Half Siblings Can Marry in Sweden

emmashore asked, “I've heard that half siblings are allowed to marry in sweden, provided they receive 'special approval'. Is this true???”

According to this map, yes. This law is better than in most places, but any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult and special approval should not be needed, unless everyone who gets married has to get special approval.

Swinglish...

Both [cousins, half siblings] are just weird....I should think any right minded person would agree.

emmashore…

LOL I totally agree, wasn't asking for personal reasons.. was asking out of disgust and shock.

Isn’t that cute? They can be friends and hate other people together.

Carl T …

I also note that the ban on sex/marriage between close relatives appears to mostly be based on the notion that it's disgusting. If it were based on the risk of birth defects, I would also expect there to be a blanket ban on sex for those with serious heritable diseases and old but pre-menopause women, or a ban on reproduction but not on sex and marriage, or at the very least the laws would be based on biological and not legal relatedness (though since 2004 there is a possibility for adopted whole siblings to be allowed to marry, with no mention of whether they could then legally have sex).

Correction to the above: I found a comment to the relevant law, which clarifies that only biological whole siblings can be guilty of "samlag med syskon" (intercourse with sibling).

He makes a point. We don’t have equality under the law if a reason used to deny marriage equality isn’t applied to other cases to also deny freedoms.

Jamtjim…

So, my thought is this: If we accept in a modern liberal society that two consenting adults can do whatever they want sexually so long as it doesn't hurt any third party, then is it right to have a law which prohibits genetic siblings from having sex with each other?

No, it isn’t.

Now I realise that peoples first thought may be of disgust, personally I find the notion of inter-sibling sex morally and ethically wrong, but then law should not be based on subjective morality. Some people regard homosexual acts as wrong morally, but yet society has learned to accept this as like I said before, if it is consensual, and nobody gets hurt then this is accepted. Similarly, certain people believe that all sex outside of marriage is ethically wrong. Again modern societies to do not uphold laws which forbid this either.

Right. Disapprove all you want, but don’t force your disapproval on the lives of others.

CathySky…

I think people who do this suffer from low self esteem or some other mental health issue.

And she bases this on…? The people I know are healthy, happy, well-adjusted people.

Shibumi…

Although incest is a universal taboo, this taboo is universally violated.

Yes. Nobody does it. Except that it happens all over the world. Let’s drop the charade.

As for the legal aspects, I think that there are already laws on the books that deal with the control, domination and abuse aspects often involved in incest cases. These should be enforced. If there is a victim, the victim should be protected and defended by society and the victimizer should be stopped and punished. As for the (I believe) much rarer cases where two completely consenting and able-minded adults who are closely related, wish to behave as a couple, I don't think a law is needed.

Not just couples.

If societal pressure does not prove to be enough to keep them apart, they are not actually harming anyone and the government/state/law representing "we the people" should not enter their bedroom. We can still think it is wrong and pass personal judgment on them and frown and shun them… within the limits of the law of course… but not everything most of us agree is "wrong" should be legislated.

Thank you!

Jamtjim…

Is it fair to discriminate against people in a non-abusive relationship simply because there are a larger number of abusive ones? It it fair to deny these people the right to engage in a totally consensual relationship solely because of the actions of other people?

No!

Is this not against the principles of a free liberal society?

Yes, it is.

Time and time again, we see that arguments against this freedom to marry are nothing more than personal distaste, not reasoned policy.

New Hampshire Needs to Move Forward, Not Backward

Christine Montgomery of Chesterfield expressed support for the freedom to same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

Equality matters to me - and, specifically, the marriage equality recently enacted in New Hampshire.

It’s not quite full marriage equality yet. Not until all adults can marry the consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of relation.

I cannot be silent as I read of the current GOP legislators’ plan to repeal the marriage rights of our gay and lesbian citizens.

Good. We need to go forward to full marriage equality, not take a step back to take away a freedom to marry.

I believe that, regardless of sexual orientation, most couples have similar values around marriage. In fact, let’s focus on similarities rather than differences.

Not just couples, either.

