Guilty Pleas in Absurd Prosecution of Consenting Adults

Frank Humphreys and Eleanor Jackson

To update a case we last reported here, Duncan Bick reports at newsandstar.co.uk that law enforcement official in Cumbria, England have gone ahead with their ridiculous and unjust prosecution of consenting adults for having sex with each other in private. Outrageous.

Frank Humphreys, 51, and 23-year-old Eleanor Jackson both pleaded guilty to a charge of “having sex with an adult relative” during a brief appearance at Carlisle Crown Court.

The pair, of Princess Street, Cleator, appeared at the same court last year and denied the charge but they changed their pleas yesterday.

There's no victim! Why is this a crime?

They spoke only to confirm their names and enter their pleas in front of Judge Peter Hughes QC.

They had sex between December 2011 and February 2012.

So they had sex. And what terrible thing happened as a result??? Judge Peter Hughes QC should've thrown this case out! They will be sentenced in April. Absurd.

THIS is exactly why we need rights for all consenting adults, all over the planet. They should not only be free to be together and love each other as they see best, but marry if that is what they'd like. Instead law enforcement resources are wasted in prosecuting them.

UPDATE here http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2014/04/uk-still-sending-consenting-adults-to.html

Ally for Equality in New Zealand

Adam Bennett reports at nzherald.com about a political party's leader speaking up for equality.

New Act Leader Jamie Whyte is standing by his comments that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal and says it would be "intellectually corrupt" of him not to be honest when asked such questions. 

In an article published on The Ruminator website, former philosophy lecturer Dr Whyte was asked whether the state should intervene if adult siblings wanted to marry each other.

Good for him.

Dr Whyte told the Herald his response was based on his belief that: "I don't think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here - consensual and adult".

We need more people to speak up for full marriage equality.

Bus Sighting at Media Matters

Luke Brinker at mediamatters.org, in responding to an anti-equality column by twice-divorced-now-in-third-marriage radio talk show host and author, Dennis Prager, threw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus.

Prager's prediction dovetails with those of other marriage equality opponents who similarly suggest that necrophilia and bestiality might become commonly accepted practices if gay couples are allowed to marry. But in the 10 years since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize marriage equality, there hasn't been a rush to legalize polygamous unions. Meanwhile, most states that allow incestuous marriages are right-leaning states where same-sex marriage currently isn't allowed.

As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has observed, the problem with "slippery slope" arguments of the kind advanced by Prager is that they ignore the deep differences between allowing a committed, loving same-sex couple to get married and permitting, say, a brother and sister to get married. Incestuous relationships, Lithwick notes, are often exploitative and psychologically destructive, with severe consequences for children's health.

Here is how I responded in the comments (with links added here for further reading)...
 
The response to bigots when they bring up polygamy and consanguinamory is "What's wrong with letting consenting adults marry?" Please note that under our broad legal systems, corpses and other species (necrophilia and bestiality) are not considered consenting adults. However, a consenting adult might want to marry more than one person, or marry a close relative. When (white) women got the right to vote, there wasn't a rush for voting rights for people of color, and when Loving v. Virginia knocked down bans on monogamous interracial marriages, there wasn't a rush to grant to same-gender freedom to marry, but there should have been.

It is unfair to say that incestuous relationships are often exploitative and psychology destructive. That is ABUSIVE relationships in general, which can include complete strangers and interracial couples same-gender couples. Also, it is the abusive relationships that tend to come to the attention of law enforcement and counselors. Nobody in a good relationship is calling up a shrink or law enforcement and saying, "Hey, I just want to tell you I'm in an incestuous relationship and it is great!"

The "mutant baby" argument is a smokescreen. First of all, some consanguinamorous relationships involve only people of the same gender. Yes, they are gay marriages, so to speak. I have interviewed people in these relationships myself. Secondly, marriage shouldn't be equated with baby-making. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. Thirdly, contrary to myth, most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems (I know some of these children, and so do you, whether you know it or not); while births to
other parents do sometimes have birth defects. Heterosexual couples with obvious, series genetic diseases are not prevented from dating, having sex, having children, or marrying, so the "mutant baby" argument is not a justification for stopping genetic half-sisters who didn't even grow up with each other from marrying.

