Three Years in Jail For Consensual Sex

To update this situation in Singapore, a man is going to jail for three years for having consensual sex with his daughter, who was 20 at the time.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Leong Wing Tuck said on one night in April 2008, both returned home after a beer drinking session. The accused's wife was not at home. While the accused was lying in bed, a small argument broke out between them when she showed little interest in talking to him as she was busy checking her e-mails on the laptop computer at the edge of the bed.

She apologised, and he asked her for a hug. They began caressing each other. They then had sex. A week later, they had a heated argument over the issue of her furthering her studies. She then texted a friend to call the police, who arrested him.

A sad situation. If he had agreed to have sex with only his wife, then he betrayed his wife. Either way, this should not have been a criminal matter. Looks like a young woman mad at her parent decided to use an unjust law against him.

Bramham Continues Rants Against Freedom to Marr

Daphne Bramham attacks “polygamy,” but it is clear her real problem is with the decisions of the leaders in Bountiful, and those who follow those decisions.

She cites testimony from women in polygynous marriages who say that at times, it is difficult. I know many, many people still in monogamous marriages who say that their marriages are difficult and that it takes a lot of work. And then you can talk to the ones who are divorced.

Those consequences, laid out in the hearing's early days by an economist, an ethnographer and a legal and religious scholar who studies marriage, include early sexualization of girls, downward pressure on the marriage age of girls, poverty, and low educational attainment for both girls and boys.

Early sexualization of girls is happening in the larger culture. Just turn on your television or radio. Visit schools. The difference in places like Bountiful is that rather than having casual sex, they are getting married to someone who is socially obligated to them.

Under cross-examination, a 24-year-old said it was God's will that her 15-year-old sister-wife married a pillar of the Bountiful community more than twice her age.

Enforce age of consent laws. Mandate school attendance, if you’re so worried about “low educational attainment.” But criminalizing consensual marriages contributes to abuse and poverty. The problem these people have is with a couple of leaders in a community. This should not deny consenting adults this freedom to marry.

Calling It Bizarre Doesn't Make it So

Here’s another bigoted rant prompted by the Canadian poly trial.

Try to wrap your brain around the bizarre notion that a smart, female law professor, with all the societal privileges such a position offers, believes polygamy should be decriminalized.

It isn’t bizarre for anyone to believe in having more freedom to marry.

Carissima Mathen, of the University of New Brunswick, used to work for the Women’s Legal and Education Action Fund (LEAF).

The group promotes women’s equality and has pressed for things like universal day care, equal pay for work of equal value and the eradication of discrimination against aboriginal women.

So it’s strange that a lawyer who once worked for LEAF seems to think polygamy isn’t a big deal.

Again, why is it strange?

Instead of worrying about plural marriages, the authorities should concentrate on specific harms and use other Criminal Code laws, such as those prohibiting exploitation and forced marriage, to nail the perps, she explained.

Yes.

The law only requires proof of someone having a conjugal relationship with more than one person at the same time.

“At some point, we need to be comfortable with the idea that people will make choices that we disagree with. They’ll make choices that, to us, seem … not in their best interests,” Mathen said.

Full marriage equality is a matter of liberty and fairness.

The writer attacks the religions of others…

The trouble with that is only men (and the older ones, at that) have autonomy in polygamous communities, particularly the twisted breakaway Mormon commune in Bountiful, B.C. and the like-minded areas in the U.S. run by polygamist crackpots.

That’s not very nice.

Credible experts warn repeatedly that polygamy is harmful to women and children.

How, exactly?

Do we want to be the first western country to OK polygamy?

Canadians should be proud to further increase the freedom to marry. Future generations are going to look back, ashamed that there were these bans on marriage.

A Bigot Speaks Against the Freedom to Marry

Rosie DiManno draws from the Canadian poly trial to make it clear that she doesn't want adults to have the freedom to marry and she doesn't think much of the FLDS religion, either. She also takes swipes at the polyamorous in general and  Muslims. I only quote some of the hate below.

