Est. May 2008

04 April, 2013

Homosexual Marriage And Incest Laws ***UPDATE***

Posit: two homosexual brothers apply to be married.

Question: can their application be denied on the basis of violation of incest laws?

Answer: no.


Incest laws are based (insofar as I can determine) on three foundations: societal norms, religious restrictions, and science.  Of these three, the last holds the greatest sway.

Medical science has shown us time and again that when two people who ‘share blood’ (consanguinity) have children, those children are more susceptible to genetic malfunctions which lead to physical, physiological, psychological, and other disabilities.  This is due, of course, to the similarity in the DNA of their parents.  This is why most anti-incest laws state that there can be no marriage between family members out to at least the level of first cousins – it’s designed to shrink the probability of birth defects in children.

Now, if the medical-science prohibition of incest is based on the potential for birth defects in consanguineous reproduction, how does this apply to consanguineous siblings or family members in a homosexual sense?  It doesn’t, since it is a biological impossibility for two men or two women to engage in sexual intercourse and produce a child – they need to employ a third party to provide the necessary complementary DNA and, in the case of homosexual men, an incubator for the unborn child.

Therefore, the medical-science prohibition of incest only applies to heterosexual, consanguineous people.  I’ll return to this in a moment.

As for the societal and religious norms and rules against incest, we have to look at the current battles of the Supreme Court over DOMA and Proposition 8.  Though societal and religious norms and rules have put up a valiant fight, the fact that defense of the definition of marriage and the will of the people of California to solidly define marriage as it has been defined for millennia are under judicial attack speaks to their effectiveness, as does the fact that nine states have re-defined marriage already.  If societal and religious norms and rules have failed to stop this, they may very well fail when it comes to homosexuality and incest as well.

Returning to the prohibition against only heterosexual, consanguineous couples, I can actually envision a day when a brother and sister – or a mother and son, or a father and daughter, or first cousins – petition the court to grant them the ‘right’ to marry because they ‘love each other’.  If homosexual marriage is granted based on ‘love’, then the judicial precedent will be set that invoking love will be grounds for demanding the ‘right’ to marry whomever one wants.

And that ought to be a lively debate in and of itself.

And if you don’t think that day will ever happen, remember this: fifty years ago we wouldn’t have had the Supreme Court arguing over homosexual marriage – we do now; we also never would have legalized polygamy, polyamory, and adultery, until we get a president who wants it.

Never say ‘never’, since ‘never’ is a long, long time.


Actor Jeremy Irons came to the same conclusion.

1 comment:

Right Truth said...

With gay marriage being considered now, who knows where it will lead. The mantra seems to be "if you love someone you should be able to marry them.

Well, that could work for NAMPLA, or any other group,

Right Truth