Equal Protection Under the Law

Matthew Galluzzo, lawyer for Columbia University professor David Epstein, who'd been criminally prosecuted over consensual adult incest, wrote to Yes But However and made the legal case [link may no longer be working] for striking down laws against consensual consanguineous sex, while still trying to hint at a personal disapproval of such sex.

Second, I am a criminal defense attorney and not a religious leader or political activist, and accordingly, my argument is a legal one, not a moral or political one. I have never argued that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of incest, nor would I. I have never argued that the two are somehow similar biologically, psychologically, or ethically…

The comparison between the two is purely a legal one, and the legal argument that I am making is not a novel one – in fact, no less a legal scholar than Justice Scalia has already made it. I suggest that you read his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, but I will summarize the case for you:

This is very, very important.

Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but up until 2003, homosexual sodomy was still illegal in Texas and a few other states. Mr. Lawrence was arrested in Texas after being caught in the act by police officers in his own home, and was convicted of a crime as a result! He challenged the constitutionality of the state ban on sodomy, and initially lost because the Supreme Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of a similar state-level ban on sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986.

However, in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned its own recent decision in Bowers v. Hardwick and declared that Mr. Lawrence had a constitutional right to engage in sodomy in the privacy of his own home, and that public opinion about the morality of such conduct was no longer a valid basis to deny him that liberty.

This same reasoning can be applied to poly and consanguineous sex.

In the dissenting opinion, Scalia countered that as a result of this logic, there is a very valid argument to be made that there is now a constitutional right to engage in acts of consensual adult incest. That is the argument that I am now making on behalf of my client, and i explained that to both ABC News and the Huffington Post.

I hope his argument works.

If your counter-argument is that incest ought to be illegal because it is always coercive (and thus, the ban on it is necessary to advance a compelling state interest), then I ask you the following questions:

1) Should it be illegal for a 33 year old sister and a 34 year old brother to have sex with each other? Is that relationship really coercive?

Very good question, because of course it shouldn’t be illegal. Also, for people who claim that all parent-adult child sex is coercive, I want to know at what point the coercion shifts to the child, given that some aging parents exhibit increasing dependence on their child?

2) Should all coercive sex result in an arrest? If so, the police would need to start arresting bosses for having sex with their secretaries, rich older men for having sex with younger less-wealthy people, and so on, and so on. Fortunately for them, there is nothing in the New York penal law that makes “coercive” sex illegal in the absence of force.

John Romano indicates that he is his not on board with solidarity, but doesn’t refute Galluzzo’s points.

A Love That Should No Longer Be Denied

Mark Matousek, who has spent three years researching a book about ethics, wrote at PsychologyToday.com about one ethical question asked of him.

And just yesterday, minding my own business, I was asked a question at a dinner table full of liberals that stopped me in my tracks, morally speaking:

Is it ever OK to have consensual sex with someone in your family?

Yes, it usually is OK.

The question came from an attractive woman in her late 40s. My immediate response was, absolutely not.

That can be a typical response.

Years before, she and her half-brother had fallen madly in love. It was one of those requited-but-not-consummated, and never talked about, loves, and after high school the half-siblings had gone their separate ways, seeing each other only very rarely at family reunions. (They shared a mother but had different fathers).

In the past year, she continued, this woman had reconnected by telephone with this half-brother, who lived on the West Coast (we were in New York City). Both of them were now divorced and their phone calls were starting to turn steamy. The brother wanted to meet in Vegas for a long weekend. If she agreed to this illicit interlude, she was sure that things would finally become sexual between them.

Good for them. Sounds like they should have stayed together originally in the first place, but prejudice was keeping them apart.

I told her to go to Vegas.

Good for Matousek!

Why would they say no to the chance at love?

The pressure of bigotry and bigoted laws. Otherwise, there is no reason.

It seemed foolish and sad to turn away from such a gift.

I agree.

They should have the freedom to be together for a weekend or for life. They may have a beautiful, passionate relationship together for the rest of their lives. They should not be fired, bullied, nor arrested, nor should they be denied the freedom to marry, if that is what they want.

If you recognize yourself in this example (or have any life story that is remotely like this), please give an update. You can comment here (anonymously, if you want) or email me: fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com

See Ten Myths About Sibling Consanguinamory

More States Allow First Cousins to Marry Than Gays

You may have seen this picture (now outdated.) It shows that (heterosexual, monogamous) first cousins can legally marry in more US states than (monogamous) same-sex partners. Now, 9 states and Washington, D.C. allow gays and lesbians to marry one partner, with restrictions. See this map for laws regarding consanguineous sex and marriage, and this map for laws regarding same-sex marriage. Marriage is regulated at the state level in the US, which is why different states have different laws, but there are federal (national) programs and policies that treat people differently based on marital status. Currently, DOMA (which I like to call the Denial of Marriage Act), a federal law, prevents federal programs from recognizing legal same-sex marriages, but in June 2013 the US Supreme Court will likely overturn it.