Teenage girls transported over the border for the purpose of sex and breeding: That’s human trafficking.

Underage girls, below the age of consent, conscripted into conjugal relationships: That’s sexual assault.

Lifelong marriage is a little different than human trafficking for prostitution, wouldn't you say?

Adolescent boys driven from their homes by men middle-aged and older — fathers, church and community leaders — as perceived rivals in the competition for nubile mates: That’s societal engineering and a different kind of abuse.

I know of adolescent boys who have been "driven" from home because they wanted personal freedom, rather than familial or peer pressure to adhere to certain rules and expectations. In monogamous homes. Or because their "monogamous" parents divorced each other and married new spouses.

Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code is as clear as arch legalese will allow, forbidding conjugal union with more than one partner at the same time, “whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage."

That law should be overturned in the interest of marriage equality.

But polygamous marriage within the rubric of religion — the coercion and sexual exploitation of girls, whether agreeable to those females or nor, and the trafficking required to sustain a polygamous community — is rightly a crime.

Prosecute child abuse. Don't prosecute people for consenting to marriage.

The law doesn’t force monogamy on married people. And the law does not render illegal the cohabitation of however many people choose to live as a family nor dictate their sleeping arrangements.

It can also be said that ten years ago, the law didn't force heterosexuality on anyone, but same-sex marriage was banned. It is time to increase the freedom to marry again and move towards full marriage equality.

Whether brainwashed or culturally kneaded to it, the obedient daughters of one daddy and multiple moms, their embracing of polygamy can’t possibly be used to justify a legal accommodation for plural marriages.

No, I guess nothing can match her bigotry, right?

This isn’t just about the individuals directly involved. It’s about all of us because we, too, have an ethical stake in acceptance or rejection of polygamy.

That's what the bigots said about interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, too.

The FLDS is not a benign religious sect, like the gentle Amish.

She makes it clear throughout this essay that she dislikes the FLDS and considers the religion invalid, as though they shouldn't even have the freedom of religion. I'm not FLDS or any kind of "LDS," but I respect the freedom of religion, and I stand for the rights of all adults to love, sex, and marriage. Prosecute domestic violence, kidnapping, rape, and molestation, but do not deny marriage equality.

Indiana Man Gets Prison Time For Incest

Anthoney Sims, 23, or Terre Haute, had been found guilty of rape and incest charges. If I recall correctly from previous coverage, one of his parents caught Sims with his sister.

During his sentencing hearing, Sims' father testified for the defense asking for lenience in the sentencing because it's become a family tragedy. He also stated he's "not sure rape occurred."

Is the father in denial? Is his son a monster? Or do we have a situation here in which shock of the parent resulted in a call to the police, and once the police were involved the sister had the option of either admitting to what is still a serious crime (consensual incest) or covering her own rear by telling the police it wasn’t consensual (= rape)? It is easy to imagine someone being caught by a disapproving parent having sex with a sibling and affirming the parent's assumption that it must have been a sexual assault. It is easy to imagine someone would be reluctant to tell a police officer, a judge, or a jury that they were willingly engaging in a felony by having consensual sex with a sibling, especially given the social bigotry towards people who do such things, in addition to the law against it. Maybe this really was a rape, but given the situation, there is an opening for a false conviction.

This article clarifies the sentencing…

A Terre Haute man convicted by a jury of rape received a 16-year prison sentence Wednesday in Vigo Superior Court 6.

Anthony Sims, 23, also received a five-year sentence for the Dec. 1 incest conviction, but that sentence will be served at the same time as the rape sentence.

But there’s more…

Judge Michael Lewis also recommended that Sims receive counseling for anger management and sex crimes during his prison stay, and ordered Sims to register as a sex offender.

He should have to register if he did raped her. The incest charge is superfluous, and someone who has consensual sex with another adult is not a threat to anyone.