Generally, we marry a person for whom we share deep affection/love. We marry the person we want to build and share a life with. We marry because we want our relationship recognized as a legitimate entity by all.

Marriage is how we define the depth of our relationship. Legally, marriage provides protection and financial benefits for couples and families.

Married couples create homes in their community, nurture friendships within their communities, provide stability within their community and beyond. Many married couples provide the foundation for families.

Not just couples, either. Poly families do, too. Let’s support full marriage equality for all. Writing a letter to the editor is one way.

A Good Question

Stefan1991 asked “Why is Incest illegal in the UK?” He cites a mother and father of four children. This couple story of this is well known to people who follow news about consanguineous sex, as they were both jailed for loving each other as they are brother and sister.

Who has the right to say that a consensual relationship is wrong?

Glen_Nichols gave the standard, ignorant reply…

The kids will be mutants.

As has been pointed out many times before, most sex does not result in births, most children born to consanguineous parents are healthy, and, finally, we do not deny people their reproductive rights based on the likelihood of their offspring having birth defects or inherited diseases.

Lewroll had a strong reaction, but was unable to provide a logical argument to keep consanguineous sex criminalized…

Ok, thats it, I've had enough. This has gone too far!!

This attitude of let two consenting adults do whatever they want is fine...up to a point.

Incest is sick, and if it ever becomes legal....just the thought of it makes me want to be sick.

Then don’t do it. Don’t want such a relationship? Don’t have one.

How would you feel if your brother and sister came home one day and told you they had been having sex?

I’m happy for any consenting adults who have found love, or at least a good time, with each other, as long as they aren’t violating existing vows to another.

Stefan1991 returned to the discussion to expose what a weak argument Lewroll was using…

What would you do if your mum came home one day and said she had raunchy sex with your dad. Oh, would you feel sick then too? Better ban parental sex as well.

Exactly. Just because someone is turned off or disgusted does not mean everyone else should have to refrain.

The discussion goes on for many more messages.

What if you couldn't marry the person you love? Think about that.

Raybeard Expresses Solidarity

With the freedom to same-sex marriage becoming more established around the world, Raybeard expresses solidarity for poly and consanguineous marriages, since he recognizes the rights of consenting adults.

If two or more adult women wish to marry one man, or two or more men wish to marry one woman, or two or more men wish to marry each other, or several women equally wish to marry - why on earth not?

Good question. He looked at one of the common excuses to deny this freedom to marry.

Some would doubtlessly argue that such marriages would constitute a 'legal minefield'. That may or may not be so, but it's hardly a reason for criminalising them. Since when did legal expediency determine one's emotions? If several adults of sound mind wish to enter such a relationship I think it's arrogant for anyone else to tell them that they mustn't.

The “legal minefield’ argument doesn’t hold up. Simply require that, along with the marriage license, a pre-nuptial agreement be filed. It could be a simple form attached to the marriage license that simply has all spouses indicating their agreement that the marriage will be “all-with-all” community property style, or it can get more customized from their to establish dyadic networks with specific designations as to who will get what should the marriage end. With dyaditic network, “next of kin” is obvious. It could be indicated for each spouse with the “all-with-all” version.

We have copy machines that make it really easy to duplicate legal documents to accommodate additional spouses.

When it comes to consanguineous love and sex, he notes the often-cited inbreeding issue, which has been overblown.

But if the m/f couple of brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, really do not wish to have a child, then there are all the options open to them as there is to any other couple not wishing to reproduce. As for relationships between closely related adult males or closely related adult females, I see no counter-arguments at all. Not a single one! Furthermore, in any such adult relationships, I do not see why they should be barred from marrying, should they wish.

As I and others have noted, most of the sex that goes on does not result of a birth, but even so, we do not deny people their reproductive rights based on an increase in the possibilities of birth defects or some other genetic problem.

It's a shame that words like 'incest' and 'adultery' can carry such a baggage of disapproval and prejudice, accrued over centuries of (religious) intolerance and bigotry, which are plainly unfair in contemporary enlightened times. Indeed, in both cases, it could be that acts within those particular definitions may be more honest and loving than any act within a legally recognised marriage to which either or both parties may belong. If only they could be called by different names.

