Could the Supreme Court embrace incest?

[Don Corleone]

I don't think it's fine. I think that the reasoning used in Lawerence opens a lot of doors, and incest is one of them. Lawerence states that moral codes cannot be used unless a direct interest of the state can be invoked. I'm arguing that any so-called interest the state has in banning incest can be linked back to squeamishness stemming from a moral/religious code and is not constitutional.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think it's fine. I think that the reasoning used in Lawerence opens a lot of doors, and incest is one of them. Lawerence states that moral codes cannot be used unless a direct interest of the state can be invoked. I'm arguing that any so-called interest the state has in banning incest can be linked back to squeamishness stemming from a moral/religious code and is not constitutional.

well put, i agree

[Papewaio]

Pape

I think you are confusing genes with chromosomes. We have 46 pairs of chromosomes (23 from each parent) and on each chromosome there are thousands fo genes. To a first approximation your analysis is correct, but there is a mechanism for genes to swap between chromosome pairs making the chances of siblings having totally different genes even less likely.

Oops yes 23 paired sets of genes (chromosomes), was concentrating on getting the numbeer... and it is still 23 pairs...

[Papewaio]

I don't think it's fine. I think that the reasoning used in Lawerence opens a lot of doors, and incest is one of them. Lawerence states that moral codes cannot be used unless a direct interest of the state can be invoked. I'm arguing that any so-called interest the state has in banning incest can be linked back to squeamishness stemming from a moral/religious code and is not constitutional.

A doubling of the rate of handicaped children of incest is a burden to the state.

[Es Arkajae]

I think the High Court of any nation is smart enough not to fly in the face of too much of the country's morals too blatantly even if they wanted to.

Laws are by their nature moral creatures, and a courts job is to interpret law not make its own or throw out morals as unimportant, if it wishes to fly in the face of the legislature AND the people, its asking for itself to be disbanded or somehow taken down a few pegs otherwise.

I can't ever see incest becoming socially acceptable, homosexuality at least doesn't result in inbred offspring.

[Don Corleone]

I think the High Court of any nation is smart enough not to fly in the face of too much of the country's morals too blatantly even if they wanted to.

Laws are by their nature moral creatures, and a courts job is to interpret law not make its own or throw out morals as unimportant, if it wishes to fly in the face of the legislature AND the people, its asking for itself to be disbanded or somehow taken down a few pegs otherwise.

I can't ever see incest becoming socially acceptable, homosexuality at least doesn't result in inbred offspring.

Now this really frightens me. I can understand having a morale base to your legal code. And I can even understand (but disagree with) saying you must purge morality from your legal code. But what you're advocating 'some morality is okay, some isn't' really frightens me. Essentially, what you're advocating is that the Supreme Court will decide what is an acceptable moral stance and what is not. That runs deep chills down my spine.

[Don Corleone]

The chance of having 'no relation' ie no identical gene for siblings is 1 in 2^23. Or one chance in eight million siblings of having no shared genes.

If they do have identical genes then there is a 1/4 chance per same set of genes of having an offspring with two identical genes... and a high chance of a genetic disorder. In all likely hood the siblings are going to have half of the same genes meaning a very very high chance over 23 pairs of any offspring being born with a pair of identical genes.

Each time a generation repeats an incest pairing the odds increase dramatically of the offspring of having identical gene pairs.

I'm not a geneticist, but I believe it's pretty clear you aren't either, no offense Pape.

You're assuming that everyone actually carries these recessive traits in their genetic structure. But as they're not expressed, it's almost impossible to make that determination. It's entirely possible, and I would imagine in most cases more likely, that both siblings are missing the recessive failing gene. Your mathematical analysis assumes that both both siblings would have the genetic markers for these defects, if one did.

Believe it or not, inbreeding doesn't 'cause' genetic defects. What it actually does is distill the expression of recessive traits picked up through outbreeding. If human population ALWAYS inbred, there would be no genetic diseases, assuming those that expressed the undesired traits weren't breeding. Outbreeding is what creates these recessive traits, but it's also what allows for improvement. Inbreeding just purifies what's already there.

In any case, using your argument that the state has a vested interest in seeing to it that 'at-risk' children aren't born, shouldn't the state have the right to sterilize women at age 40, to protect itself from the much more risky scenario of older women giving birth to Down's syndrome children at a much higher rate?