In announcing the sentence, Lewis noted that Sims has had numerous run-ins with the law both as an adult and a juvenile.

Sounds like a troubled guy. It also sounds like the police and district attorney would be more apts to press for charges even if this wasn’t really a rape.

During the trial, the jury heard a taped interview with police in which Sims admitted that he had sex with a female relative in April 2009, and that he knew it was incest. But Sims said he did not rape her, and claimed that the sex was consensual.

The victim submitted a written statement to the court on Wednesday requesting leniency for Sims. But she also noted that she fears retaliation from family members if Sims were to receive a long prison sentence.

Is she like one of those abused wives who stick up for their batterers? The verdict on the rape charge would indicate that.

Defense attorney Christopher Shema called the case “one of the most sad” cases he has ever dealt with.

Shema had argued that the convictions of rape and incest were a double jeopardy issue for Sims, but Judge Lewis ruled against that.

Since both charges are felony sex crimes, Sims must serve 85 percent of the prison sentence. However, he will receive credit for the 654 days he has spent in the Vigo County jail on the charges.

Incest is a felony sex crime, even when everyone consents and enjoys it. How messed up is that? If not technically double jeopardy, the incest charge is indeed superfluous. The act is the very same thing for which he was convicted of rape.

Whatever the truth is in this case, a rapist should get serious prison time for the crime of rape. Consensual incest, or consanguineous sex, should not be illegal. Indiana needs to change its laws.

More Testimony in Canadian Poly Trial

One of the wives from Bountiful testifying in the Canadian poly trial told the court that she has suffered bias and prejudice because of the ban on polygamous marriage.

The mother of nine told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that many people in mainstream society treat polygamists with bias and prejudice.

“That affects my everyday life. We’ve had to pay so much money to try and stay out of jail. It’s hard to come up with the money that we need,” she said.

People should not be persecuted because of their marriage. Their government should recognize their marriages and honor their choices.

She said she married at the age of 16 at her parents’ suggestion, in order to have someone help support her while she attended college.

Contrary to evidence that has been heard at trial that women have no choice in such arranged marriages, the witness said she chose to marry her husband.

“I felt good about him and I married him.”

These women are attending college. They aren’t being hidden away in a prison. They are choosing these marriages. Let them have that choice.

Prison Sentence in West Virginia Incest Case

Most news sources hide the identity of sex crime victims. Most news sources hide the identity of minor victims. We're never given the age of the supposed victim in this case. Overall, I find this coverage of the story to be deficient.

A father got his daughter pregnant, and she had the baby.

Larry Darby was sentenced to 15 to 35 years in jail for incest and sexual assault by a parent.

He was sentenced for "incest and sexual assault." Was the victim underage? Or was she an adult who consented. If she was an adult, the sexual assault charge would indicate she did not consent. Either the incest charge was superfluous, or there were consensual encounters that were incestuous, but did not fall under the sexual assault category. I wish we had clarification.

"I don't ever want to lie to my child," Aleena Jones said. "I'm scared to tell him the truth because I don't want him to hate me for what happened."

If she was coerced, she had nothing for which to apologize.

This is where we get some indication that there is more to this than consensual sex between adults (which should not be a crime at all):

The family says this isn't the first time he has had sexual contact with young girls.

"He was glaring at me the whole time I was up on the stand," Jones said. "It just made me feel even nastier."

The family says he's fondled another victim and has served time for it.

"My second daughter was involved in all of this, too, and he tried to do stuff to her, too," Kimberly Jones said.

"Young girls" would indicate minors to me. But we're never given ages for any of the girls.

Now, Darby will spend more than a decade in a cell, but with the possibility of parole.

"I'm not willing to take a chance on these types of people who engage in these types of crimes," Prosecutor Mark Plants said.

If Darby gets out, he will have to spend the next 50 years on supervised release.