I expect more from Media Matters than to throw some consenting adults under the bus to assuage bigots. There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality "just for some" is not equality. Let's stand up for EVERY ADULT'S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!

The Changing Map For the Freedom to Marry

If you've been unable to keep up with the all of the news of the building momentum for nationwide full marriage equality in the US, Jonathan Capehart at washingtonpost.com has posted a useful graphic of the status of the limited monogamous same-gender freedom to marry in the various states.

During an appearance on “Now with Alex Wagner” on Friday, I had to sneak a peek at the cheat sheet I made for our discussion about the same-sex marriage victory in a Virginia federal court. Ever since the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),  the lower federal courts have been busy hearing challenges to state statutes and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.

He draws the obvious parallel to where bans on interracial marriage were when the Supreme Court struck them down. The graphic is larger at the link.

There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

More Reunited Siblings in the News

We recently noted a story about twins living on different continents discovering each other and reuniting. Now here's an Associated Press article I found at news.yahoo.com by Regina Garcia Cano about five siblings reconnecting.

The lives of five brothers and sisters born in North Dakota who were separately adopted at infancy took the twists and turns that 50 years bring. Some moved to different states; some married; some had children. But none of them ever knew the others existed.

Then, the obituary of their biological mother presented a clue. And when they finally met, one brother realized he wasn't so unfamiliar with one of his siblings. John Maixner had been greeted a half a dozen times or so by his sister at their local Walmart in Dickinson, N.D., where she has worked for 23 years.

Again, this is not a Genetic Sexual Attraction article, but there are some things to note (especially when you consider that up to 50% of people in a reunion/introduction do experience GSA)...

Unaware Twins Living on Different Continents Reunited

There’s no indication that Genetic Sexual Attraction is a factor in this case, but this situation is a reminder of how the conditions that bring about GSA do happen, no matter how improbable. Rich McHugh of ABC News reports in this article that I found at news.yahoo.com…

Imagine growing up as an adopted child, and at age 25 getting at Facebook message from a stranger who looks exactly like you.

That's what happened to Samantha Futerman, an actress living in Los Angeles.

"On February 1st, 2013, I got message on Facebook from a girl in London," Futerman said. "It said she had seen me in YouTube video, then after looking my name up online, saw that we were both adopted, and born on the same day, in the same city. When I saw her profile, it was crazy. She looked just like me."

The girl who had sent the message was Anais Bordier, a French fashion designer in London.

Modern communications and travel make reunions more likely.

They had their DNA tested to erase any doubt.

The result proved what their faces told them all along: they were sisters.

Bordier said she had always felt as though something was missing in her life. She never knew that, after she and her sister were born, they were each placed in separate foster care agencies and adopted separately.

I’m glad they found each other.

The sexual part of GSA will usually only come into play depending on sexual orientation. For example, if two sisters who have no sexual attraction to other women are reunited, their reunification/introduction isn’t likely to cause an exception. However, related aspects can come into play, such as experiencing a strong bond.

Defending Stephanie Seymour

(Time to bump this entry up to congratulate Stephanie Seymour on being the the new face of Estée Lauder. ALSO see update at the end.)

Here’s an example of someone trashing the beautiful Stephanie Seymour for daring to be affectionate with her son in public. I’ll edit the quotes slightly to remove language that some people still get upset about.

One of the things that has me saying “Are you f------ stupid?” are the photos of Stephanie Seymour and her son.

She goes on…

The photos do look like she’s making out with her son. A little creepy…yes!

Why is that creepy?

Is it normal for a son to cop a feel of the boobies?

For some people, yes. Jealous?

Turns out her son is gay. Which apparently makes it ok to make out with your hot Mom on a beach.

