Thoughts from Eugene Volokh. I found interesting the comment about the intrinsic incompatibility between Christian and Jewish law in this regard. But I agree with Glenn — if father/daughter relations are an intrinsic part of the culture at Columbia University, academia is in even bigger trouble than we thought.
5 thoughts on “Cultural Defenses Of Incest”
Comments are closed.
I was surprised to see how quickly the arguments for defending gay marriage were used to defend this guy. Sure, that slippery slope was predicted (and predictable), but I thought it would take longer.
If the laws of marriage and procreation are going to rest on any firm footing (and not lead to n-member marriages between any number of sentient adults of any gender or relation), they can be based solely on the moral consensus of the community. That may seem subjective and arbitrary to some, but it really is the only way to fend off a legal right incest and polygamy.*
*Assuming you want to fend that off, of course.
Looking at Volokh’s posts on incest, it occurs to me one could make exactly the same arguments in favor of legalizing bestiality as well.
Looking at Volokh’s posts on incest, it occurs to me one could make exactly the same arguments in favor of legalizing bestiality as well.
I don’t see how. That doesn’t involve mutual consent of adult humans.
To those of you not fathers of daughters, every normal father I know would shun this scumbag and relieve him of his ability to breathe if the professor ever came close to his own daughter. Yes, even in adulthood. Legality wouldn’t enter into it.
Justice Scalia pretty much agreed with Casey’s point in his dissent on the Lawrence v Texas case. He argued that the case was ruled so broadly that it could be used to cover just about anything.
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”