[Bartix]

as long as condescending adulterers, I see no reason why not incestuous relation, but no nothing of constitution.
EUgenics should say many people other than family should not have kids.
Must be up to poor judgement of individual, or have scary fascist state. Like pre WW2 neuter gypsies etc.

[Es Arkajae]

Now this really frightens me. I can understand having a morale base to your legal code. And I can even understand (but disagree with) saying you must purge morality from your legal code. But what you're advocating 'some morality is okay, some isn't' really frightens me. Essentially, what you're advocating is that the Supreme Court will decide what is an acceptable moral stance and what is not. That runs deep chills down my spine.

!???

I'm trying to figure out just how in the hell you managed to get that out of my post and I'm drawing a blank?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I have a completely off-topic question, though this thread seems a good place to ask: are 'SCOTUS', 'SC' and 'Supreme Court' perfect synonyms? Do they carry any emotional value or are they 'neutral' terminology? Are person's of any political persuasion more likely to use one term for the Supreme Court over the other?

Sorry, but American politics are often a battle over words and definition to, an aspect that is hard to keep up with from abroad.

* I'm just curious, no strings attached *

[Don Corleone]

Supreme Court, and Supreme Court of the United States are the neutral terms.

SC is extreme shorthand. I haven't seen it used very much.

SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States. It was developed by National Review (a right wing policy journal published by William F. Buckley) to give a menacing tone to the body. I freely use it, as I view that body of 9 dictators to be quite menacing.

[Don Corleone]

!???

I'm trying to figure out just how in the hell you managed to get that out of my post and I'm drawing a blank?

You didn't come right out and say it, but who would you appoint as the arbiter of what's acceptable morality and what's unacceptable? I wasn't saying you favor that position, I was saying what you're discussing 'acceptable levels of morality' would necessarily lead to this.

My apologies if that came off as a jab at you. You need to be American to understand just how disengaged from common sense and logic our legal system is. If you set a precedence such as "what's a tolerable amount of morality" as precedent, that's opening a floodgate of rulings where SCOTUS (for you Louis, note the usage) will arbitrarily decide which moral traditions are acceptable and which must be verboten.

[Red Harvest]

I was speaking to your point on statutory rape.

Then I'm really confused since in the "good old days" an "old fart" could marry a 13 or 14 year old girl. Many things that were acceptable not all that long ago would be unacceptable now (and for good reason in my opinion.)

There was a case like this with a not so old fart (about 20) marrying a 13 or 14 year old in Nebraska IIRC and then being charged in Kansas where they both lived or vice versa. It wasn't an incest thing, but age of consent.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Supreme Court, and Supreme Court of the United States are the neutral terms.

SC is extreme shorthand. I haven't seen it used very much.

SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States. It was developed by National Review (a right wing policy journal published by William F. Buckley) to give a menacing tone to the body.

Is this almost Orwellian fixation on rewriting language limited to the right wing? Or is America's political polarization so complete that both parties feel the need to have two sets of words for every concept?

[Don Corleone]

We both do it, only the Right Wing admits to it.

Let me pick an issue at random from the headlines... okay, I have one...
NY TImes decides to investegate Justice Roberts' adopted kids

Let me do my best to describe the story, first in Left speak, then in Right speak...

Left version: In an attempt to get to the bottom of mysterious conditions surrounding ulta-convervative Justice John Roberts' adoption of two central American toddlers, the New York Times bravely met its responsiblity to the American public. It decided to politely, sensitively and carefully see to it that in the adoption of these children, Justice Roberts didn't continue in his well documented, widely known disrespect for the law in his own life.

Right version: In a massive smear campaign, the Democrats' media consultants, aka the NY Times has targeted the 2 adopted children of Justice John Roberts. Having been able to find nothing to smear Justice Roberts with, Leahy and Kennedy apparently ordered their spin doctors at the NY Times to find something on Roberts' kids. Who knows what the Times will out poor little Josie(5) and Jack (4) over... maybe they'll attempt to portray Roberts as a bad father and use the children's toilet training habits. What is known is that regardless of the avenue they choose, the Democrats and the NY Times are out to get Roberts' kids, because they can't get Roberts.