It’s okay for any adult to be affectionate with any consenting adult on a beach. It should certainly be legal.

My question is, “Are you f------ stupid?”

Maybe they were simply having some minimal affection. Or maybe it is a sign of more. What’s the problem? What’s stupid is trashing others for sharing love and affection.

I have to admit, I’m vey curious to hear your thoughts on the pics.

My thought is that it is too bad that everyone can’t be on such good terms with their parent or child.

February 12, 2014 UPDATE...

This photo shoot has fingers wagging now.

We Get Letters About Religion and Consanguinamory

This blog takes a neutral approach to both religion and skepticism. We appreciate any support for relationship rights and full marriage equality from a religious perspective.

Submitted to you (mostly) without comment is this comment that was left here by "Inkaboutit4u"...

From: Inkaboutit4u.com [That site may be considered Not Safe For Work]

Great stories. Love and sex, sex and love., which come first? Sex drive promotes sex, and great love promotes sexual desire.

God at creation was very pro-incest. But people over time get major nudity and sexual hangups and pass their personal hangup onto others. God wants us to love one another and humans are best lovers when they are making love sexually. Sex is great because it bring people close together lovers.

Adam and Eve were brother/sister because they had the same DNA closer then any incest couple today.
Abraham and Sarah were brother/sister marriage. All animals and humans were created "one male, one female" meaning everything God created all had incest.

This is how God chose it to be. But today we copy evil, sinful, confused, corupt thinking Adam and Eve and in everyway God creation plan is made illegal. God want all people to be nudist. But if you walk down the street nude they put you in Jail.

God grave all creation at creation public sexual freedom to have many sex partners over a life time. But if today you have sex in public they put you in jail. If you marry many people today they put you in jail.

God given sexual freedom and even Israel always had legal prostitution but today many place they outlaw prostitution and put you in jail.

God was very pro-incest at creation but today they want to put you in jail it you have incest.

So they make major law against every part of God's creation plan. And then they think they are "godly" for doing so. Totally backwards.

Today Christians are under the Law of Love, Not some long list of Jewish laws from the OT Bible.

We are not under Lev 18 Jewish laws against incest made 2600 years after creation. These laws were for the Jewish people only and were for a special place and special time. Most of them it says Don't do this because it may bother so and so. Remember they were living in Tents and had NO privacy at all. They had lots of sexual hang ups.

Today we are "NEW CREATION" in Christ , the same as Adam and Eve were a "NEW CREATION" in God. We have the same freedoms as Adam and Eve and all creation had before they sinned.

But we live in a world that obeys evil, confused, corrupt thinking Adam and Eve thinking after they sinned and disobey God. and they think that is spiritual instead. The opposite is true.

Thoughts? See what I wrote about Adam and Eve here.

Search Phrases of the Day

Two recent search phrases people used to find this blog caught my attention.

The first one was “consensual adult incest support group.”

I am not aware of an in-person support group for people who are in consanguinamorous relationships, although I do remember someone planning one, and couples I helped to introduce to each other have met up in person.

I am aware of few online forums. The one I most strongly recommend is the free (and porn-free) Kindred Spirits forum. If you want to join that forum, be sure to read and immediately follow all of the rules, or you won’t last long there.

The second search phrase was “I saw my grandmother have incest with my uncle.”

I’m going to assume from the choice of words that we’re talking about consensual sex between adults. After all, it would be hard to have a child old enough to do that search if one was not an adult. It wouldn’t be incest if this was a grandmother from one parent having sex with another parent, so this was probably about a woman have sex with her own adult son. Even then, if he was adopted or a stepson, it isn’t incest in the biological sense, although it may be from a social or legal sense.

The fact is, most adults have sex. Sometimes, they have sex in front of other people or where others see them, whether they intended other people to see them or not. And some of those adults having sex are closely related. Provided they weren’t having sex in a public place or in someone else’s home, I would be more concerned about whether or not the people having sex were cheating on anyone than their relation to each other. Even then, other people having consensual sex isn’t really a matter in which one should interfere. Being invited to join is another matter. Here are my recommendations to someone who has discovered that someone they know is consanguinamorous.