I prefer referring to consensual incest as “consanguineous sex” because of the baggage. We need to make a clear distinction between abuse/assault of minors by adults and loving or playful consensual sex between adults. I also think the term “adultery” shouldn’t apply to sex with someone else while legally married to another, as long as the legal spouse has agreed to this. Going against existing vows is “cheating,” and that’s the term I prefer.

Thanks to Raybeard for his solidarity!

Blog Update

I have made some changes. I have modified the text to the right under "About This Blog" as well as the "About This Blog" page.

This was mostly to reflect my support for people to not only be able to choose "all-with-all" marriages of three or more spouses (compatible with community property law), but also having the alternative option of "dyadic networks" marriages instead of "all-with-all." Having either option allows the greatest freedom to marry. The important thing is requiring the consent of all spouses.

I also added a disclaimer at the bottom of the template.

Polygamy More Ethical?

Don Lee makes a case that "Polygamy is more Ethical than Monogamy.”

He explains that professing monogamy isn’t always matched with actual monogamy.

In Western culture this is generally referred to as either "family friend" or "serial monogamy", neither of which are true monogamy. While being legally married, approximately 80% of all couples experience a sexual contact outside of marriage, and this remains the 2nd largest cause of classic divorce.

It may be cited as a cause in a certain number of divorces, but in a good chunk of those cases, it is not the cause. It may be a symptom. Yes, there are some divorces in which cheating (a physical, emotional, or financial relationship with someone in violation of the agreement with the spouse) is the cause, but I think it is clear to less biased observers that the cheating is a symptom of the real problem leading to the divorce.

The largest cause of divorce is loss of income, itself a revealing indicator of what Western Marriage is really all about.

Moral monogamy is "marriage until death" in most cultures. Legal monogamy is having only one legitimate spouse. These are in no way similar concepts, and in practice are quite diverse. Legally, you can be "monogamous" about nine or ten times, and some people have been married more than a dozen times.

In general (prostitution and consanguineous sex being generally illegal, and thus excluded) a married person having sex with someone other than his or her spouse is not criminalized in the US, though in a few states it can be subject to a lawsuit in civil court.

My point is not just that "serial monogamy" isn't really monogamy, and it isn't, but that many completely happy 30+ year marriages indulge in "private activities" which involve other people. Apart from the roughly 90 million Americans [almost one in three] who are members of sexually-themed clubs, or swingers, there is the harsh reality of cheating. 8.5 in 10 marriages experience infidelity according to most studies. The number ranges from 6 to 9 in 10 depending no the focal group, however the larger the group - the higher the ratio trends! Meaning, the likelihood that more people "cheat" is found to be more significant when studying larger groups.

As I have said before, actual monogamy is a minority behavior.

The chances of a successful marriage are less than 30% by most calculations, and those are odds I would not play even in Vegas.

This is where I think the writer gets it wrong, depending on how one defines “successful.” I suppose it is possible to say that if you exclude all marriages that end in divorce, separation, estrangement, or otherwise experience significant trouble, no matter how long they lasted or what was accomplished during the marriage, you could arrive at this figure. Mostly, though, when emotionally healthy and mature people marry with no prior marriages or other significant baggage (prior children, large debts, serious criminal record, Anita Bryant record collection), the odds of it lasting until death are high. But you do have these people, especially a lot of these types who tend to be against marriage equality, who marry and divorce three or four times, skewing the odds.

Marriage can help. Marriage can enhance a relationship. Many people who have experienced cohabitation without marriage and then with marriage report a difference. Full marriage equality will bring that to others, too, thus improving life for LGBT people and their family members, poly people, etc.

The essay goes on to talk about how being intolerant leads to divorce, and makes a case that men are generally on the short ends of the stick with current marriage laws in the West.

Essentially, we have a primitive legal structure based on outdated morality, which continues to exact life-destroying punishments upon those who have harmed nobody.

Boy, is that ever true!

He goes on to make a case that current laws and programs encourage women to raise children outside of legal marriages.