[Es Arkajae]

You didn't come right out and say it, but who would you appoint as the arbiter of what's acceptable morality and what's unacceptable? I wasn't saying you favor that position, I was saying what you're discussing 'acceptable levels of morality' would necessarily lead to this.

My apologies if that came off as a jab at you. You need to be American to understand just how disengaged from common sense and logic our legal system is. If you set a precedence such as "what's a tolerable amount of morality" as precedent, that's opening a floodgate of rulings where SCOTUS (for you Louis, note the usage) will arbitrarily decide which moral traditions are acceptable and which must be verboten.

ALL laws are based on morals, it is laws which the Courts have to work with and interpret.

Laws are made by the elected legislature who are elected by the enfranchised population, thus ultimately it is the people who decide what is morally acceptable.

I think the courts have a certain amount of leeway on the matter of interpretation in the application of laws to cases but they do NOT have the right to override societal morals expressed through legislation or to claim that they do not exist or are irrelevent. The government is not amoral, if it was then the people would have no need to owe it any alleigance and certainly no moral requirement to follow its laws.

[Red Harvest]

Now this really frightens me. I can understand having a morale base to your legal code. And I can even understand (but disagree with) saying you must purge morality from your legal code. But what you're advocating 'some morality is okay, some isn't' really frightens me. Essentially, what you're advocating is that the Supreme Court will decide what is an acceptable moral stance and what is not. That runs deep chills down my spine.

Don,

You are being naive if you don't think the courts throughout our history have not had to make such calls. It is done based on their interpretation of the morality of the time. Like it or not, that's the way the world really works. If you want it spelled out and codified, then you are going to need to amend the Constitution, because it is not directly addressed. Frankly, I would rather have the courts moderating this than those with the black and white views of everything--as I suspect that would leave us truly swinging from one extreme to the next. I would much rather have the Supremes making the call under public scrutiny, than Joe-Bob Podunk's Local Court doing it. The worst decisions I've seen come from the lower level courts and from all ends of the spectrum.

By the reasoning you are using, any state or the Feds could ban any practice hetero, homo, or whatever. That doesn't fit with my ideas of liberty.

What cases like this illustrate is that extreme views on either end are not very well supported. Folks like to castigate moderates for wanting a reasoned approach, but when you start digging into this it is clearly not such a simple black and white issue.

[Don Corleone]

ALL laws are based on morals, it is laws which the Courts have to work with and interpret.

Laws are made by the elected legislature who are elected by the enfranchised population, thus ultimately it is the people who decide what is morally acceptable.

I think the courts have a certain amount of leeway on the matter of interpretation in the application of laws to cases but they do NOT have the right to override societal morals expressed through legislation or to claim that they do not exist or are irrelevent. The government is not amoral, if it was then the people would have no need to owe it any alleigance and certainly no moral requirement to follow its laws.

I agree with you Es Arkajae (what does that mean anyway?) But your comments here show that you still (rightly) consider the role of the courts to be evaluator of law. They are not in America. In America, they issue law in the form of bench edicts. Gay marriage was ordered by the Massachussets Supreme Court. The seizure of personal property by local munical authorities for private gain by 3rd parties was also a law ordered by the US Supreme Court. All I'm trying to say is if you set a precedent of 'Allowing some morality into the legal system is okay, but too much is a bad thing', you're writing a blank check in the states for the Court system to go forward and begin declaring what people are and are not allowed to consider moral. I know it sounds insane, but it's the way things work here.

[Don Corleone]

Don,

You are being naive if you don't think the courts throughout our history have not had to make such calls. It is done based on their interpretation of the morality of the time. Like it or not, that's the way the world really works. If you want it spelled out and codified, then you are going to need to amend the Constitution, because it is not directly addressed. Frankly, I would rather have the courts moderating this than those with the black and white views of everything--as I suspect that would leave us truly swinging from one extreme to the next. I would much rather have the Supremes making the call under public scrutiny, than Joe-Bob Podunk's Local Court doing it. The worst decisions I've seen come from the lower level courts and from all ends of the spectrum.

By the reasoning you are using, any state or the Feds could ban any practice hetero, homo, or whatever. That doesn't fit with my ideas of liberty.

