Of course one function of incest laws is to prevent too close relatives from making babies. The reason the question occurred to me is that I knew two sisters who lived together their entire adult lives (I haven’t the faintest idea if sex was involved, best guess not). When one died, her entire retirement account, although left to her sister, had to pay taxes in one year at the highest marginal rate. Had they been married, the account would have transferred, tax free, to the survivor. Of course, taxes would have had to be paid eventually, but most of the account would have paid out slowly (the survivor is in her mid-80s and the retirement account has to be exhausted by 91). Still there was a big hit. Of course, this could depend on local law. But I wondered.
I have no idea; however although obviously as you surmise, the medical rationale is obviated, another objection to incest has been — more in recent times — that any such relationship may, only may, involve some form of emotional coercion of the part of one or both ( victims also can be manipulative ) of the two parties.
This would be more apparent in direct-line relationship ( eg: father/daughter : grandmother/grandson etc. ), but could be supposed with siblings.
The problem will be easily solved however by denouncing opposers as mean-spirited haters.
There are lots of ways to mitigate a tax burden through intelligent estate planning without getting into a “The Hills Have Eyes” scenario.
In Canada, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act provides that a person cannot marry a brother or a sister - no specific mention of same-sex marriage, but the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex and same-sex marriages.
See s. 2(2):
I friend of a friend of a guy who’s picture I once saw has seen & read about same sex (lesbian anyway) incest porn.
According to their information the laws regarding incest ONLY specifically cover hetero-incestuous relationships (i.e. brother-sister, father-daughter, mother-son etc.). Reason being that the laws have simply not kept up with the social mores. IOW previously incest **and **homosexuality were **both **crimes so all bases were covered. Homosexuality in the West was finally decriminalized in the 60s & 70s but incest was not. Therefore there’s an unanticipated loophole. And only the most thumpiest of bible-belt politicians would want to bother even mention proposing such legislation today.
A couple years ago Howard Stern had on a pair of lesbian sisters on who were porn stars. They weren’t step-sisters or adopted, but true sisters…They even made out on his E! show. (the link is only NSFW once you get quite a ways into it…)
In the UK, neither Civil Partnership Act 2004, which allowed same-sex civil partnership, nor the Marriage (Same Sex Couples Act), which created same-sex marriage, allow the union of siblings.
During the legislative process, “wrecking amendments” were attempted to be introduced by opponents of both laws to extend marriage rights to co-habiting siblings, but these efforts were defeated.
In Oregon, there’s a form called Civil Union. This relationship is treated under the law exactly like marriage. Therefore gay “marriage” between first cousins or closer is never allowed.
No areas that I know of that allow same-sex marriages or even civil partnerships that have many of the same rights as same-sex marriages allow the partners to be siblings, uncle-nephew, or whatever is restricted in terms of regional opposite-sex marriages.
The Criminal Code of Canada, s. 155, makes incest a criminal offence. The wording of the section would appear to include same-sex relationships.
Dan Savage had a letter from a young gay man who wanted to date his (male) cousin and wondered if they should 1) come out to the family as a couple, and 2) if such a thing was incest. (I don’t think they grew up together.) Dan said in such a case it should be considered the same way as if they were male/female cousins. If it was OK in that state for male/female cousins to marry, it should be OK for male/male cousins to marry (though the question was before gay marriage came along).
Anti-incest laws have been around much longer than any understanding of the genetic risks involved (which, when you get beyond sibling, or parent-child, incest, are not very great anyway). Furthermore, I learned in Anthropology class that incest taboos (which affect behavior in a quite different way from laws) are pretty much universal, cross-culturally (at least with respect to sibling and parent child sex), and certainly much more so than homosexuality taboos. Although, of course, things sometimes go wrong, it seems to be innate for humans not to be sexually attracted to the people they grew up in an intimate relationship with, and to find incest, when it does occur amongst others, very icky. (Presumably natural selection was sensitive to the genetic risks of close-family incest, even when people themselves were not consciously aware of them.)
That being the case, I would expect incest laws and taboos to generally be applied to gay relationships even in societies where gay sexual relationships are fully accepted.
Note that 20th and 21st century America seems to be quite unusual amongst societies in considering cousin marriage or sex to be incest.
Wonder where he lives. Our 1974 Penal code (since overridden a couple of times) made reference to “any direct ascendant or descendant, or consanguinous relative up to the third degree, by birth or adoption” (so cousins are in the clear; Lazarus Long would be screwed) when referring to incest as a crime, no gender specified. Seems the only “gendered” sex crimes were rape (m/f only) vs. sodomy (included both m/f and same-sex). That same language has been in the marriage section of our Civil code since 1931, which did not even include an explicit “only between a man and woman” language until the late-90s political panic.
Nit pick: Some states in America. Not all.
And only a handful of states have laws against sex between first cousins.
In fact in many states it is legal for 1st cousins to marry.
In New Jersey and I believe Rhode Island incest is not illegal at all between adults. But there is still a prohibition against marriage.
FTR, I think it would have been okay if Greg Brady nailed Marcia. As long as she consented.
This is right, but as far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for a same-sex incestuous partnership. Incest is still illegal, but it seems that in practice, homosexuals ‘get away with it’.
On the inheritance problem, the legalisation of same-sex marriage resolved a problem, in that only spouses inherit without a tax liability. Yes avoidance is possible but can be expensive and is certainly beyond the means of an average wage earner with a small estate.
Well, that’s pretty much the same thing, unless there are people in New Jersey who have had sex outside marriage.
??? Incest refers to the sexual act, not to marriage. In some states, cousin-cousin sex is not illegal, but cousin-cousin marriage is. The distinction is important.
There may be a few.
Politically, if same-sex marriage equality was seen as opening the door to incestuous marriage (broadly defined), that would be the end of same-sex marriage equality for at least another two generations. The incest taboo is strong and irrational, and it’s not going away.
So, yes, incest laws will definitely apply to same-sex marriages; even if they don’t initially apply, they will.