Now we get to the good part…

Ethically, poly marriages are far more stable, rarely dissolve, and provide enormously well for the children. Allowing people to license a group marriage would ensure long term stability, and make divorce very unlikely to cause emotional harm to the children even when it does occur.

The law should not be enjoined to prevent any class of person from getting married, such as gay people, or mixed race, or people from other nations.

If people want to get married, we should get out of their way and let them.

He writes a bit about the difficulties faced by same-sex couples, before returning to the poly topic.

Yet, there is no news flash about a poly family member killing her kids because she was depressed. The chances that any person in a poly marriage would be so isolated that they could develop a problem that dangerous, and that severe, are remote to the point of ridiculousness. In a poly marriage you're never alone, suffering apart from your mate, or without some conversation. Poly structures actually require communication as a part of existence.

You can't be poly without communicating. It does not work.

Therefore, Polygamous marriages are by definition far more stable and successful than monogamous marriages, because polygamy can't even be started without extensive communication, deal brokering, and long negotiations.

He knows what he’s talking about first hand…

I grew up on a farm with a family that practiced legal polygamy, and I was never abused until my mother pulled away from the family and converted to Christianity. Her abuse put me into a foster home, which cost me my birth family, and also all contact with the rest of that family. I never knew them again. I did not rediscover my roots until I was in the military and dated a young Jewish woman. There, again, I saw the warmth, unconditional love, and large prosperous families that I'd remembered.

This is probably one of the worst kept secrets about Western Judaism, and one that many would probably like me to shut the heck up about, but it's truth. Ethically, there's not only nothing wrong with it, Polygamy is in reality a multitude of times more healthy and successful than Monogamy. Despite being demonized in Christian media, persecuted by law thanks to other religions, and widely derided as abusive for more than fifty years, Polygamy continues unabated, safely, without harm to anyone.

After explaining that polygamy isn’t inherently harmful to women, he goes on to get more broadly philosophical.

With as much as I quoted, there’s a lot I didn’t. Go read the whole thing.

If it could be conclusively proven that polygamy was generally better than monogamy, I still wouldn’t discourage monogamy. That’s because I believe in full marriage equality, in which people make their own choices about their marriage, or whether or not they will marry at all, or whether they will stay married. It is too bad more people who tout monogamy can’t extend that kind of respect to poly people.

Polygyny in Kenya

Here’s an article on “Happy Co-wives” from Kenya.

The practice of polygamy is today recognised under customary law. Lawyer Julius Ondika says the new Constitution allows for registration of polygamous marriages, but the man has to first seek the consent of the first wife before entering into the second marriage.

Full marriage equality is only possible if consent is a requirement. This is not about cheating or having a mistress, or duping an existing spouse.

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.

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.

Rights Activist Murdered

A gay rights activist has been murdered in Uganda. He had been targeted by a newspaper; something I wrote about months ago.

David Kato, 43, was an activist with Sexual Minorities Uganda who was pictured and named by the anti-gay tabloid Rolling Stone -- no relation to the US magazine of the same name -- in a story that called on readers to "hang" gay rights advocates.

"This happened yesterday (Wednesday) at about 13:00," said lawyer John Francis Onyango, referring to Kato's killing.

Onyango said initial reports indicate a man entered Kato's home and struck him on the head before fleeing and that police were focusing on two potential suspects.

Human Rights Watch said in a statement that Kato died on his way to a local hospital.

As we struggle to get the freedom to same-sex marriage in more places, we’re still dealing with this sort of thing. How sad.

After being identified in the October 2010 tabloid article, which accused gay rights leaders of "recruiting" Uganda's youth into homosexuality, Kato and two others successfully sued the paper for damages and secured a high court injunction blocking all media from outing gays.

Kato was also a vocal critic of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which, if enacted, would massively expand the list of prosecutable offences related to being gay and usher in the death sentence for acts of "aggravated homosexuality."

Currently, the country's penal code, like that of many African countries bans "carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature." An attempt to commit a homosexual act can be punishable by seven years in jail. A conviction for actually committing such an act can bring a life sentence.