It is bad enough the law isn't more precise when it comes to consenting adults vs. an adult preying on a minor, lumping both together as "incest." But the media does this as well. There should be more clarity in reporting. If this woman is a victim, her name should not have been published.

Another Witness For the Freedom to Marry

Mary Batchelor, a Utah woman, wants to have the freedom to marry, and has testified in the Canadian poly trial.

A Utah woman who describes herself as a former polygamist says she would be happy to enter into another plural marriage if the opportunity arose.

She should not be denied by laws imposed by people who don't even know her.

She told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that she had some "very good times, some very positive times" during the polygamous marriage.

Some women enjoy polygyny.

She also had some "very challenging times" when the first wife had an affair and left, she said.

"It was especially hard when the marriage broke down and there was a loss of trust," she testified.

The first wife, Victoria Prunty, became a third wife in another polygamous marriage before becoming a spokeswoman for a group called Tapestry Against Polygamy, which opposes plural marriage, the court heard.

It's convenient that Prunty wants to keep this freedom to marry illegal, while she had the freedom to cheat.

Despite the divorce of the first wife, Bauman said she hopes to re-marry into a polygamous relationship.

"I do hope to be able to live in a plural marriage again. It would be wonderful if I could do it without a law against it. When that plural marriage ended, it broke my heart."

She should have that freedom to marry. We need full marriage equality.

Happy Wife Extols Polygyny in Court

After a parade of bigots and the dissatisfied, the Canadian poly trial is finally receiving testimony from people actually in polygynous marriages. Alina Darger didn’t avail herself of the option to testify anonymously.

In a marked contrast to former FLDS members who have told the court about overcrowded, abusive homes filled with conflict and power struggles, Ms. Darger described her childhood and marriage in glowing terms.

Her father had two wives, and Ms. Darger herself is the first of three wives. She has seven children of her own, and she and her two “sister-wives” have a total of 24 children aged from six months to 20 years old.

Ms. Darger said she chose to practise polygamy because it is central to her faith and she wanted the same closeness and security as an adult that she had experienced as a child.

“I loved that experience and thought it was really amazing,” Ms. Darger said. “I always felt I had somebody close to care for me.”

Why would anyone want to deny her this choice?

Ms. Darger said she does not believe in arranged marriages and, under questioning by a B.C. government lawyer, said while she is aware that some fundamentalist Mormons have married underage girls, she does not endorse or approve of that practice.

“I disagree with that; it’s not in my belief system, and there are laws to take care of that – and they should,” Ms. Darger said.

Yes! Exactly!

Anyone who doesn’t want this kind of marriage doesn’t have to enter one. But let those who want to have a polygynous (or polyandrous, group, same-sex, interracial, intergenerational, or consanguineous) marriage have one. Do not prevent other adults from exercising their rights to love, sex, and marriage.

Bad Sixties Childhood

In the Canadian poly trial, Brenda Jensen said that she had a bad childhood in Bountiful and in a community along the Arizona-Utah border. (See this and this.) This is meant to show that Canadians should be denied the polygamous freedom of marriage. Why? Because her parents were polygynists, which means they practiced a form of polygyny.

I wonder what her family had for breakfast? Maybe whatever they had for breakfast should be banned.

My point is, a problematic family or a problematic community or sect that also practices polygyny is not a reason to deny all adults their right to choose to have more than one spouse.

Many people tell of horrible childhoods they had in monogamous homes. Hold individuals accountable for what they do. Unless you can demonstrate an inherent, direct, causal connection, don’t blame polygamy in general for the bad actions of an individual or a group.

Brenda Jensen left the group in 1968, according to the articles. Her testimony might be useful for historical purposes, but it can’t be considered reliable about what is going on today.

I think child abusers should be dealt with severely, but I don’t believe denying everyone marriage equality helps anyone, child or adult, other than bigots who want a smug sense of control over others.

More of the Same From Canadian Poly Trial

Polygamy causes people go to blind! That’s almost the level of what we’re dealing with.