Polyandry as a Theme in a Plymouth, England Theatre

Martin Freeman reports at plymouthherald.co.uk about a woman and her play... 

“In parts of northern India there are 300 women to 1,000 men,” says Sharmila [Chauhan]. “Polyandry is not normal but it is becoming more common.”

The latest new drama to come to the Drum, Theatre Royal Plymouth, might sound heavy stuff but is not all darkness.

“There are lighter moments. It is turned on its head.

“It looks at the relation between the husbands. There is a feeling of brotherhood and tenderness.

“It is intense but there are moments that are surprisingly funny.”

Sounds like it would  be interesting.

She says, though, that polyandry and matriarchal societies are not as rare as many believe, especially if you travel in history or in time. “I went to Kerala (southern India), to see the way of life of the Nair people who used to be matriarchal. I have done lots of research about polyandrous communities across the world in Africa, parts of the Far east and south Asia.

It is happening in polyamorous homes all over the world.

The Husbands is at the Drum, Theatre Royal Plymouth, from Wednesday to Saturday, February 12-15.

If you see it, let us know what you thought!

Today's Example of Insufficient Reporting

From news-mail.com.au comes this headline....

Jail threat for incest sex offender who broke order

As we know, where consanguinamory is still criminalized, "incest" can mean a variety of things. Unfortunately, the text of the article doesn't shed much light on the situation.

A REGISTERED sex offender who failed to comply with his reporting conditions before missing two court dates now has two months of jail hanging over his head after facing court.

The 24-year-old man, who can not be named, became a reportable offender in 2008 after being convicted of incest.

No more information about the original case is given. In 2008, he was 18 years old, give or take. Assuming the original case was about something that happened in Queensland, it isn't criminal to have sex with someone who is 16 years or older unless "sodomy" is involved or unless they are closely related, which are ridiculous restrictions. So, it is entirely possible this man to have been convicted of "incest" for having had consensual sex with a 17-year-old sibling, half-sibling, nephew or niece, whether they were raised together or not. If that is what happened, it shouldn't have been a criminal matter in the first place,  he shouldn't be a "sex offender," and nobody should care that he didn't report.

On the other hand, he could have been molesting or assaulting a 3-year-old, in which case he shouldn't be walking free at all right now.

But we have no way of knowing, because "incest" is applied to both situations, and the journalists who put this story online were probably just repeating what an insufficient court announcement said, without anyone asking for clarification.

Will Utah Make Legislative Baby Steps?

After a federal judge did what should have been a no-brainer to everyone and slapped down Utah's criminalization of polyfidelity and polyamorous cohabitation, a state legislator is trying to make baby steps in the law, as reported by Antone Clark at standard.net...

Rep. Jerry Anderson, R-Price, said House Bill 56 was inspired by a federal judge's ruling in December striking down part of the state's law banning polygamy, following legal action brought by the stars of a TV reality series "Sister Wives." The court ruling threw out the state's section of law prohibiting cohabitation, saying it violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and religious freedom.

Not to mention freedom of association, right to privacy, etc.

His bill is only 29 lines long, and essentially changes the definition of cohabitation and then points out under existing law, bigamy is a third-degree felony.

Bigamy shouldn't be a crime unless it involves fraud. An adult should be free to marry any & all consenting adults. If someone is married and they are marrying another, that shouldn't be hidden from current spouses. Absent that sort of deception, there's no reason for polyamorists to be denied their fundamental rights.

He said the state's existing bigamy definition forces many people into the shadows. He said thousands of schoolchildren list their fathers as unknown, to avoid dealing with the implications of being in violation of the law.

He said the state's existing definition of bigamy puts police officers in a tough position.

Exactly. Criminalization of consensual adult relationships is destructive, causing many unnecessary problems.

