The Incest Straw Man

Red State's Erik Erickson has written a compelling case against gay marriage called "Why Not Incest".

Did I write compelling. Sorry. It's late. I meant, completely asinine.

The inspiration for the article was noted sociologist and evil lion voice Jeremy Irons, who wrote an equally stupid interview in The Huffington Post where he ponders if the legalization of gay marriage would lead to father's and son's marrying for tax benefits.

(Brief note: isn't it weird how the right argues that actors shouldn't make political opinions when it is George Clooney or Matt Damon doing the talking, but when Simon fron Die Hard With a VEngence says something it suddenly is a compelling revelation)

I'm not angry at Irons, who was clearly just sort of babbling without thinking. This wasn't some well thought out position he was claiming. Just him trying to sound smart by pointing out a legal loophole that would develop. Irons is an actor, and a great one. But he's clearly no policy expert.

But Erickson...well he is paid to be a commentator on these things. So I expect something more (OK, not expect...hope, pray, wish) from him. Instead, he argues that Irons is right! Why Not Incest!

Shouldn’t that include committed incestuous relationships? If love and commitment are the justification for marriage, why exempt this?
But … but … but what about the deformity of the kids, etc. Well, gay couples cannot have kids. Just as gay marriage advocates say the concerns about procreation are archaic when it comes to marriage, they are definitionally irrelevant if we move on to gay marriage.
So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the “ick” factor? Why should that preclude it?

The problem with Erickson's argument (and Irons' too) is that incest laws are not based on genetics. If it was just genetics then same-sex incest wouldn't be illegal, nor would adoptive parent incest, or step-parent. The problem with incest isn't genetic, but the fact that the parent-child relationship is one of unequal power where coercion can easily happen. Even with adult children (see MacKenzie Phillips for an example of this).

Erickson's incest argument actually already came before the courts, and failed, in the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned state laws against sodomy. In State v. Lowe the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio's incest statute was constitutional as applied to an adult child and step-parent, even in the wake of the Lawrence decision. The court said that the state had a rational basis in laws that protect the family unit including punishing consensual sex between step-parents and children.

The legalization of gay marriage wouldn't change the incest argument because incest laws are about protecting the family unit and preventing the abuse of children. Not just preventing procreation. Stop thinking everything is about procreation!

I know this is hard for some people to understand, but two men (or two women, or transgender people) who want to form a legally recognized union is not the same as incest, or statutory rape, or bestiality, or polygamy. When people of the same gender marry there is not concern about consent or about coercion the way there are with all those other things.

I don't know what to do with the fact that Erickson thinks that the only reason why we'd have problems with incest is the genetic problems. He is either being naive or disingenuous to argue that incest is the same as same-sex relationships. Either he doesn't realize the serious abuse of position that happens in incestuous relationships, or he is minimizing it in order to make a better rhetorical argument.

Gay people exist. They have long term relationships. They have children they raise with their partners. They do everything that hetrosexual couples do. What is the argument against allowing them the legal rights of marriage? Incest laws protect children from being taken advantage of because of the unequal relationship between parents and children...is this unequal relationship there in homosexual relationships?

Incest laws also protect the family unit, as discussed in the Lowe case, by criminalizing the act of sex with someone within the family other than a spouse. Lowe's relationship with his step-daughter not only ruined his marriage but also the mother-child relationship between his wife and her child. While I've heard many people SAY that gay marriage will undermine family values, I have yet to see an explanation of why.

Incest laws aren't just about genetics. They have solid logical reasons behind them. So, what about the case against gay marriage? What is the logical argument against that. Or, to quote Erickson, is it just the Ick factor?