January 23rd, 2015
Here’s law professor Josh Blackman explaining why banning adult incest is likely to be very difficult:
First, the father and daughter are both consenting adults who are claim to love each other, and enjoy sexual relations with each other. Why should the state have any interest in their private lives. They aren’t even seeking any recognition of their relationship.
Second, as we learned in Windsor and its progeny, the state has no compelling interest in encouraging responsible procreation. That incestuous relationship may yield children with birth defects, under strict scrutiny, is not a sufficient reason to stop them from cohabitation. . . .
Third, we learned in Windsor that traditional notions of morality are grounded in animus, and do not provide a valid basis for infringing on personal relationships. The New Jersey legislator said as much: adult incestuous relationships “violate our acceptable moral standards.” That’s a per se violation of the principles of Romer.
Fourth, to the extent that we look abroad to international law to inform evolving standards of decency, experts in Switzerland and Germany have proposed decriminalizing adult incest.
He then goes on to ask (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) on what grounds we might deny marriage to incestuous adult couples:
And if siblings are allowed to have sexual relationships, why shouldn’t they be able to receive a marriage license. Why should the government deny them a license if the couple asked for one? Granted, there is no social movement pushing for incestuous marriages, like there is for same-sex marriage.
Ah, but if there were a social movement . . .
But don’t worry; it’ll be here before you know it. After the transgender campaign is won, the left will need another frontier. That’s the thing about the sexual revolution: It’s one of those endless wars that never really concludes.
Nedward January 24, 2015 at 5:06 pm
New Jersey doesn’t let you pump your own gas, but they overlooked this? Forget it Jon, it’s China Township