5. A man and his aunt, either his father's or his mother's sister: vs. 12, 13.
6. A man and his uncle's wife: v. 14.
7. A man and his daughter-in-law: v. 15.
8. A man and his brother's wife: v. 16.
9. A man and his wife's daughter: v. 17.
10. A man and his wife's son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter: v. 17.
11. A man and his sister-in-law: v. 18.
Why should the prohibition of any of these marriages be regarded as not belonging to natural law? Let the question be again proposed, What is meant by the law of nature? Chancellor Kent has well answered this question. In his adjudication of the case of Whitman vs. Whitman, he says, "By the law of nature I understand those fit and just rules of conduct, which the Creator has prescribed to a man, as a dependent and social being; and which are to be ascertained from the deductions of right reason, though they may be more precisely known and more explicitly declared by Divine revelation."[1]
- ↑ Conflict of Laws, p. 105, a note, 4 Johns. Ch. R. p. 343.