Uganda needs serious reform.

Uncle and Niece May Face Charges

An angry wife asked, “Can I press charges on my husband and his niece for incest in California?”

I caught my husband, 41 and his niece, 27 having an on going affair for quite some time. There are several witnesses to such disgusting act. The niece is my husband's brother's daughther. Can I press charges on them, since I read that incest is illegal in California and its a felony?

California does not criminalize adultery, but since California still criminalizes consensual sex between close relatives, it is left up to the local police and District Attorney. If this woman filed a police report, it could happen. Someone could be sent to jail for consensual sex. Hopefully, the authorities would do the reasonable thing and instead simply refer her to a divorce attorney, rather than wasting the criminal justice system's resources on consensual sex.

While I’m against cheating, I don’t think it should be a criminal matter and I don’t think any sex between consenting adults should be illegal. But certainly the law, as it is now, could come into play.

California also has no-fault divorce and community property. As such, if this woman’s husband earns more than she does, he would likely have to pay her if she divorced him, and see certainly should if she is so upset that she wants him criminally prosecuted.

She got some responses to her question, with some people mistakenly believing there was no law broken. Others clarified.

AFFA…

I wish to inform you that under California Code 285 your spouse may be held guilty of incest. In this regard you may file a complaint with law enforcement agencies. You will require evidence to be provided to police so that they may take necessary legal action.

Sunlover…

FC 2200 defines the relationships which are prohibited to marry and this, in turn, defines what would be considered incest.

2200. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

As such, an uncle cannot marry his niece in CA and that such a sexual relationship (involving ONLY intercourse - not other sexual acts) would be incestuous and a crime per PC 285.

Can you believe such a law is on the books in California? Then again, so is Prop H8. Both should be scrapped.

Bramham Has Fun With Statistics

Daphne Bramham at the Vancouver Sun looks for any reason to deny people their freedom to marry. Here’s her latest on Bountiful, a community that has come under scrutiny during the Canadian poly trial, because some there practice polygyny. She cites some statistics.

The number of births alone is surprising -- 833 born to 215 mothers in 13 years in a community whose population is commonly estimated at around 1,000.

That’s fewer than four children per mother. A woman having four children over the course of 13 years is hardly shocking.

The most disturbing fact is that 85 mothers -- a third of the total -- were 18 or younger. That's seven times the provincial rate of teen moms.

Very interesting how this is worded, “18 and younger.” How many of those were 18? Plus, the age of consent in Canada is 16. So out of those “teen moms,” how many were under the age of 16? Why doesn’t Bramham tell us? Also notice that this means that two thirds of the mothers were age 19 and older. She cites the “provincial rate.” How many teen girls outside of Bountiful are having sex outside of marriage? My guess is that most of the wives in Bountiful are not getting abortions. What is the provincial abortion rate? Is is better for 17-year-olds to be having sex with multiple partners in casual encounters or with a husband who is bound to them?

Ideally, I think people should be age 25 or older when they marry, simply because they’ll know themselves better and have more life experience and perspective. But I would not be in favor of raising the legal age to marry.

Two of the teens had three children each by the time they were 18; 16 had two children each. That means one in 10 babies was born to a teenager.

This sounds a lot better than what we see in low-income urban areas, especially when you consider these teens are married and having children by the same husband, rather than unmarried and having children by different fathers, non of whom care about her, as seen in some areas.

And it's no secret that in Bountiful (as in most polygamous societies), the powerful older men have the most wives and the most children. The statistics support that.

Well, yeah, the longer you live the more children you can have. Of course the older men have more children. And wives are better off with more powerful husbands. If a heterosexual woman has a choice between marrying a man with more power or a man with less power, she’s more likely to marry the man with more power.

The age gap between the 215 mothers and the 142 fathers is slightly more than eight years. That's nearly double the regional average and an anomaly in B.C., where the average is 4.6 years.

It is much smaller than the gap in the Playboy Mansion, however. And doing the math, it looks like it breaks down so that there could be just as many monogamous fathers as polygynous fathers, with the polygynous fathers having two wives.