Western legal traditions over the past 2,500 years have consistently favoured monogamous marriages and banned polygamy, a law professor testified Monday.

That has been how the church-government has regulated marriage, but the question is why, and if there was a good reason, is it still a good reason, especially now that we don't let a church run our government? I say no. For most of the past 2,500 years, western legal traditions have consistently favored slavery, racism, sexism, child labor, and homophobia. Only recently have these things been cast aside. It is also time for the denial of this freedom to marry to be scapped.

John Witte of Emory University in Atlanta also said…

"In the West, as philosophers and jurists began to describe it, polygamy itself was too often a cause or a consequence of harms, serious harms, to women, to children, to men, to society.

They also said the same thing about masturbation, interracial marriage, and so many other things. We’ve learned better. Isn’t it time the bigots stop trying to keep other people from deciding for themselves the person or persons they will love?

Bramham’s Take on Canadian Poly Trial

Daphne Bramham wrote an opinion in the Vancouver Sun about how the Canadian poly trial is going so far.

Evidence so far has been overwhelming that polygamy is inherently harmful both to individuals and to society.

I haven’t been sitting in the courtroom, but that’s not the impression I’m getting. Following the coverage provided from sources such as Bramham’s paper, I have seen that some people report having had horrible experiences with certain individuals or even families. But that hardly makes the freedom to marry the persons you love harmful.

As controversial as British Columbia's key expert Joseph Henrich was with his contention that monogamy may be the underpinning of both democracy and liberalized economies, the UBC professor was largely unassailable.

Show me these strongly monogamous democracies. There are places where people can only have one spouse under the law, but it is socially accepted and practiced to have other lovers. There are married people who cheat, swing, swap, or bring in a third person on an occasional or regular basis. There are unmarried people who are having casual and not-so-casual sex with multiple people. There are people who marry and divorce multiples times. Are these societies monogamous?

Bramham rehashes other witnesses I found to be less than compelling.

Funkydory submitted multiple comments, and this is one…

When you are half way through a trial at the point where the prosecution has presented the totality of its case and evidence against the defendant, it would certainly be fair to say that the overwhelming weight of the information presented thus far leads the trier of fact to believe that the defendant is guilty. Well - NO DUHHH !!!!

Good point. And as I’ve said before, if we were to put monogamous marriage on trial, we could find witness after witness with a horror story about what a monogamous marriage did to their lives, and we could find scholars who would back them up.

Bigot Testifies in Canadian Poly Trial

It is surprising that people are willing to go on the record and make such claims.

Canada has obligations under international human rights law to uphold its current rules prohibiting polygamy, a University of Toronto law professor charged Thursday, calling the practice "inherently wrong.

These people never seem to be able to explain how exactly it is wrong for grown people to make their own marital decisions.

"The patriarchal structure allowing men to take multiple wives offends women's dignity," Dr. Rebecca Cook told a B.C. Supreme Court tasked with determining the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy law.

The women in these POLYGYNOUS marriages disagree. It is a nice try, though. Some have made the same accusation about heterosexual monogamous marriage, too. Why are they wrong and this accusation right? We support FULL marriage equality, allowing people, regardless of gender, to marry the consenting person or persons they choose to marry. Polygyny is only one of many possibilities someone can choose.

"The purpose of international human rights law is to protect and promote the dignity of the individual."

It is not very dignifying to try to make criminals out of them for their harmless marital choices.

Cook, who was called as a witness for the attorney-general of Canada, also testified the trend among nations around the world is to ban the practice of multiple marriages.

There has been a recent trend in the US to ban same-sex marriage, too. Go ahead and check. Most of the laws banning same-sex marriage were passed in the last fifteen years or so. Should Canada ban same-sex marriage? Canada should stand up for the freedom to marry regardless of what other countries are doing.

Cook identified a number of harms to woman that are associated with polygamy, including increased risk of physical violence and increased exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV.

