Political Crossfire Forums

[mwm1331]

Many of those who are against "gay marriage" Use thew slippery slope argument. IE if we allow marriage between homosexuals then the same consitant standard must be applied to other deviant sexuality.
Pro-gay groups call this argument a fallacy, but is it?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/franck200508040812.asp
Quote:

E-mail Author
Send to a Friend
Print Version

August 04, 2005, 8:12 a.m.
Kissing Sibs
Could the Supreme Court embrace incest?

By Matthew J. Franck

Here’s a question that could reasonably be asked of President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts: Is there a constitutional right to engage in incest? The question is not “academic”; it is virtually guaranteed to make an appearance before the bar of the Court in the near future. Of course, the question’s foreseeable character is a reason not to ask about it to some minds. But as I have argued here on NRO, question-dodging on momentous issues of constitutional meaning shouldn’t be tolerated.

Oh no, you say — surely this really is merely an academic question. Not at all; it has been as far as a federal court of appeal already, just last month, and may soon be on the docket of the Supreme Court. On June 22, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago decided the case of Muth v. Frank, unanimously upholding Wisconsin’s criminal prohibition of incest as constitutional. But the court’s reasoning was extremely bad — surprisingly so, given the undoubted legal acumen of its author — in dealing with the precedent relied upon by the petitioner in the case. That precedent was Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling declaring the unconstitutionality of laws against homosexual sodomy. And the author in Muth was Judge Daniel Manion, a Reagan appointee. It is understandable that Judge Manion, like the rest of us, recoiled from the absurdity that the Constitution protects incest. But his effort to avert the consequences of Lawrence’s radicalism is unsustainable, for a fair reading of that case makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that the Supreme Court's version of the Constitution does indeed protect incest (just as Justice Scalia claimed in his Lawrence dissent).

A Family Affair
The facts of the case are straightforward — if ugly. Allen and Patricia Muth, brother and sister, were “married” (the court does not say how or by whom) and had three children. When the neglect of one of their children brought them to the attention of Wisconsin authorities, the discovery of their incestuous relationship led first to the civil termination of their parental rights, and then to the criminal prosecution of both Allen and Patricia under the state’s law banning incest. Neither attempted to deny their crime, and they were both convicted and sentenced to prison — eight years for him and five for her. First in state courts and then in federal courts, Allen Muth challenged the constitutionality of the state’s prohibition of consensual incest.

His argument is straightforward. Why shouldn’t he claim (in Judge Manion’s words) “a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution, for adults to engage in all manner of consensual sexual conduct”? In Lawrence, Justice Kennedy held for the Court that a state may not prohibit consensual homosexual sodomy, and did so on extremely broad grounds, holding that those who engage in such activity are “free as adults to engage in [such] private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.” Recognizing that laws forbidding certain sorts of sexual conduct are grounded in “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” by many people, Justice Kennedy refused to accept the notion that “the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law.” And he concluded with a critical passage that can be altered, just slightly, to cover the case of Allen and Patricia Muth (replacing references to homosexuality with ones to incest):

The present case does not involve minors [involved in a sexual relationship]. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that [incestuous] persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to [an incestuous] lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

So why, with Supreme Court arguments like this at his disposal, did Allen Muth lose his case in the Seventh Circuit? According to Judge Manion’s opinion, there were two reasons. First, “Lawrence did not address the constitutionality of incest statutes.” This is true but trivial. The law proceeds not by the replication of old cases by new ones, but by the logical extension of principles abstracted from old cases to new situations in new cases. And Manion provides no reason why Lawrence’s reasoning should not apply to the Muths.

Second, and most decisive for Judge Manion and his colleagues, the Supreme Court in Lawrence did not proclaim a new “fundamental right” broadly related to consensual sexual conduct, homosexual or otherwise. This is where some close attention must be paid, for Manion’s reasoning, in just a few pages, turns several decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence upside down and inside out.

As Manion notes, when the Court decides it is dealing with a “fundamental right,” it generally uses a standard called “strict scrutiny,” under which the usual presumption that a law or policy is constitutional is effectively reversed. When “strict scrutiny” is applied, only the most “compelling interest” in a particular public policy will suffice to save a law from condemnation, and even then the law must be “narrowly tailored” so as not to jeopardize anyone’s rights in the course of its execution. It is widely understood among judges, lawyers, and students of constitutional law that “strict scrutiny” all but guarantees the outcome of a case: Even the best of justifications for a law will almost invariably fail to pass muster, while the alleged “right” advanced under this approach has an easy road to triumph over the principle of majority rule. Everyone familiar with this subject understands the game: Proclaiming that a “right” is “fundamental” is a way to leverage, by mere assertion more than by any constitutional principle, the destruction of public policies that actually have strong arguments going for them under traditional standards of legal reasoning. “Strict scrutiny” is therefore the Court’s preferred way to make the weaker argument defeat the stronger one. It represents the highest hurdle for any government to clear, and success is exceedingly rare.

