As I sit here at my computer the tv is on in the other room, and one of those so-called “Judge” programs is on. I didn’t hear it all, but the judge character said that sex with the woman’s sister-in-law is, according to the law in some states, incest.
That would be her husbands sister.
Is that true?
mangeorge
From the looks of it, Kentucky, and maybe New Jersey.
http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/vaw_state_criminal_incest_statutes.pdf
Only thing I could find. Seems to indicate that in states in red marriage with in-laws would be criminalized. Don’t known if this is specifically classified as “incest” however.
I always thought that such a practice would be kinda, I don’t know, not very nice but not illegal.
And the woman he was referring to was the ex SIL.
I guess I’m not surprised. It’s also (according to many) an abomination to have a relationship with a friends ex gf/bf.
I can’t speak for US law, but this was certainly Church of England teaching for some time (may still be, for all I know), and was also, until recently, enshrined in UK law. It’s quite a long-standing idea in some circles- for example, it’s an important plot point in Hamlet (yes, that Hamlet). I don’t imagine it would have much currency today, though.
Abomination? Hm, I thought the general politeness rule is that you have to have a talk and preferrably get a blessing from said friend beforehand, but abomination?
What, you never watch Jerry Springer?
In Canada, your spouse’s side of the family is fair game. For your own side of the family, your uncles, aunts, and cousins are do-able. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267262.html#Section-155
I’m not surprised the Church of England is against it, since this issue led to the formation of the Church in the first place.
Henry VIII wanted to marry his sister-in-law Catherine of Aragon (his brother had died, so that wasn’t the issue). However, the bible called this incest. Henry got a special dispensation from the Pope to allow him to marry.
Later, when Henry tired of Catherine and wanted the marriage annulled,* his argument was that the marriage was indeed incestuous and that the Pope did not have the right to overrule the bible.
So if marrying a sister-in-law was allowed, the C of E would have never have existed. I’d wouldn’t be surprised if it still is banned under church law, since allowing it would tacitly admit the Church had no reason for existance.
*Henry VIII did not divorce any of his wive: the marriages of Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves were annulments, not divorces.
Why is Canadian law (seemingly) so freakin’ reasonable?
I think “so freakin’ reasonable” would make a pretty apt motto for all of Canada.
Would that we 'merkins learn a thing or two from our Northern friends.
Now that’s a reasonable spouse!
Just to be clear, we’re talking about a lesbian relationship?
The answers so far have been about male-female sex.
This relationship is lesbian, but the judge’s opinion is that it is incestous. He said nothing (in my hearing) specific about the lesbian aspect of it.
I’m assuming that none of these incest laws, or rules, are progressive enough to address the gay/lesbian part of the question. Those relationships are banned on their own merit.
I skimmed the linked info and saw nothing about brother/brother or sister/sister sex.
In California, it’s only incestuous under ALL of the following circumstances:
a) There’s a blood relation closer than cousin. Step and in-law don’t count.
b) It’s male/female.
c) It’s vaginal intercourse.
Reasoning? Birth defects. The California law bans activity that could potentially result in a birth defect. if there’s no relation (as in step/in-law), there’s no added risk. As for the other conditions, gays can’t naturally procreate and oral/anal sex can’t result in pregnancy.
I know, however, that a lot of other states are more “moral” than health-concerned about this and just won’t let anyone related by blood or law engage in ANY sexual activity. I don’t know of any states specifically incorporating lesbians or gays into incest laws.
I was told in my Bar review course than in Virginia that the law does not distinguish between someone being your brother-in-law or your actual brother, so that this would be incest as long as they were still married. I don’t have a cite for this; it’s just what I’ve heard.
–Cliffy
I remember reading that Queen Victoria tried to have it changed in the church because she wanted her youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice, to marry deceased sister’s widow, the Grand Duke of Hesse, who had been married to Victoria’s daughter Princess Alice. Nothing came of it-and neither Beatrice nor Louis, the Grand Duke, wanted it to happen.
With DNA testing so available and accepted now, someone could possibly skate by proving no blood relationship. For instance, the adult child of an affair.