Are you kidding me? Does anyone really believe HIV is spreading like wildfire in FLDS communities? Is she talking about Africa??? In Africa or anywhere else, you can get 100 people having sex together and none of them will get HIV if none of them was HIV positive before. Polygamy doesn't spread HIV. Unprotected sex with an infected person might. Concerned about HIV? Promote testing and safe sex... and marriage, instead of discouraging marriage. As far as domestic violence, that is already illegal.

People should be ashamed to spew such bigotry. And don't talk to me about "international human rights law" as long as international organizations ignore killings and rapes (especially of LGBT people), slavery, and environmental pillaging. Seems to me that three people being in a loving marriage in Canada would hardly be something to be worried about.

Canadian Poly Trial Resumes

The Canadian poly trial has resumed, with testimony that is mostly about the practices and teachings followed by the people in Bountiful and the larger FLDS religion. I maintain that FLDS teachings or practices, or those of one community that professes FLDS religion, should have nothing to do with granting all Canadians the freedom to polygamous marriage, or to practice polyamory without fear of discrimination.

You can find media coverage here and here.

I can’t outdo the coverage being provided by some of my favorite blogs, so I’m giving another reminder to check these blogs for updates:

Escape to Polygamy
Dear Polly Amorie
Polyamory Paradigm
Polyamory in the News
Introspections of a Plural Wife (at Heart)
Looking For Balance

Prison For Incest in Nebraska

I have a follow-up to a story out of Nebraska. The spelling in the earlier post is Holloway, but this recent article has it as Halloway. Dennis Halloway has been sentenced to 10-20 in prison for an incest conviction. He claims his daughter seduced him.

Rowlands sentenced Halloway to no less than 10 and no more than 20 years in prison and ordered him to sign a sex offender registration form. Halloway was initially led to the back of the courtroom to wait out the remaining criminal cases before being taken to jail, but was called back up in front of Rowlands at the end of the session.

"It's my understanding that you are refusing a court order to sign the sex offender registration form," Rowlands asked Halloway.

Halloway said he would not sign the order and demanded the return of his lawyer, but Rowlands informed Halloway that he had already been convicted and no longer had that right. Rowlands told Halloway that if he did not sign the form, he would be in direct contempt of court.

Halloway relented, but said he would sign the form "under protest."

I wish the article would have contained information as to whether it was ever established that any of this took place when the daughter was a minor, or if it took place, as Halloway claimed before, when she was an adult. Also, if it only took place after she became an adult, if there was any force or coercion. Regardless, it is illegal, but I noticed the article calls this an “incest conviction,” and not a rape or molestation conviction. That may imply mutual consent. There is an enormous difference between consensual sex involving adults as compared to rape or child rape/molestation. The former should not be illegal.

So, with the information provided, I have no way of knowing if Dennis Halloway is a despicable child molester or rapist, or simply someone who got worked over by the system and an angry adult child manipulating it. Either way, something horrible has happened, and that's saddening. But what happened? This is one way we see how incest laws, as they are in most states in the US, are problematic. Rape, child molestation, and child/statutory rape are already illegal, as they should be. Incest should only be in criminal law to enhance a sentence for someone convicted of child molestation, child rape, or statutory rape. It should not be in the law to prohibit consenting adults from their rights to love, sex, and marriage.

Lawrence Should Protect Epstein

Matthew J. Franck is bothered by David Epstein’s love life and the reaction of the public to the filing of criminal charges against Epstein. He especially considers William Saletan’s reaction. Franck appears to be not only against the right of consenting adults to consanguineous love and sex, but against gay sex and love. But even if he is antiequality, he makes some good points later in his essay.

Liberal writers have a startling inability to articulate what’s wrong with a prominent professor’s incestuous relationship with his daughter.

So do writers who aren’t “liberal,” because we don’t know the internal dymanics of the relationship in question well enough to be able to say something is wrong with it. We can look at a unrelated heterosexual couple who are the same age, and see that there’s something wrong with the relationship if one is abusing the other in front of our eyes. For all we know, David Epstein and his daughter have a very loving, happy relationship.