Judge Manion is quite right that the Supreme Court did not apply “strict scrutiny” to the question before it in Lawrence. Instead it applied the far less stringent “rational basis” standard, under which the burden remains on the challenger to show a law is unconstitutional, whereas the government need only demonstrate that the barest “legitimate state interest” is present in the challenged policy. “Rational basis” is the Court’s easiest standard for the government to satisfy, and they rarely fail to do so. Rarely, but occasionally: In the Lawrence ruling, the Court held that laws banning homosexual sodomy rest on no “legitimate state interest” whatever, are thus fundamentally irrational under the due process clause, and are therefore unconstitutional. No “strict scrutiny” was necessary, and there was no heavy lifting about “fundamental rights” to engage in various sexual activities, because the Texas law failed to meet the easiest test the Court ever uses to measure a law’s constitutionality.

Super-Important Fundamental Rights
Let’s cut through the legal fog. Yes, the Court has never identified any form of consensual sexual conduct as a “fundamental right” triggering “strict scrutiny” of legal prohibitions on such conduct. Yes, the Court has refused to apply its hardest test to such challenges. But Manion’s reasoning here is, pardon the word, perverse. States enforcing one of Western Civilization’s most ancient prohibitions on sexual deviancy have been declared by the Supreme Court to be acting irrationally, with no conceivable legitimacy granted to any argument they care to advance. They cannot pass its easiest test. What would we call a right that is so obvious, so unquestionable, that laws prohibiting its exercise are declared incapable of clearing the lowest hurdle the Court sets for any public policy? “Fundamental right,” as used in the Court’s current vocabulary, would seem to be too weak an expression. Perhaps “super-important fundamental right” would be appropriate. The case for homosexual sodomy is not weak under the Court’s reading of the Constitution — it is extraordinarily strong. Hence the argument is very powerful, on logical grounds, for an expansive interpretation of its meaning and scope, which lends support to Muth’s view that the right should encompass consensual adult incest as well.

Judge Manion’s opinion for the Seventh Circuit is such a wrongheaded reading of the Court’s current jurisprudence on the due-process clause that we can only conclude he is either a) dishonest, b) incompetent, or c) desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the Court’s recent precedents on sexual liberty. We know that Judge Manion is neither dishonest nor incompetent. But no fourth option truly presents itself, for there is no form of legal reasoning that can distinguish a “right” to commit homosexual sodomy from a “right” to marry your sister and raise a family. Only political reasoning — moral reasoning of the sort the Court condemned as tyrannical in Lawrence — can accomplish such a distinction, if it is possible at all.

Therefore, I would vote for c), because it seems plain that Judge Manion would rather someone other than himself commit such moral horrors in the name of the Constitution. Let the Supreme Court clean up its own messes, or make them even worse. That’s why the justices get the big bucks — for they have arrogated the power to break our civilization, or to preserve it.

And don’t we want to ask questions about these sorts of things when we have the chance, every decade or so, when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs?

— Matthew J. Franck is a professor and chairman of political science at Radford University.
So tell me, are you only in favor of extending marriage to cover homosexual deviants? Or do you support marriage for incestuous deviants as well?
Becuase the main Pro-gay argument (consensual adults) applies just as well to incest.

[MrVicchio]

Look within ten years I fully expect to se Gay marriage legal in all 50 by a supreme court decision, followed by polygamy there after.

[mwm1331]

MrVicchio wrote: Look within ten years I fully expect to se Gay marriage legal in all 50 by a supreme court decision, followed by polygamy there after.

Not going to happen.
Maybe in europe you'll get it.
Canada even.
But s**t like the article I posted will keep it from happening here.

[MrVicchio]

Sorry mwm1331, but it WILL happen here.

A case will go through, and and suddenly there will be no reason not to deny 2 mena nd a woman from being married. after all... they "love each other, who are you to say what they cannot do!"

I don't like it, I hate it, I agree with your above, but too many people are sheep to the MSM and the heart string propoganda of the progressive hell bent on forcing thier immorality on America. They can't win elections, but they do win in the courts.

Look at the cases where a bad precident changed things for all of us. It's only a matter of time.

[mwm1331]

MrVicchio wrote: Sorry mwm1331, but it WILL happen here.

