In Kitchener, Ontario, a judge has convicted a 42 year old woman and her 25 year old son for incest: they had 3 children.
The judge observed that it was the most awful case he’s ever had to try.
Obviously, the trial judge is not up on his Charter jurisprudence. Since marriage is now defined anyway we want to define it, why not recognize the rights of incestuous relations to get married? That’s how the defendants appear to have seen it:
The couple actually got married and the man claimed to be his mother’s husband.
See here on why the new definition of marriage opens this door. Oh yeah, there’s the biological factor of inbreeding. But hey, genetic engineering should fix that in short order.
H/t: Nealenews.
Civitatensis has more.
Lyndon Simmons wrote:
Give me a break, Tom. Do you really believe that the new definition of marriage opens the door to incest? If it did, then why, pray tell, were these two charged and convicted? If marriage is such an important issues, then shouldn’t the people who dole out marriage licences check to see if people are actually legally able to marry? The problem isn’t with the definition, but with the administration of the institution.
Posted on 02-Nov-05 at 7:02 am | Permalink
ThePolitic - Canadian Political Weblog » Blog Archive » Incest and the Charter Revisited wrote:
[…] My response to a comment on my previous blog on the case of an incestuous “marriage” demands an extended response. […]
Posted on 02-Nov-05 at 8:33 am | Permalink
Tom Cerber wrote:
Lyndon: I’ve posted my response here.
Posted on 02-Nov-05 at 8:34 am | Permalink