Though it has fallen out of favor with most social conservatives these days, one tactic for fighting ‘the gay agenda’ that used to be very effective involved comparing homosexuality to bestiality and incest.  There was a time when, in many people’s minds, those things were all morally equivalent.  They were all seen as sexually deviant behaviors deserving of equal scorn, and that was about it.

Public opinion and awareness have since shifted, and most opponents of GLBT rights have given up on drawing direct connections between homosexuality and incest and bestiality.  Those comparisons are now seen as politically incorrect, and polygamy is the new boogey man en vogue.

But old habits die hard, and occasionally old prejudices can make their way into offhand remarks.  Such was the case for U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron) last night, when a little comparison to incest came out in the middle of his speech to an anti-abortion group:

“We have no residency requirement in Iowa law, which means that people can come from all over this country — a man and a man, a woman and a woman — it could be, I suppose, a father and a son or a mother and a daughter,” King said.  “They can come to this state and get married and then go back to the state where they reside.”

Incest is a Class D felony under Iowa law, so the point is mostly moot.  But, even if it wasn’t, King’s fears are probably misplaced.  After all, under Iowa’s old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, there was no great epidemic of mothers marrying sons or fathers marrying daughters.

Rest assured, though, we will be watching for mother-daughter marriages just like we were watching to see if terrorists would be “dancing in the streets” when President Barack Obama was inaugurated.  (King claimed that was going to happen both before the election and after the election.)