(Even though the legal age of sexual consent was raised to 16 from 14 in 2008, it bears noting that it's a criminal offence for someone in a position of trust or authority to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18.)

Well, I’d hope a wife could trust her husband.

It also bears noting that the legal age of marriage in B.C. is 18.

I find it a problem that someone has the freedom to consent to sex and other things, but not marriage.

Not that it matters. As Chief Justice Robert Bauman has repeatedly been told, most fundamentalist Mormon marriages are "spiritual" or "celestial" unions arranged by the prophet or his designate.

So… she’d be in favor of making them legally recognized?

As Bauman has also heard, women and girls are routinely moved between the fundamentalist Mormon communities for arranged marriages.

Woah, woah… moving to get married? Who ever heard or such a thing?

Look, I’m not a member or follower of the FLDS or any related group. I’m not saying I like everything going on in Bountiful. But I cringe when alarmism and broad-brushing is used to deny adults the freedom to choose their marriage partner(s).

Be Reasonable

Incest laws were debated in a discussion online at the Richard Dawkins Foundation. The recent Swiss proposal to decriminalize sex between consenting adults was used as the starting point.

A spokesman for the upper house said - quite rightly and justly in my opinion - that the often-cited eugenic reason for a law against incest is not something that a civilized society can use as a basis for a law. After all no one seriously considers punishing the drinking of alcohol during pregnancy, or sex between partners who both have a history of genetic defects in their respective family backgrounds. The abuse argument also doesn't carry us very far, since sexual abuse, coercion and rape are already illegal.

Yes, this is exactly right.

Are there any rational moral reasons for upholding this law against what some consider the last sexual taboo?

No.

CallumW…

I don't really see how a relationship or sex between relatives could be morally wrong if both consent and are uncoerced, however the incidence of genetic disease in inbred families when parents are only cousins is much higher than those with access to a more diverse gene pool, and if siblings were to produce offspring the risk would be greater again. This doesn't really seem fair on the children of such a union. But then to legally ban people from having children in circumstances when the risk of genetic disease is particularly high seems to be a gross infringement of their human rights.

Rtambree…

Sexual acts and procreation are two different things.

Right again!

Still, people tried the “deformed babies” argument, so this comment was made by MMAtheist…

Since the concern about birth defects is predictably the big issue here, I'll repeat my question to everyone: should we also start regulating against older women giving birth to children?

"The British Down's Syndrome Association has posted a chart showing the risk of producing a baby with the syndrome at various maternal ages. From age 20 to age 31, the risk doubles. From 31 to 35, it doubles again. From 35 to 38, it doubles again. From 38 to 41, it more than doubles again."

What about smoking and drinking when you're pregnant? Is that illegal in your country? Shouldn't it be if your #1 concern is birth defects?

Jice…

"Because it makes me feel iky," seems to be the only deffence I see, which flat out is on the same page as religious thinking that your view is supperior to that of thoes providing the consent.

Sex /= offspring. We aren't the catholic church here, we allow contriception.

To set a precident that it's ok to legislate against couples who might have children with birth defects is wrong in any free country. Who makes the decision? If I had a certain gene that would give my baby a 20% chance to be born with Crie-de-chat should I be legislated against, reguardless of who my partner is? Because of a slim chance that if I even have a child (gay) that it has a slim chance to not be perfectly healthy?

And what about gay incest? Any arguments about genetics fly out the window in that case and now all you're doing is legislating against brothers/sisters who like to have a close relationship that includes sexual activity.

And I don't really think age plays much of a factor either. If they are 12, it's just the same curiosity we all grew up with which could amount to a few encounters, and if they are 16, then they are adult enough to make up thier own minds and shouldn't have to be worried about going to jail because they enjoy themselves. Anything younger and they probably haven't even hit puberty and it's completely innocent. And if there is an age gap, say 12 and 18, then it's already illegal through other laws.

The only potential I can see for this law is to double charge sex offenders, of the variety in which paretns molest thier childern. Yes, it's incest, but it's also pedophelia which unless Swiss are all ok with that, is probably still illegal, and still carries the same penalties.