A case will go through, and and suddenly there will be no reason not to deny 2 mena nd a woman from being married. after all... they "love each other, who are you to say what they cannot do!"

I don't like it, I hate it, I agree with your above, but too many people are sheep to the MSM and the heart string propoganda of the progressive hell bent on forcing thier immorality on America. They can't win elections, but they do win in the courts.

Look at the cases where a bad precident changed things for all of us. It's only a matter of time.

See but thats my point.
If enough people realise that allowing gays to marry also means legalising incest, and polygamy then it won't happen.
Either the supremes wont call it a right, or an ammendment will pass.

[F'losrix]

If the government can't show a rational interest in preventing incestuous marriages - and remember this is the lower standard, not the higher one of strict scrutiny - then those prohibitions may fall, leaving the people with the recourse of amending the Constitution to prevent them.

The proposed marriage amendment, as currently worded, does not accomplish this - it says absolutely nothing about incestuous marriages.

Legalizing the recognition of gay marriages would not establish a 'right to marriage' (a right which the court actually recognized in the Loving decision by the way - long before Lawrence). Since Lawrence didn't establish marriage as a right, it is nonsense to point to that case as a source of blame for allowing incestuous marriages.

Those who want incestuous, pedophilic, polygamous or bestial marriages can certainly argue their case without relying on the Lawrence decision, though I will not deny that they may find things of use there.

I simply cannot agree that recognizing gay marriages paves the way for other types of marriage - those cases can already be argued right now without relying on the precedent of any state's recognition of same-gendered marriages. The regulation of such marriages would involve separate issues of their own.

The issue of consent is common to all marriages - so don't blame gay people - blame the recognition of marriage, period - that established the precedent - not the recognition of same-sex marriage. The argument in support of gay marriages is that they comply with standards of consent. Others types may as well. Compliance with the issue of consent doesn't in any way establish the recognition of gay marriage as a precedent for other marriages.

If the issue of marriage is left up to the states, I do not expect the recognition of gay marriages to become widespread for a good 50 years - the trend is very much in the direction of prohibiting such recognition. Civil unions will gain popularity much sooner than marriage recognition, but the trend is still one of prohibiting recognition of any non-marital union.

I will be rather surprised if the Supreme Court agrees to even hear a gay marriage case. The federal court system thus far has not proved friendly to the idea of getting involved, preferring to leave it to state courts to sort out for themselves.

Now, a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act is quite another matter entirely. If DOMA falls, that doesn't mean we instantly have gay marriage everywhere - it will remain a matter to be decided by the states. The states would have to recognize each other's same-sex marriages, but they wouldn't be forced to start performing those marriages. Massachusetts law prohibits marrying non-residents if their home state would not recognize the marriage, so you won't have people flocking there to force recognition of a Massachusetts marriage in their home state.

The 'danger' is actually from foreign countires, especially Canada. Unless you can get them to agree not to marry non-residents as well, you could very well see people trying to force state recognition of their Canadian marriages. Good luck getting Canada to bow down to the U.S. on this matter. I'm not sure what the requirements are in the Netherlands or Spain; I think Belgium has a residency requirement, though I'm not positive about that.

The only other effect I see is that the federal government would have to recognize the same-gendered marriages of Massachusetts residents and these Canadian marriages.

A marriage amendment would seem to be your only recourse on the question of gay marriage, but you'll have to reword it if you want to prevent incestuous opposite-sex marriages.

I have little doubt that such an amendment would pass enough states; the trick is trying to get it through Congress - where I believe it is doomed to fail - at least for now. Even at that - you won't be able to prevent state recognition of gay marriages - only federal. Try to control the actions of states with such an amendment and it will be even more doomed to failure. They already tried that with the original wording and had to drop it because states' rights advocates from both sides of the aisle wanted none of it.

[John Galt]

"Life is lived on a slippery slope: Taxation could become confiscation; police could become gestapos. But the benefits from taxation and police make us willing to wager that our judgment can stop slides down dangerous slopes." - GeorgeF. Will

I know polygamy will be legal within 10 years, as will incest. Not sure about beastiality. Hear about that guy who got sodomized to death by a stallion? Yeah, Washington has no beastiality laws and the thousands of hours of tape at some beastiality ranch contains "no" crimes.

[StrangerWitCandy]

i think the slippery slope theory as it pertains to same-sex marriage is just a bunch of paranoia.

[Protostar]

John Galt wrote: "Life is lived on a slippery slope: Taxation could become confiscation; police could become gestapos. But the benefits from taxation and police make us willing to wager that our judgment can stop slides down dangerous slopes." - GeorgeF. Will

I know polygamy will be legal within 10 years, as will incest. Not sure about beastiality. Hear about that guy who got sodomized to death by a stallion? Yeah, Washington has no beastiality laws and the thousands of hours of tape at some beastiality ranch contains "no" crimes.