This is a baby step. Really, any US state needs relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all.

UPDATE: The bill is "dead" as the lawmakers sit around waiting for further court action. Sigh.

Cousins Can't Love Each Other Because it Makes Gay Babies

Or so says someone by the name of  Ropafadzo Mapimhidze writing at newsday.co.zw about the cruel treatment (including criminal conviction) recently of a couple of consenting adults in Zimbabwe, prosecuted for loving each other while being first cousins. You know, like hundred of millions of other people throughout history and alive today and legally married.

This story has generated so much debate and I decided to do a bit of research on reasons why incest is taboo, and why incest occurs despite the prohibition. And what the consequences are.

Where this is taboo, it is because of superstition, ignorance, legislative inertia, and control. It happens anyway because consenting adults love each other more than they pay attention to following unjust laws.

Such children can be born with extra toes, three eyes, and they can also grow to become homosexual, they may also have a low IQ and a potential to mentally harm future offspring, says the website. It also notes that such children can become people who are not able to interact with others or express love.

First of all, they were not prosecuted for having children. They were prosecuted for having sex. There is a difference. Also, all the columnist described above happens with unrelated lovers, too. In fact, we do not prevent people with obvious, serious, genetic diseases and birth defects from dating, having sex, having children, or marrying. But there are hundreds of millions of children from first cousins who are healthy, attractive, bright, and very social. Finally, there's nothing wrong with being gay.

The New York Times recently reported that first cousins are somewhat more likely than unrelated parents to have a child with a serious birth defect, mental retardation or genetic disease, but their increased risk is nowhere near as large as most people think, the newspaper quoted research done by some scientists.

But who needs scientists when we can listen to bigotry instead?

At least the piece does mention Genetic Sexual Attraction. Then it goes on to...

“Traditionally, such matters were dealt with by chiefs who then would find the rightful people to raise products of incest. We have to go back to our roots and see how best these matters can be dealt with the Zimbabwean way because these children are innocent victims of incest,” Kandiero said.

You know what makes children the biggest victims? When strangers use the power of unjust laws to force their parents apart and break up their home and brand their parents as criminals.

Will The Philippines Take a Step Backwards?

As reported by Xianne Arcangel at gmanetwork.com, lawmakers in the Philippines are considering legislation that would criminalize consanguinamory.

Incestuous affairs between family members 18 years old and above—even if done with consent—may soon be penalized if the proposed Anti-Incest bill is passed into law.

 

House Bill 3329, filed by Cagayan de Oro representative Rufus Rodriguez and his brother ABAMIN party-list representative Maximo Rodriguez Jr., seeks to penalize incest between consenting parties.

Very bad idea. Not only would it move the nation away from, rather than closer to, relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, but criminalizing CONSENSUAL adult relationships will make it harder for law enforcement to stop ABUSERS because resources will be diverted AND witnesses and victims will be less willing to cooperate out of fear of law enforcement.

Rodriguez said in a statement on Sunday that an Anti-Incest law is needed to address the "rising" number of incestuous relationships occurring in families of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).

That doesn't actually say why they should be criminalized. And the number probably isn't rising. They are just becoming more aware of the reality that has always been there.

Under Articles 37 and 38 of the Family Code of the Philippines, incestuous marriages are void ab initio—from the beginning—for being contrary to public policy.

That needs to be dumped.

The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, meanwhile, imposes the death penalty for rape when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a relative within the third civil degree, or when the offender is the common-law spouse of the parent of the abused individual.

So children are already protected.

Under HB 3329, incestuous sexual relations with consent between ascendants and descendants of any degree, as well as between brothers and sisters whether of the full or half blood will be prohibited and considered unlawful.  

There is no good reason for this.

In-laws, stepparents and stepchildren, adoptive parents and their children, as well as collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate up to the fourth civil degree, are also banned from having incestuous affairs.

Ridiculous.

Violators shall be punished with prision correccional, or imprisonment for from six months to six years. 