Double dipping laws like this don't help prevent crime, or help the victims of thoes crimes. They just make criminals out of otherwise innocent people whos only crime was to not hurt anyone while doing what they like.

Very well said.

Debonnesnouvelles…

In the rare case where an adult decides that he/she wants to have a relationship with another consenting grown up relative, would the law in this case not infringe on their rights not to be discriminated against?

The law already is in place to punish abusers. Should it punish people who are in a rare position of quite genuinely wanting to love someone they are not supposed to love?

Absolutely not.

Debonnesnouvelles looks at Saletan’s argument…

How would "confusing the relationships" provide a rational basis for laws against incest in view of a constitution? Is confusing relationships a crime?

Foundationist follows up…

I can well imagine a scenario where an incestuous relationship might be perfectly healthy, normal and indeed even psychologically beneficial for the couple. So could countless authors and dramatists through the ages who liked to toy with that taboo.

Yes. Just take a look here (NSFW text).

Punishing incest as a criminal offence in itself seems to be based on numerous preconceived notions and prejudices, especially when the law is unspecified enough to even apply to, say, a lesbian affair between adult half-sisters with a small age gap.

The comments I read did not contain any solid reason to deny the right of consenting adults to love, sex, and marriage simply because they are close relatives. There were many comments from allies.

Carolyn Jessop’s Testimony Supports Freedom to Marry

Carolyn Jessop testified in the Canadian poly trial, claiming that she lived in a polygynous community that had a climate of fear and abuse. The community was in Arizona, however, not Canada.

When she was 18, she was forced to marry a 50-year-old man she didn't know and who already had three wives. She eventually had eight children with him, Jessop said.

Nobody should be forced to marry. Those who support full marriage equality support the requirement of the consent of all spouses.

Still, Jessop said, polygamy should be decriminalized. She said neither the courts nor the police are enforcing the polygamy law, and she hopes decriminalizing the practice would at least raise the possibility women and children living in polygamy could get help.

She is right about this. If there is abuse, it will be easier for the authorities to stop the abusers if the law hasn’t already made criminals out of the victims.

It is entirely possible that there are problematic communities in which polygyny is practiced. That doesn’t mean polygyny, or polygamy in general, is the problem. Any more than the conclusions that monogamy must be criminalized because of domestic violence in those marriages.

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?

Without a Victim, It Shouldn’t be a Crime

David Epstein’s case continues to get people talking.

Do you think both should be charged with incest?

So do you think Incest is a two-way street? I think Incest is a two way street.

Neither should be charged with a crime. Incest should not be a crime when it involves consensual sex. It should only be a factor that enhances sentencing for child molestation, child rape, and statutory rape, which are already crimes. Rape or sexual assault involving two or more non-dependent adults should bring severe sentences regardless of whether the people involved are a related.

If David Epstein’s daughter was a consenting party, the law should have nothing to do with this.

Mom2Max is clearly disgusted by the idea, but still sees that this is not a criminal matter…

However sick and disgusting incest may be – I don’t see how it is a crime if the sex was consensual. What business is it of the governments is neither of the parties have a problem with it?

Excuse me while I go vomit now.

Nova…

God, they should get rid of incest laws. Incest is a two way street. If it’s consensual, what’s the problem? Both people want it.

Thank you.

indie chick…

No. Incest USUALLY occurs when one of the victims is raped.
rape is not a two way street.

We actually have no way of knowing for sure how much consensual sex there is between close relatives, whether adults or minors who are close in age. I have witnessed and read many credible accounts of consenual sex between close relatives. So statements that incest “usually” occurs through rape is a statement that can’t be definitively supported. Rape, of course, should be illegal.

most people will not willingly have sex with their relatives.

Most people will not have intergenerational sex, and most men will not willingly have sex with another man, but we don’t make those things illegal.

Whether or not something should be illegal is a different question than whether or not someone wants to do it themselves. Most people can’t seem to give any reason as to which Esptein should be charged with a crime other than “I wouldn’t want to do that.” That’s not a good enough reason.

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.

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.