What cases like this illustrate is that extreme views on either end are not very well supported. Folks like to castigate moderates for wanting a reasoned approach, but when you start digging into this it is clearly not such a simple black and white issue.

You are misunderstanding or misstating my position. Of course courts have done it throughout history. But I don't want to formally recognize their power to do so!!! I mean, for Christ's sake Red, you're right, SCOTUS already has de facto power of life, death, property & family over me. They could sieze my children, take my house, toss me in jail, any time they feel like it. And they could claim that anybody that objected on moral grounds was ignorant. But they still have to sell that in the marketplace of public opinion. Why grant them the right to declare what is moral and what isn't? It truly makes them exempt from public opinion which is the last and only hurdle SCOTUS faces.

[Es Arkajae]

I agree with you Es Arkajae (what does that mean anyway?)

Its a phonetic juxtaposition of my initials SRKJ, I like it as it means I can usually use the same online name everywhere.

But your comments here show that you still (rightly) consider the role of the courts to be evaluator of law. They are not in America. In America, they issue law in the form of bench edicts. Gay marriage was ordered by the Massachussets Supreme Court. The seizure of personal property by local munical authorities for private gain by 3rd parties was also a law ordered by the US Supreme Court. All I'm trying to say is if you set a precedent of 'Allowing some morality into the legal system is okay, but too much is a bad thing', you're writing a blank check in the states for the Court system to go forward and begin declaring what people are and are not allowed to consider moral. I know it sounds insane, but it's the way things work here.

Thats not what your courts are at all, thats merely what they've been allowed to get away with. Thats the fault of your Congress.

[Red Harvest]

Don,

I'm not trying to twist what you are saying, but I don't see how you can believe that the courts have not always been the arbiters of such things.
They must rule on whether certain restrictions and apparent contradictions by the States, local, or Federal authorities are Constitutional. E.g. Some folks dislike gays, so they pass a broad sodomy law, it gets applied to various things, the various rulings are appealed to higher and higher courts.

The real enemy here is the highly charged attempts at modern morality legislation and enforcement. On one side you have a push for gay marriage, etc. while on the other end of the spectrum have people trying to force more puritanical religious views on the rest of us. Both of these are backfiring big time, because it is forcing careful scrutiny of legal wording written long ago, when different moral interpretations were in place than the current mainstream. And many things were not considered or addressed in the more Victorian era.

If you want these to be taken out of the hands of the courts, you are going to need some strong Federal legislation or more likely a Constitutional amendment to clarify the modern boundaries. It might not be a bad idea to spell out more clearly where the limits are between personal freedoms and socially imposed limits (through governmental actions.) The same might have to be done with marriage issues.

This reminds me somewhat of the gays in the military issue. It never was a big issue for me pro or con. I agree that an openly gay soldier/officer creates some serious problems in the U.S. military structure, but I don't have a problem with them having their personal privacy...as long as it remains private...when the cat is out of a bag, you have a problem. As such "don't ask, don't tell" makes sense to me as it avoids both the witch hunts and the potential unit cohesion disruptions of openly gay soldiers. It isn't perfect by a longshot, but there will always be villains and victims on both sides.

[ICantSpellDawg]

according to almost all mainstream morality - homosexuality is immoral, incest is immoral, abortion is immoral etc - if one appeals to a superlative morality these things can be legislated against

if morality is not based on a superlative and is, in fact, created by majority consensus - these things are still taken as immoral by the majority today

i wonder where people get the idea that government should circumvent both of these qualifiers of morality?

i'll tell you
they are adhering to a superlative morality of their own creation;
one based on modern beliefs and distrust of everythign from our past. I, personally, do not buy it.

if we are simply animals with no purpose - laws of consequence and nature are the deciders of our "fate". even with these laws as definitive with regards to what should and shouldnt happen, these things would die out as issues

we live in a society with laws based on morality with its roots in the superlative. if it doesnt, the entire concept of "democracy" is not an imperitive and can easily be usurped as our system of government by those who believe that they know better than everyone else

it, like everything, is a viscious and inherently senseless cycle.

to pick and choose what is moral, while practical, is totally contradictory and chops at the roots that sustain ones own legitimacy

[Red Harvest]

TuffStuff,

I might be missing where you are going with this...