Another way federal law has intruded into the freedom to marry is a denial of the polygamous freedom to marry. IIRC, if was over a hundred years ago that the Supreme Court denied that freedom. (It wasn’t all that long ago the court denied the right to gay sex in private, but fortunately it has since overturned that ruling.)

It is ridiculous for any of the states to deny the same-sex freedom to marry, and it is ridiculous for any of the states to deny the consanguineous freedom to marry. We can see from the many states that allow first cousins to marry, and for the many countries that do so, that there is no problem with it. We can also see from the states that have the same-sex freedom to marry, as well as countries like our neighboring Canada, that there’s nothing wrong with letting people have that freedom.

Every US state should back full marriage equality. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. If a woman wants to marry her cousin, she should have that right, even if that cousin is female, even if that cousin is already married, if all involved consent. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later, either through a victory at the Supreme Court or by getting a Marriage Equality Amendment. This is no mere philosophical matter. This is about real people who denied equality right now. There are people who have to move, or at least travel, if they want to get married. There are also adults who are in happy, healthy, lasting marriages (though not legally recognized) who can't even be open to others about their relationship without risking prosecution. Prosecution, for loving each other! Thankfully, most same-sex couples not longer have that problem, but not all same-sex couples.

When someone shares that picture with you, it perhaps a good comment would be, “That is terrible. EVERY state should allow gays, lesbians, AND first cousins to marry. An adult should be free to marry any consenting adults.” As always, feel free to link to this or any other entry here if you'd rather save yourself the time.

They Know Equality Will Happen

Steve Sailer wrote at vdare.com that we'll eventually get the polygamous freedom to marry, and he says it will happen because of African immigrants. I get the impression he's not happy about it and is being sarcastic when referring to racism.

Whether someone is a bigot or not, it is good that more and more people realize we will get full marriage equality. We've seen that over the last few days when it comes to the DOMA and PropH8 cases before the US Supreme Court, and how defeated the anti-equality mouthpieces are sounding.

The sooner opponents of equality realize that it is inevitable, the sooner they can put their resources to things like, oh, protecting children (and adults) from predators. I know denying basic rights to other adults is high priority and all, but once they realize equality is going to happen whether they like it or not, they're less likely to waste their time and money.

They've claimed their opposition to equality has been for the protection of women and children. In their convoluted desperation, maybe some of them actually believe it. But every dollar or minute spent fighting another adult's right to marry is a dollar or minute that can't be spent feeding the hungry, sheltering, the homeless, treating the sick, or fighting crimes against children.

Civil Rights Just For Some

Some people support increasing the freedom to marry, but not full marriage equality. Most of these people can’t give a good reason why they have that view. Joanna supported same-sex couples (nonconsanguineous?) but was very careful to make it clear that she didn’t support consenting adults having consanguineous sex. But the good news is she did recognize she didn’t know why. So she asked about this.

Kudos to Senator Claire McCaskill

US Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, wrote this on her tumblr...

I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

Thank you, Senator! I agree that an adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults!

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality. 

Please, Senator McCaskill, don't forget your polyamorous and consanguinamorous constituents, too. Equality "just for some" is not equality.

Tomorrow is the day the US Supreme Court takes up marriage. They should make a bold move for the rights of all adults.

Real Issues Surrounding a Real Experience

Genetic Sexual Attraction is experienced by up to half of all pubescent or post-pubescent people involved in:


1. reuniting with a close pubescent/post-pubescent genetic relative for the first time since one of them was seven years of age or younger

...or...

2. meeting a close pubescent/post-pubescent genetic relative for the first time.


It can be an extremely intense or overpowering attraction on a physical, sexual, and/or emotional level, and is a natural reaction to the circumstances.

Here are a few common examples to give you and idea:

1. A woman gives up her son for adoption at birth. Twenty years later, that son finds his birth mother, and she experiences GSA.

2. A stormy marriage ends while the wife is pregnant or when they have a toddler (a girl). The ex-husband virtually disappears, or the ex-wife deliberately disappears with the girl. Twenty years later the biological father and daughter reunite, and they both experience GSA.

3. A man has a son with his first wife and they divorce. Years later, the man, living some ways away, remarries and has a daughter with his new wife. The daughter does not meet her half brother until they are post-pubescent, and she experiences GSA.

Stanford Journal Article: Remove Laws Against Consensual Incest

Clare Theresa Kasemset wrote “Should Consensual Incest Between Consanguine Adults Be Restricted?” It is found in Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology &; Society, Vol 2, No 1 (2009)
NOTE: Comment left by Anonymous gives this link: http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/view/137

The abstract says…

Many states outlaw sexual intercourse between adults who are closely related by blood, such as first cousins. This paper first gives an overview of recent news involving this type of incest and the current legal restrictions surrounding it. It then lays out arguments in favor of either stricter regulation or more lenient treatment. Finally, it proposes and justifies an alternate solution to legal restrictions.

She starts off with the “ick” factor.