I never understood what was wrong with polgamy. Gay marriage I can understand. Incest I can understand. But, polygamy? What's wrong with that?
If a woman wants to marry a man who is already married to another woman, who are we to stop her? As long as she understands the full implications of her decision, then there is not problem.

[John Galt]

Protostar wrote: John Galt wrote: "Life is lived on a slippery slope: Taxation could become confiscation; police could become gestapos. But the benefits from taxation and police make us willing to wager that our judgment can stop slides down dangerous slopes." - GeorgeF. Will

I know polygamy will be legal within 10 years, as will incest. Not sure about beastiality. Hear about that guy who got sodomized to death by a stallion? Yeah, Washington has no beastiality laws and the thousands of hours of tape at some beastiality ranch contains "no" crimes.

I never understood what was wrong with polgamy. Gay marriage I can understand. Incest I can understand. But, polygamy? What's wrong with that?
If a woman wants to marry a man who is already married to another woman, who are we to stop her? As long as she understands the full implications of her decision, then there is not problem.

Have you ever seen a polygamous family on TV? The women arecompletely subservant to him. Unless we are going to besubservant to women men need to understand that it would also become a polyandrous society where women can have multiple husbands.Not many societies haveeer been like that -- probabbly because not many husbands eer took much kindly to that -- but without making women subservant, then itwould happen. Of course, polygamy, as practiced by Muslims and Mormans, makes their women subservant.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

The government should stop subsidizing the married couples and it should get out of marriage all together. That way, we wouldn't be having this discussion now! Besides, people should not have to the governmnet's permission to marry!

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The government should stop subsidizing the married couples and it should get out of marriage all together. That way, we wouldn't be having this discussion now! Besides, people should not have to the governmnet's permission to marry!

Agreed.

[F'losrix]

If you're going to be honest in discussing the slippery slope, you must lay the blame squarely at the door of the government for starting down this road by giving civil recognition to marriage & granting benefits based upon that recognition.

The government's recognition of marriage in the first place is to blame, not the desire of families headed by same-gendered couples to be treated by that government with equality, on a par with the heterosexual couple living next door.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: If you're going to be honest in discussing the slippery slope, you must lay the blame squarely at the door of the government for starting down this road by giving civil recognition to marriage & granting benefits based upon that recognition.

The government's recognition of marriage in the first place is to blame, not the desire of families headed by same-gendered couples to be treated by that government with equality, on a par with the heterosexual couple living next door.

Government's have recognized marriages for generations upon generations, who are we to blame? While I thinkthey SHOULD getout of marriage I don't think they haveto for any reason other than if thepeople want it.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: If you're going to be honest in discussing the slippery slope, you must lay the blame squarely at the door of the government for starting down this road by giving civil recognition to marriage & granting benefits based upon that recognition.

The government's recognition of marriage in the first place is to blame, not the desire of families headed by same-gendered couples to be treated by that government with equality, on a par with the heterosexual couple living next door.

Government's have recognized marriages for generations upon generations, who are we to blame?
Certainly not gay people - and that is what is happening here - the slippery slope is being used to blame gay people for the fact that some other groups will also want other types of marriages recognized.

Quote: While I thinkthey SHOULD getout of marriage I don't think they haveto for any reason other than if thepeople want it.
There are lots of good (and bad) arguments for recognition/no recognition. I maintain my stance that they probably shouldn't have, but since they do and are unlikely to stop, they shouldn't be creating special privileges for one group while excluding others without a rational reason for doing so.

[John Galt]

Well while its notstrong I think the idea that marriage is supposed to help bring about children is arational idea, and I don't think the counter that people that can't have babies can get married is very strong, considering that if they were to use that argument then they really would be creating special privledges. As it stands, homosexuals can marry... just not who they want to.

[Protostar]

John Galt wrote: Protostar wrote: John Galt wrote: "Life is lived on a slippery slope: Taxation could become confiscation; police could become gestapos. But the benefits from taxation and police make us willing to wager that our judgment can stop slides down dangerous slopes." - GeorgeF. Will

I know polygamy will be legal within 10 years, as will incest. Not sure about beastiality. Hear about that guy who got sodomized to death by a stallion? Yeah, Washington has no beastiality laws and the thousands of hours of tape at some beastiality ranch contains "no" crimes.

I never understood what was wrong with polgamy. Gay marriage I can understand. Incest I can understand. But, polygamy? What's wrong with that?
If a woman wants to marry a man who is already married to another woman, who are we to stop her? As long as she understands the full implications of her decision, then there is not problem.

