cooperative way with each other? How can it be bad for a child to have more adults being a positive influence on their lives? As with monogamous parents, this is all subject to the adults being kind and loving people, rather than abusers or otherwise toxic. In some cultures, including some Western ones, it has long been standard (or used to be) for children to grow up with more than three adults in the home, especially grandparents, aunts, and uncles.

Imagine if people were more honest and rather than claiming children are going to have a problem with their parents' relationships, they simply admitted, "I don't get it" or "I'm uncomfortable with the thought of this?"

Friday, June 28, 2013

Life Sentence in Nevada Case

Updating a case we last covered here, a man has been sentenced to life in prison (with the possibility of parole) in Nevada for "incest." Life is an appropriate sentence for rape. I had not previously seen any indication that this was rape, and he wasn't changed with with rape. Remember, the age of consent in Nevada is 16. Here's the the article at elkodaily.com by Dylan Woolf Harris...

A young woman — who five years earlier was a teenage victim of incest — testified Thursday in Elko District Court to the humiliation, anger and isolation she has suffered.
  
Rarely looking up and never at defendant Aaron Hughes, the victim tearfully read a letter she wrote for the court addressing how the crime affected her life.

“I have lost so much faith in what is good and what is true,” she said.

That sounds like she is describing being assaulted or abused. But...

The high profile case caused the victim humiliation from which she’s had trouble recovering, she said.

“I have convinced myself that I have moved on so many times only to have my feet ripped out from beneath me again and again,” she said. “This case has been continued for way too long. … I blame (Hughes) for his mistakes because I’m being dragged through the mud right behind him.”
That doesn't sound like abuse or assault. Those are not "mistakes," those are terrible deliberate acts. So this still sounds like it was consensual. At least of it was caught on video. If it was assault, then it should have been easy to prosecute him for that.

Porter, bound by statute to sentence Hughes to life in prison for incest with parole eligibility after two years, had the option of suspending the sentence and giving the defendant probation.

Porter denied granting Hughes probation, however.

“I think you understand why,” she said to the defendant.

Porter also denied a request by the defense to allow Hughes a one-day stay before being taken into custody. Hughes was cuffed and escorted out of the courtroom by sheriff’s deputies past the near-full courtroom gallery that included many law enforcement officers as well as Hughes’ and the victim’s family and friends.

Hughes had been a police officer.
Defense attorney Tammy Riggs called Dr. William O’Donohue, a licensed psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Nevada, Reno to the stand as an expert witness. O’Donohue evaluated Hughes prior to the hearing and determined the defendant to be an extremely low risk to reoffend.

O’Donohue noted in his report that he didn’t find indicators in Hughes that typically precede relapse into deviant sexual behavior. He also said Hughes’ social personality, excellent impulse control, intelligence and otherwise healthy relationships would serve him well in recovery.

“The final strength is he is not in denial. One of the most difficult things we have in repeated sex offenders is they say it didn’t happen. He’s admitting that this happened,” O’Donohue said.
If it was consensual, he shouldn't have any reason to deny it, other than ridiculous laws against consensual sex.
Hughes was arrested in 2008. During an investigation related to stolen property allegations, sheriff’s deputies found a video depicting Hughes and a 17-year-old relative engaging in sexual acts.
No charge or conviction on stolen property?

So what do we have here. The woman didn't complain. Someone else found the video do to what may have been an unrelated investigation and that is how this became a case. Is that why she has suffered, because the law still criminalizes consensual sex in cases like this, and law enforcement chose to pursue this? From reading the full article and past articles on the case, it sounds like the woman would have been just fine if this case had never been brought, and Hughes would be harming nobody. She wasn't suffering in silence and he wasn't preying on anyone.

Is this a travesty? A waste of taxpayer resources? The needless destruction of several lives? We need consistency in our laws. If a young woman of 17 years of age can legally consent to group sex with complete strangers, why not with one person she knows and loves?

Categories