Because the term “incest” can apply to such a wide variety of situations, people often confuse their feelings about incest with their feelings about pedophilia, rape, and adultery. The fact that incest often involves those acts, which seem obviously destructive and wrong, makes people associate it with grievous harm. Most news cases about incest report sexual relations between a parent or stepparent and a child.

That’s because consensual incest rarely comes to the attention of the news media.

To avoid the confusion of incest with other sexual crimes, this paper will restrict its scope to the issue of incest between consenting adults who are related by blood.

That is what I call “consanguineous sex”.

What sort of restrictions should be placed on consensual sexual intercourse between biologically related individuals?

None, if they are adults.

She goes on to write about the Stuebing-Karolewski case in Germany...

Polyamorous Triad Featured in South African News

Noor-Jehan Yoro Badat writes about polyamory at iol.co.za...

Before I met Mark, Kate and Alice at a Joburg restaurant, I learnt that they are considered the “poster children” of polyamory in South Africa. That is why, says Mark, they try to present a positive image to their community, despite some people’s disapproval of their unconventional bond.

There is a wide variety of polyamorous people. We come from all backgrounds. We are in every geographic region, every socioeconomic status, in just about every political or religious organization of any size. Some of us are are in open or partially open polycules, some of us are in closed polyfidelitous polycules, some of us aren't in a polycule at all right now. Some of the polycules are "Vs," some of them are triangles, some are quads, etc. Different polycules have different guidelines. Some of us are outspokenly out, some of us are quietly out, some of us are partially out, some of us are in the closet. Some of us live together, some of us don't. Some of us sleep in the same bed, some of us don't. Some of us only ever have one-on-one sex, some of us usually have sex that involves three or more lovers. Some of us are quite "vanilla" in or lovemaking (other than being in a polycule) and some of us are into BDSM or something else. Some of us want to have a recognized polyamorous marriage, some of us don't want to get married at all.

What I'm trying to say is that the only thing that all poly people have in common is that they are oriented towards, prefer, or are in relationships in which at least one person in the relationship seeks or has sex with or romantically or erotically loves more than one person, with the agreement of all involved.

Shame on Grant County, Wisconsin

This was something I posted in 2010, and I'm bumping it up because it shows the importance of having relationship rights for all adults, and why the US Supreme Court should make a bold ruling for relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults.


In what has to be an update to case I wrote about back in May 2010, a 25 year-old Blue River, Wisconsin man is has been convicted of incest because of consensual sex with another adult.

Fired Up in Texas

From khou.com comes a report that a man is accused of arson for setting fire to a place he shared with his wife. What does that have to do with this blog? Well, read four yourself....

There were words painted on the drive way that said “___  sleeps with mom happy b day,” court documents stated.

Edwardo Saldana’s wife said they had separated and that he had recently moved back into her home. The couple had gone to Galveston with her son to celebrate a friend’s birthday.

Saldana’s wife said they got into an argument and he took the only vehicle and left everyone else in Galveston.

Saldana later told a work supervisor that he found his wife and stepson in a room with their pants down and that he got scared and left, but went to the house where he poured gasoline in the bedrooms and burned furniture on the patio, according to court documents.

I'm guessing Saldana wouldn't have consented to a polyamorous or open relationship, at least not involving his stepson.

Would an arsonist lie? Consensual incest allegations are no small matter in Texas, which actually has a law criminalizing sex even between first cousins, even though heterosexual first cousins can legally marry in about half of US states. If there is something going on between the mother and son, they should keep quiet about it because it sounds like the only witness is a guy who has issues with the law himself.

Update on Alabama Prosecution of Son

I last caught news on this case in December. Stephen McLamb reports at waff.com that a man convicted on a charge of incest for an encounter with his mother was criminally sentenced and released. Two important things to note about this are that...

1. It wasn't clear in earlier reports if this was a case of consensual mother-son sex or whether the son sexually assaulted his mother. At at least one point, she claimed it was consensual. Perhaps that is why the charge is "incest" and not for sexual assault or rape.

2. If this was an assault, the sentence and time served are ridiculously lenient. If it was consensual this shouldn't have been a criminal matter to begin with.

What's going on in Marshall County?

Gary Dean Helms was sentenced Monday afternoon to 10 years in jail, but the judge split the sentence to serve 1046 days, which is the time he has already served.

Ten years. Ten years for consensual sex is ridiculous. Serving only five years for sexual assault is infuriating. Which is it?

Helms pleaded guilty to incest from a 2006 incident where Helms became upset with his brother and then had sex with his mother.

Rapists don't "have sex" with their victims. They assault them.

His mother at first had said she was raped and later said it was consensual.

Was she initially trying to protect herself from bigotry and prosecution? Or did she move away from the truth to protect her attacker? We don't know.

Helms was ordered to serve five years supervised probation and register as a sex offender.

If he's a predator he should be registered as an offender. But if this was consensual sex he's no threat to anyone. This is why laws criminalizing consensual adult sex need to be removed.

If this was consensual and they still want to be together, nobody should be able to stop them.