What, then, must we do? A poll

[osiris]

As we are all aware, being in a consensual sexual relationship with a sibling, parent or adult child is against the law throughout the entire English-speaking world.

Penalties for breaking that law vary, but they can be quite severe, comparable with the penalties for murder, rape or armed robbery.

What is your opinion of the present legal situation?

POLL

A) What?! It's against the law? Whoa! I had no idea!

B) The law doesn't apply to us, because our GSA relationship is non-sexual.

C) We should fight this antiquated and unjust law! The GSA community, like the gay and lesbian community, can and must stand up for our rights!

D) So what? The police aren't actively looking to arrest consensually incestuous couples. As long as we remain low-profile, we can avoid prosecution.

E) We'll just bide our time. The laws will change eventually.

[Victor]

C. An unjust law, left alone, even if it seems that it isn't being enforced for the time being remains a weapon against the innocent that can be used at any time and anyplace against anyone of us. Only by openly speaking out against such injustice can we hope to change public opinion, and thereby win our full freedom we deserve.

[osiris]

Hey Vic. Thanks for the response. Again we agree.

For some reason, the actual poll got posted as a different thread. I wonder if it would be too much to ask an administrator to combine the two threads into one?

[osiris]

For the fighters, a little ammunition:

Transcripts of the Lawrence vs. Texas decision, which so far is the best weapon we have in our bag.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html (Syllabus)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html (Justice Kennedy's opinion)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html (Justice O'Connor's concurrence)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html (Justice Scalia's dissent)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD1.html (Justice Thomas' dissent)

The relevant passage: "This Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code. The Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex."

Well, there it is, straight from the horse's mouth. Justices Thomas and Scalia disagree, but they were overruled.

Yes, I know that Muth vs. Frank, which attempted to use Lawrence vs. Texas as a precedent, was thrown out before it could get to the Supreme Court, but there was a lot about that case that was a bit fishy. I think the courts might have been a bit more sympathetic if Allen and Patricia Muth hadn't abandoned their handicapped daughter at the baby sitter's.

As a precedent, Lawrence vs. Texas, combined with the 14th Amendment (equal protection under the law), are about the best hope we have.

[osiris]

And even in Justice Thomas' dissent, he has this to say: "the law before the Court today is uncommonly silly. If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources."

Thomas was referring to the sodomy law in Texas that punished two men for having homosexual intercourse, but the logic applies equally in our situation.

The question to ask the Supreme Court is, of course, whether the Lawrence vs. Texas decision would protect homosexual couples who happen to be related. If it is legal for two brothers to have sex, then the law is an idiot and an ass if it says that a brother and sister may not.