It is almost equally disturbing that a legal argument for a “right” to engage in adult, consensual incest stands on surprisingly firm footing, thanks to precedents the United States Supreme Court has already established in other cases on the “autonomy of the person” under our Constitution.

It is disturbing that someone should be able to make decisions about her own body and with whom she shares it?

So powerful is the contemporary opinion that “consenting adults” may engage, in private, in any acts that commit no “harm” (narrowly understood in almost purely physical terms) to the parties in question or to others, that some observers have merely shrugged indifferently at the Epstein case, while others have striven to find grounds for condemning such incestuous acts but finally confessed their failure to find them.

I can find so much material from men and women, simply by searching online, who were in heterosexual, supposedly monogamous relationships with someone who wasn’t a close a relative who claim they were, and seem to have been, deeply hurt as a result of those relationships. Some go through years of therapy as a result. But we don’t criminalize these relationships, and I doubt Franck would say all such relationships are morally wrong.

Franck cites C.S. Lewis’ book The Four Loves.

Lewis’s four forms of love are affection (the Greek storgē), friendship (philia), sexual or romantic love (eros), and charity or Christian love (agapē). Here we may stick to the first three—the “natural loves,” Lewis calls them—and observe that they are not so much variations of one thing as different species of love. Each has its own integrity, and is in an important way constitutive of human happiness. Some overlap among or progression through the various loves is possible, of course. Married couples, for instance, may begin as friends, become lovers, and finally find their relationship cemented in bonds of affection, that “humblest love” that as often as not involves a great deal of “taking for granted.”

But while such overlap is appropriate in some instances, in others it is inappropriate—indeed, it can be an outrage to mix loves or for one to intrude upon another.

Even if we pretend that Lewis’ book constitutes the basis for our laws, There is no reason why we should be certain overlap is not appropriate in the relationship between Epstein and his daughter, nor reason that it should be illegal.

Introduce the element of eros, however, and affection is not reinforced; it is destroyed, and replaced by something unnatural to the relationship in its proper sense.

There’s that “sex is destructive” idea again. Maybe these guys are doing it wrong.

He continues, bemoaning the Supreme Court’s actions in Lawrence v. Texas, rightly noting that the decision should invalidate laws against poly and consanguineous relationships in addition to protecting the right to same-sex relationships.

In its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy, the Court referred to “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.”

He includes a quote from Justice Anthony Kennedy. Notice how this could be written of the Epstein case, if you replace “homosexual” with “consanguineous”…

The present case does not involve minors. 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 homosexual 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 a homosexual 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 is Epstein facing charges? Franck gets it right when he says…

As I had occasion to write several years ago in the context of another case of incest, if this is sound constitutional reasoning about the “liberty” protected by the due process clause, then it is as sound for the invalidation of incest laws as it is for the invalidation of sodomy laws.

He returns to Saletan…

What we must notice is that Saletan’s strictures against incest rest on moral arguments of a kind that the Supreme Court has already rejected in the Lawrence case.

And if Saletan or anyone else wants to live that way, they are free to do so, but demanding others do so is another matter. More and more people, when they think through it, realize that not only decriminalization, but full marriage equality makes sense.

Equal Protection Under the Law

David Epstein’s lawyer Matthew Galluzzo wrote to Yes But However and makes the legal case 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.

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

Joseph Compton Gets to Be a Father to His Children

There's an update on the case of Joseph Compton, who wants to be a father to his children and is fighting prejudice against poly relationships. I wrote about this case before.

A judge has reversed a custody order barring a Juab County man from talking to his children about his religious belief in plural marriage and taking his children to the largely polygamous community he lives in.

“The court received no evidence that any of the petitioner’s children, adult or minor, have suffered real harm or will suffer substantiated potential harm as a result of his belief in the practice, even though the practice is criminal,” 4th District Judge James Brady wrote in a Wednesday decision.