Why? To whom are they a threat?

Jhoanna Ballaran of the manilatimes.net also covered this news.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

What Comes Naturally

Colleen Stufflebeem looks at the emotions that often result from the body’s physical reaction to sex. Early in her essay, she writes…

I’m not too cliché, but the idea of romance has always wooed me, though the necessity of love before sex never equated to waiting until marriage. In fact, I’ve always thought that’s a terrible idea.

Towards the end she writes…

But while this evidence proves that casual sex can cause heartbreak and mysterious genital burning, it also proves that humans are naturally inclined to fall in love and lust with multiple people. If we have the natural tendency to be polyamorous why impose unnatural sanctions against it?

First, I’d like to point out that any sex can cause heartbreak and mysterious genital burning. Aren’t many people heartbroken with the end of a serious relationship, in no small part because they were having sex? And a sexually transmitted infection can happen through sex, especially unprotected sex, with someone who is already infected, no matter how serious the relationship. Someone could have “casual” sex with a hundred people, and if none of them are infected, that person will not get infected.

But the other thing I wanted to get to was that, no, we should not impose unnatural sanctions against relationships. It is natural for a gay man to be attracted to, and love, other men. It is natural for a polyamorous person to love more than one person. This is why we should not use laws to reserve sex or marriage for only two people, or only heterosexuals couples.

Updates on Two Criminal Cases

A sentence has been issued in this absurd prosecution of two adults in Zimbabwe for loving each other and (gasp!) being cousins! Here's a report from radiovop.com...

Two members of the Feremenga family from Dzivarasekwa Extension in Harare, whose incestuous relationship resulted in two pregnancies, were yesterday convicted and ordered to perform 630 hours of community service at different institutions in the suburb.

Robson (21) and Ashley Feremenga (19), whose fathers are blood brothers, pleaded guilty to incest charges when they appeared before Harare regional magistrate Adonia Masawi and were slapped with a 36-month prison term each.

But Masawi later suspended 18 months of their sentence on condition of good behaviour and again suspended the remainder on condition each of them performs 630 hours of community service.

Got that? If you break up your family, you can stay out of prison. Of course, the bigots in the neighborhood are going to have a field day being sadistic towards you anyway, and we won't stop that. Because, you know, you shouldn't be allowed to love each other.

The court was nonetheless, left in stitches when the two relatives insisted they wanted to stay together as a couple despite the implications of their unlawful relationship.

The cruelty is appalling. First cousins have been marrying for all of human history. Everyone involved in prosecuting these two should look into their heart, if they one, and clear it of this hatred.

The other update is about a case out of Nevada in which there was a sentencing a while back. I don't think the media ever specified the relationship, but my guess would be uncle-niece. This update comes from elkodaily.com reported by Dylan Woolf Harris.

Hughes isn’t specifically appealing his conviction, but instead the district court’s decision to allow prosecutors to use evidence gathered during a search of Hughes’ home. Leading up to trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress on grounds that a search warrant request wasn’t supported by probable cause, but District Judge Nancy Porter held that the warrant was supported and the prosecutor’s evidence was permissible.

The investigation and eventual search of Hughes’ home began in late 2008 after Kimberly Harphant, an acquaintance of Hughes, met with sheriff’s detective Kevin McKinney. She brought with her an unsigned, handwritten letter she said she took from Hughes’ home one day, as well as a prepared document of cut-and-pasted emails between Hughes and the victim.

Harphant had helped Hughes set up a business email account to which she remembered the password, and had lent him a phone. She was retrieving the phone when she found the letter, according to court documents.

The letter appeared to indicate romantic love between two people, but “in addition to a complete lack of attribution, it contains no references to a past or existing sexual relationship,” the brief states. Similarly, the emails’ authors were unverified and didn’t mention sex.

The appeal brief asserts McKinney made little attempt to corroborate or verify the items Harphant presented to him.

Interesting.

Update from February 2017.