After finding a constitutional right to kill your baby in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court found it had not done sufficient damage to the Republic. In 2003, it raised the unrestrained libido to the level of constitutionally protected behavior in Lawrence v. Texas. What is notable is that both activities, abortion and buggery, were capital offenses under English Common Law and retained that status throughout the 18th century. This is not to advocate the reinstatement of capital punishment for these acts (though I’m open to being convinced) but to point out how, in an amazingly short period of time, we’ve gone from treating some activities as felonies to making it a felony to interfere with the activities.

In his dissent to Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia had this to say:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality*, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
…
If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?’

Scalia was accused of hyperbole and creating a “parade of horribles” that, you know, would never ever happen. Oddly enough, Scalia’s dissent has been cited by a handful of federal judges as the rationale for their overturning the will of the people and imposing by fiat a social invention that had been expressly rejected by the electorate.

As bad ideas in Europe soon become bad ideas in the United States, let’s take a quick look on the horizon. Earlier in the year I posted on the trend that is seeking to mainstream incest. Now Germany has spoken:

“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

As an aside, the study notes that from 2 to 4 percent of Germans have had an incestuous experience (not sure what this entails, but it is Germany we’re talking about and they are one schwer in ordnung volk people), or roughly the same percentage as homosexuals represent in the United States. So this is at least as likely to happen as homosexual sex.

Last month there was this from Georgia (for Vox editors, this is the state not the country):

Effingham County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the area of Hester Road and Highway 30 because of a report of a prowler shortly after 4 a.m.

While deputies checked the area they located a male and a female walking in the area. When deputies investigated further, deputies determined the couple were brother and sister and were having sex in a Kenworth Enterprise Tractor Trailer.

“Christopher Buckner, 20, [ed note, yes, Christopher is the sister which may explain a lot] of Guyton and her brother, Timothy Savoy, 25, of Jackson, GA, were inside of the tractor trailer at the County Side Baptist Church on Highway 30 having sex prior to being stopped by deputies,” Sheriff’s Spokesman David Ehsanipoor said.

The siblings were arrested and charged with incest, sodomy and prowling.

When viewed in the light of Lawrence and where that decision has taken us it is difficult to see how this loving couple could be cited for anything more serious than mopery with the intent to lurk. It is hard to see how incest, which at least makes some biological sense, could remain illegal when homosexual sex is honored by the state. And why their sodomy should be any more egregious than homosexual sodomy is a puzzle.

As much as the proponents of homosexuality like to denigrate Scalia’s dissent by claiming that he was equating homosexuality with bestiality, etc., what Scalia was simply pointing out that if the State has no ability under the constitution to regulate activities that are generally considered immoral by the electorate, then there is no logical end to what is permitted. Taken in this light, it is difficult to see how bans on topless attire for women, public nudity, public intoxication, public sex or masturbating in the library can survive legal scrutiny.

*Speaking of bestiality. Things can be taken too far for even, well, Europeans. Denmark is thinking about banning sex with animals:

Denmark is planning to ban bestiality after long-running international pressure over animal welfare.
Denmark is one of the few European countries which still allows bestiality. Norway, Sweden and Germany have all banned the practice, leading to a rise in the underground animal sex tourism in Denmark.

Going back to Scalia’s dissent, how does one declare having sex with a cow is bad (I am not making any Michele Obama jokes here) when it is completely licit to kill the animal. What is the compelling state interest that says you can’t give Bossie or Porky a hearty send-off? Why should loving your pet be subject to greater regulation than loving your whatever?