More Fun With The Law

So I was scanning the "Judicial Highlights" portion of this week's copy of the Washington Reporter, and came across a blurb on a case overturning anothers state's law prohibiting step- parents from having sex with opposite sexed step-children because it did not similarly ban step-parents from having sex with same-sex step-children. The court found that unlike the prohibition on sex between opposite-sexed offspring, there was no threat of genetic disease, so the state did not have a compelling interest in regulating the behavior.

I would think that the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting the behavior just to avoid those splashy, tabloid-style breaches of the peace. I can't wait for the flood of murder/manslaughter cases.

Afterall, what could make the new wife more angry than catching Hubby sleeping with her daughter? Why, catching Hubby sleeping with her son, of course.

While I seriously wonder about the circumstances of the case, I see it as more of a trend that we all have an interest in stopping. The Massachusetts gay marriage case was a bad ruling based on an emotional rather than logical argument. I said at the time, consider the fact that it would have been unthinkable ten years before. Take this case, and more following in its path, and go forward ten years. "Freedom to marry" will be expanded to mean poligamy, the guy down the street who really REALLY loves his animal will be free to marry it, and with rulings like these, you can cut out the middleman and the sneaking around and just marry the new spouse AND her daughter.

You think I'm kidding. Just wait. It's coming...