Have you ever seen a polygamous family on TV? The women arecompletely subservant to him. Unless we are going to besubservant to women men need to understand that it would also become a polyandrous society where women can have multiple husbands.Not many societies haveeer been like that -- probabbly because not many husbands eer took much kindly to that -- but without making women subservant, then itwould happen. Of course, polygamy, as practiced by Muslims and Mormans, makes their women subservant.

They would be subservient by choice. The women would know what type of man he is and what he would expect of him before they married him, or at least I'd think they would. And yes I understand that it would become polyandrous as well. I also understand that few men would take a woman up on an offer to marry if she already was married to someone else. I could only see it happening if the man in question was really attracted to this woman and agreed to marry her knowing she was already married. What would probably happen is that the second husband would probably end up killing the first (or vice versa) to become the sole recipient of her full affections. I find it foolish to outlaw something simply because it MIGHT result in a large portion of one gender becoming subservient to the other BY CHOICE. And polygamy doesn't make Muslim women subservient. Even if a Muslim woman were the only wife, her plight would be the same.


Oh and by the way Galt, you need a new keyboard. There seems to be a problem with your spacebar.

[poweRob]

Protostar,

The polygamist societies here in America generally located on the Northern Arizona, Southern Utah border area are in general pedophelia oriented. Their second wives are younger than their first and so on. In fact, there is a story I saw on the news recently about how the leader of this one sect is kicking out the teenage boys and excommunicating them from the sect for trivial reasons like cussing... once, going to the movies. Crap like that. The bottom line is, he is kicking out his competition for the girls of that age. I don't know and don't care about other countries cultures with this but in America, poligamy is code for rampid pedophelia.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Rob wrote: Protostar,

The polygamist societies here in America generally located on the Northern Arizona, Southern Utah border area are in general pedophelia oriented. Their second wives are younger than their first and so on. In fact, there is a story I saw on the news recently about how the leader of this one sect is kicking out the teenage boys and excommunicating them from the sect for trivial reasons like cussing... once, going to the movies. Crap like that. The bottom line is, he is kicking out his competition for the girls of that age. I don't know and don't care about other countries cultures with this but in America, poligamy is code for rampid pedophelia.

Yes, it's a personality cult with Warren Jeffs as its leader.

Quote: Warren Steed Jeffs (b. 1956) is the self proclaimed Prophet, or speaker of God's will, of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Jeffs acquired the position of Prophet of the church after his father and former Prophet of the FLDS, Rulon Jeffs, died in September 2002. Jeffs has not been seen in public for over two years, after criminal charges were filed against him.
[edit]

Role as leader of the FLDS

As Prophet and leader of the FLDS, Warren Jeffs has a considerable amount of control over members of the church. Jeffs is the sole individual in the church who can perform marriages, and is responsible for assigning wives to husbands. If on good terms with Jeffs, a member of the FLDS can be assigned more than one wife. Jeffs also has the ability to punish men by reassigning their wives, children, and homes to another man.

Jeffs controls almost all of the land in Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, part of a church trust, the United Effort Plan, which is estimated to be worth over $100 million. In January 2004, Jeffs exhibited his power by expelling a group of 20 men from Colorado City, including the mayor, and reassigning their wives and children to other men.
[edit]

Sex crime allegations

Warren Jeffs has been charged with sex crimes for arranging the marriage between a teenage girl and a 28 year old man who was already married. He was charged with conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor. He faces his charges in Mohave County, Arizona. In July 2005, the Arizona Attorney General's office distributed wanted posters offering $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of Jeffs, who is considered a fugitive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs

[Jay2014]

Rob wrote: Protostar,

The polygamist societies here in America generally located on the Northern Arizona, Southern Utah border area are in general pedophelia oriented. Their second wives are younger than their first and so on. In fact, there is a story I saw on the news recently about how the leader of this one sect is kicking out the teenage boys and excommunicating them from the sect for trivial reasons like cussing... once, going to the movies. Crap like that. The bottom line is, he is kicking out his competition for the girls of that age. I don't know and don't care about other countries cultures with this but in America, poligamy is code for rampid pedophelia.

perhaps in practice, but poligamy could be legalized with the same age of consent restrictions that we have on heterosexual marrige. this also holds true for incestuous couples. i think the bestiality formation of this slippery slope argument is irrational, as marrige requires consent. a sheep can not consent under the law. neither can a toster.

personally, as sick as i think it is, i find it equally sick (if not more so) that two american adults are serving prison time for consensual sexual activity.