Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Gay Rights=Incest Rights

Please do excuse the lack of blogging lately. Man, who knew blog traffic could slump so much from lack of posting (I think a lack of posting on other blogs I read has something to do with that too).

Anyway, I am out of my funk, I think, so that is good news. Thanks to the one anonymous commenter for the sage advice.

Now, on to the topic at hand. David Morrison has a post on his blog about an article from the Boston Globe that describes how a man is trying to use the overturning of the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case to get him out of his incest conviction. It's not like this is a new argument. Conservatives have been arguing that this would happen since before Lawrence. And, if you follow the slippery slope philosophy, I guess this is a conceivable notion.

This opinion piece, though, is really nothing more than just that, opinion. It brings up the bogey man of the slippery slope, but does nothing to talk about the differences in this particular case and the Lawrence ruling. Most noteably, that the two biological siblings had conceived and reared 4 children together. One of the common arguments outlawing incest takes into account the possible genetic disorders that can arise from children born of close relatives. So, this case moves well beyond a right to privacy case and into one where other people are affected. Not to mention some interesting questions as to the relationship of the two involved. I will say that 8 and 5 years in maximum security prisons does seem a bit harsh, though.

Without the details of the case, I can't go into more detail, except that this "slippery slope" case starts in the middle of the alleged slope rather than at the top. The problem is, gay relationships and sex used to be the bottom of the slope--the recognition of our society's morals going to pot. The jumping point for that slope? Such terrible things as interracial marriage, women's rights, etc. etc. But, those people so opposed to gays now wouldn't dare look back at how opposed many of their forefathers were to these types of rules. The sky didn't fall, and it still won't, but people will continue to fear that it will until the very end.

In the end, the sodomy laws brought down by Lawrence were unfair, unequal, and extremely prejudicial. Anyone saying otherwise has got an agenda of his or her own. Luckily, even many conservatives are admitting that (although even there the tables have changed since Lawrence). The incest idea may be enough to rile up some people, but just because things are similar does not mean they are one in the same.


At 13/9/05 11:20 AM, Anonymous Bruce Garrett said...

I remember David from the days when we both frequented a Washington D.C. area gay community BBS...GLIB (the Gay and Lesbian Information Bureau). He was a proud gay activist then. But before our eyes we all watched him fall into a very regressive religosity. It was sad. Toward the end of his GLIB days he said once that as far as God is concerned, none of us are any better then Hitler. I see his powers of reasoning haven't improved.


Post a Comment

<< Home