Immoral and illegal are not necessarily the same thing. Nor is unethical and illegal. If you want to make everything immoral illegal, then you are going to run into some trouble in a hurry. Just because I find something immoral, doesn't mean that I believe it should be made illegal for others. (And no I'm not defending incest.)

Since moral beliefs do vary from society to society, religion to religion, and by many other variables, there is little in the way of moral absolutes. Since those shift over time, the only way you are going to fix them is to clarify the Constitutional basis where it fails to address them. We could throw polygamy into the mix here for example, considering that many biblical figures had multiple wives it is going to be difficult to say it is absolutely immoral, yet it is illegal.

So if we use the approach you suggest, it seems we get back to some sort of majority religous view--at least the one that is being used today. Of course, the absolutes of various religions have been changing over time as well. This absolute black and white view is itself an illusion.

[ichi]

Ichi won't be happy, GAH! is missing from the poll.

Absolutely, Gah! is a traditional option on polls at the Org.

...for there is no form of legal reasoning that can distinguish a “right” to commit homosexual sodomy from a “right” to marry your sister and raise a family. Only political reasoning — moral reasoning of the sort the Court condemned as tyrannical in Lawrence — can accomplish such a distinction, if it is possible at all.

There is substantial evidence that there is an increased chance of genetically programmed health problems from incestual reproduction.

Therefore the State has a compelling interest (protection of said offspring as well as protection of taxpayers who might have top pick up increased health care costs) to prohibit incest, while there is no compelling interest for the State to dictate with the gender of sexual partners.

Since government has a responsibility to minimize its involvement in the affairs of citizens, it has no duty to dictate the moral values of any particular group (such as the sex of the person with whom one achieves orgasm with) unless there is a compelling social interest that outwieghs government intrusion.

ichi

[Red Harvest]

There is substantial evidence that there is an increased chance of genetically programmed health problems from incestual reproduction.

Therefore the State has a compelling interest (protection of said offspring as well as protection of taxpayers who might have top pick up increased health care costs) to prohibit incest, while there is no compelling interest for the State to dictate with the gender of sexual partners.

Since government has a responsibility to minimize its involvement in the affairs of citizens, it has no duty to dictate the moral values of any particular group (such as the sex of the person with whom one achieves orgasm with) unless there is a compelling social interest that outwieghs government intrusion.

I agree with this approach at least when it pertains to the private affairs of citizens. However, it creates a loophole...the incest approach to it gets complicated if one of the partners is sterile (either by choice or voluntarily.)

[Proletariat]

...(protection of said offspring as well as protection of taxpayers who might have top pick up increased health care costs) to prohibit incest, while there is no compelling interest for the State to dictate with the gender of sexual partners.

Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total. *snip* According to CDC estimates, heterosexual contact led to about one third of new AIDS diagnoses and one third of new HIV diagnoses in 2003.

http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

Let's outlaw male-to-male homosexuality then.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Darn you, Proletariot! I saw this article before but let it slide!

Well, what if the two incestees (incesters?) are made to be unable to have children? And the relationship is consensual and say they're both in their thirties. On what grounds can you oppose their... relationship? Or, even better:

Can they marry?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by ichi
There is substantial evidence that there is an increased chance of genetically programmed health problems from incestual reproduction.

Therefore the State has a compelling interest (protection of said offspring as well as protection of taxpayers who might have top pick up increased health care costs) to prohibit incest, while there is no compelling interest for the State to dictate with the gender of sexual partners.

Since government has a responsibility to minimize its involvement in the affairs of citizens, it has no duty to dictate the moral values of any particular group (such as the sex of the person with whom one achieves orgasm with) unless there is a compelling social interest that outwieghs government intrusion..

According to this homosexulaity should be outlawed. Its a fact that homosexulas are more likely to die early and contract certain ailments. Don is right making incest against the law is just as unconstitutional as making homosexuality is. This is the slippery slope in US law. If you are going to make an exception for one then sooner or later your going to have to make one for the others.There is no compelling reason to favor homosexuals over incestous people.

[Red Harvest]

Can they marry?

Only if they are homosexuals...and only then in certain states. Sorry, couldn't pass that one up.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is incest itself against the law or just incestous marriage?