My decision to support the legalization of incest is a direct result of hate mail I received last week from some Clinton supporters angry about a spoof quote I recently published. Some thought the quote suggested that Bill Clinton actually fondled his daughter’s backside at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. And, needless to say, I always listen to Clinton supporters when they offer moral condemnation. I really think I’m a better man for it. (I also take Hillary’s advice on investment opportunities whenever she’s in the mood to talk).Some would respond to the accusation that I accused Clinton of incest by asking whether a man’s decision to fondle his daughter’s fanny actually constitutes incest. But I have a much more penetrating question: What is a liberal’s basis for condemning incest, or, for that matter, anything else as immoral?
Because so many of my colleagues in the UNC system are atheists, I have decided to reject any and all laws that are included in the Bible unless, of course, the atheists can articulate some objective standard outside of their personal moral qualms with a given behavior. I want to avoid violating the Separation of Church and State Clause that is written so clearly in the opening lines of the First Amendment. I also want to avoid living in a country in which people push their personal views about morality upon others.
By making incest legal we have a golden opportunity to create the kind of society that Margaret Mead argued could be established when she wrote about sexual mores in Samoa in the 1920s. By removing restrictions on sexual behavior we can remove all the guilt that goes along with it since such guilt is merely a socially constructed reality. Some would be quick to point out that Mead’s research was based on certain flaws and fabrications. But none of those considerations are relevant so long as our long term goals are laudable.