The practice shouldn't be criminal in the first place.

“To restrict parent time based on illegal conduct may be appropriate, but the illegality [of polygamy] on its own is not sufficient to warrant restriction,” Brady wrote. His decision gives Kathleen Compton custody of their four minor children but allows their father unrestricted visitation.

The decision reverses an October 2009 temporary custody order issued by 4th District Judge Donald J. Eyre, who said exposure to polygamy would entail “unnecessary and harmful conflict” with the children’s monogamous upbringing.

Even the ex-wife can't cite any real potential for harm...

“I am not afraid he is going to hurt them physically. I’m afraid they’re going to join the group or marry someone in the group,” Kathleen Compton said. “As their mother I will do anything to protect them.”

She's the mother, but he's the father, and he cares about them, too. Otherwise he wouldn't be going through this trouble.

Plural Wife also covers this story.

The Freedom to Marry Will Reduce Abuse

Dr. Todd Shackelford, a psychology professor at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, stated the obvious for the record on the Canadian trial over the poly freedom to marry. He pointed out that there are abusive monogamous relationships, too. The point, of course, is that some people abuse. Polygamy is not the cause of abuse, abusive people area.

“Polygyny doesn’t have the market cornered in the negative correlates and consequences” in relationships, he told the judge.

Shackelford questioned some of the conclusions about the social harms of polygamy drawn by a witness for the attorney-general of B.C., which wants to uphold the law.

There’s another article reporting the same thing here.

"My overall comment is that Professor Henrich has not provided any direct evidence of statistic comparisons of the risks for these various negative outcomes in polygynous marriages, as compared to monogamous marriages," said Shackelford.

Thank you, Dr. Shackelford.

B.C. government lawyer Craig Jones suggested it's irrelevant whether abuse also occurs in monogamous relationships. Rather, he said, the real issue is whether it occurs more in polygamy.

Let’s assume that it does. We have several examples showing that outlawing consensual behavior correlates to an increase in problems as people try to avoid law enforcement and other authorities. The right to polygamous marriage will most certainly reduce abuse, as victims can go to the authorities with much less fear. So if there is more abuse in poly marriages, and I haven’t seen evidence of that, then the solution isn’t the status quo, it is in making the relationships official, and prosecuting abusers. Victims will be much more forthcoming.

Lori Beaman Makes Good Points

Lori Beaman testified in the Canadian poly trial, making some very important points.

While she noted that there have been several autobiographical accounts of former members of fundamentalist Mormon communities, Beaman says in her affidavit that assessing harm from that would be akin to extrapolating harms of monogamy by taking the accounts of people who have had abusive marriages.

Precisely! Do a search. The World Wide Web is full of horror stories from women and men describing the nightmare of their (some supposedly, some actually, some clearly not) monogamous marriages, with many of these people swearing off marriage entirely. It would be very easy to demonstrate that monogamous marriage is harmful. Monogamy is not for everyone. Polyamory and Polygamy is not for everyone. Marriage is not for everyone. Let people decided for themselves.

Among the problems she cites in assessing harm is that much of the research has been done in “social, political, religious, economic, legal and cultural contexts distinct from those of North America.”

Another important point. Gender equality is an important condition for full marriage equality, as is the right of refusal to a marriage proposal and the right to divorce.

Beaman, who also has a law degree, suggests that rather than stereotyping, society ought to assume that all members of minority religious groups “choose to be or remain involved in religious groups.”

Are some people more easily manipulated than others? Yes. Are some people better at manipulating than others? Yes. We see that everywhere. You can see it on your local school playground. To paint a picture of manipulation in a community and claim that you have reason to deny all poly people the freedom to marry is a leap too far. Some kids get bullied on that school playground. Some kids attract multiple friends or suck-ups. It doesn’t mean kids should only be allowed to play in pairs.