Incest, Sodomy, and the Constitution
When Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003 (the case saying a law prohibiting homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional), Justice Scalia warned that the holding meant a whole host of our laws might be unconstitutional as well. Liberals cried foul over comparisons of homosexual sex to incest, polygamy, and bestiality.
Well, it seems that Scalia was right. Numerous suits have been filed challenging just these sorts of laws. At this point, none of them have fallen, but the only real question is when, not if.
In June, the 7th Circuit, the appellate court covering Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, ruled that Wisconsin's incest law is not unconstitutional. While this is encouraging, the reasoning was not. The broad language used in Lawrence certainly does suggest that any sort of private consensual sex between adults is unconstitutional. How did the 7th Circuit get around this? They said that Lawrence did not specifically discuss incest. While this is true, it is painfully clear that the 7th Circuit was trying to find some way to limit the broad, expansive language in Lawrence, even though Lawrence clearly does apply if the opinion is to at all be taken seriously.
Whether a law banning consensual gay sex is good policy or not is a different question from whether such a law is unconstitutional. The Lawrence decision was a travesty, and has the makings of the foundation for a whole new set of "liberty" rights defined by the moral preferences of a majority of Supreme Court Justices. This is why our Courts are so important, and why we on the right must be vigilant in spreading a vision for the rule of law.
A law prohibiting incest is not unconstitutional because neither the text, intent, or structure of our Constitution in any way limit a state's ability to regulate private consensual sex between adult siblings. Whether this law is good or not is something that we the people have the authority to decide. Let's hope John Robert's Supreme Court understands this more than our current Court.
Well, it seems that Scalia was right. Numerous suits have been filed challenging just these sorts of laws. At this point, none of them have fallen, but the only real question is when, not if.
In June, the 7th Circuit, the appellate court covering Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, ruled that Wisconsin's incest law is not unconstitutional. While this is encouraging, the reasoning was not. The broad language used in Lawrence certainly does suggest that any sort of private consensual sex between adults is unconstitutional. How did the 7th Circuit get around this? They said that Lawrence did not specifically discuss incest. While this is true, it is painfully clear that the 7th Circuit was trying to find some way to limit the broad, expansive language in Lawrence, even though Lawrence clearly does apply if the opinion is to at all be taken seriously.
Whether a law banning consensual gay sex is good policy or not is a different question from whether such a law is unconstitutional. The Lawrence decision was a travesty, and has the makings of the foundation for a whole new set of "liberty" rights defined by the moral preferences of a majority of Supreme Court Justices. This is why our Courts are so important, and why we on the right must be vigilant in spreading a vision for the rule of law.
A law prohibiting incest is not unconstitutional because neither the text, intent, or structure of our Constitution in any way limit a state's ability to regulate private consensual sex between adult siblings. Whether this law is good or not is something that we the people have the authority to decide. Let's hope John Robert's Supreme Court understands this more than our current Court.
posted by Anonymous @ 10:41 PM
<< Home