Posted on 04/23/2003 11:42:58 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Last week's Washington tempest blew in when Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said that if the Supreme Court in a pending case rules that homosexual practice is constitutionally protected, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
Gay advocacy groups quickly made political hay. The Human Rights Campaign expressed outrage that Santorum "compared homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery" in his "deeply hurtful" remarks. The Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights similarly complained that "his remarks show nothing but contempt for lesbian and gay people."
Whoa! Who's showing contempt here? Logical gay groups should applaud Santorum's recognition that a Supreme Court gay breakthrough will also bring liberation for others with non-monogamous sexual interests. Since when do homosexuals look down on others who follow their own bliss? But maybe this is good news: Our headline could read, "Gays join conservative Christians in criticizing bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery."
The Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance unctuously proclaimed, "Discrimination against any group of citizens based on who they are is simply wrong" -- yet the gay lobbies were implicitly discriminating against those involved in consensual incest. "Extremism in the defense of vice is no vice," they should say, and then proceed to the postmodern claim that it's all a matter of opinion whether a particular act is vicious or virtuous.
But let's move to the politics, since this is all about trying to drive a wedge within the GOP. "We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the remarks," said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. "They're the same types of remarks that sparked outrage toward Sen. Lott."
No, they're not. Trent Lott resigned his Senate leadership post in December after making remarks widely seen as supporting racial discrimination. Lott's words ran counter to the Bible, which is color-blind. Santorum's words reflect the Bible, which says that homosexual practice, like adultery or incest, is wrong. President Bush, who looks to biblical teaching for guidance on important issues, rightly criticized Lott, but he should support Santorum continuing as conference chairman, the third-highest seat in the GOP Senate leadership.
Good politics, good theology, and good constitutional law go together here. The Republican Party should be open to Bible believers, people of other religions and atheists, but if it wants to retain the support of Christians and Orthodox Jews, it should not chastise those who defend biblical truth. Besides, even though the state of Texas may have been unwise under current social conditions to prosecute a case concerning homosexuality, the Supreme Court should not establish a new, loose constructionist constitutional right.
Some Republicans who covet gay lobby campaign contributions will pressure the president to signal a Santorum sack. Because he spoke out in the Trent Lott controversy, he should not sit this one out; Santorum foes will see silence as consent. This is a crucial political fork in the road, and the George W. Bush -- who was tough enough to stand up to supporters of Saddam -- should refuse to be pushed around by supporters of sodomy.
Instead of being defensive, Republicans who are both wise and shrewd will go on offense. They should ask gay interest groups and Democrats to respond to Santorum's challenge: Make a constitutional argument that will differentiate the right to consensual gay sex from a right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery. Legislatures, of course, have long differentiated among certain acts, but what happens if the Supreme Court tells them to cease and desist?
Republicans (and others) who want to become wiser on such issues should read "What We Can't Not Know," a new book by my University of Texas colleague J. Budziszewski. The book is not a Bud Light, but non-professors can readily follow its discussion of "natural law," the "developmental spec sheet" that God has given us. As Santorum knows, once we move off that spec sheet, anarchy reigns.
I'm kind of embarrassed for you now. Sodomy is a term that applies to oral and anal sex between a man and a woman. I only used "heterosexual sodomy" to differentiate in the argument. Get a dictionary. Ask around. Just don't argue with me over a clear definition.
I guess that's what this court case is trying to find out. They accepted the case, so it has some merit.
But I agree with Santorum, the right to have such laws should be recognized.
Please remember, states have no rights, only individuals do. By virtue of having rights, individuals enjoy the power to protect their rights. States (governments) have powers ceded by individuals whose purpose is to protect rights. So, if you believe a state should have the power to make such laws, you should connect it to the right that is being protected.
I can't believe you are arguing with the dictionary, especially since many states have sodomy laws that apply to.. guess who? Heterosexuals.
That is just so sad, Brain.
"i suggest getting an attorney and sueing the school you attended. "
There you go. The icing on the cake.
I don't believe that is her point. I believe she is saying that she didn't choose which gender to be attracted to sexually. Did you choose to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite gender, and conversely, sexually repulsed by those of the same?
No, you wouldn't.
Bet you that mormons would though.
But so what? As long as they're just having the religious ceremonies, I don't think it's the government's business either.
If you say that quickly, its pretty funny.
Power to protect rights. If they are not enacting laws that protect rights, they are not a proper government.
Group sex is not illegal in Texas.
"Better add those blanks to the marriage licenses, I want to make sure ALL my wives are eligble for widows and survivors benifits just in case."
Marriage is a separate issue entirely. You can have sex with hundreds of people legally, but if you marry them all the law will be after you. Try it and find out.
They are SEPARATE issues because of the state's involvement in marriage.
Would the law still be legitimate? Yeah, I would say it was a legitimate law.
What right is being protected?
What I mean is that Hawaii has the right to recognize Gay Marriages. Likewise Texas has the right to forbid sodomy. I do not agree with either of those positions, but the States have the right to pass laws in that manner.
Hawaii, though, could not say it recognized Gay Marriages but not Gay Marriages between 2 black men. That would be in violation of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, a county in Hawaii could not outlaw Gay Marriages since the State of Hawaii legalized them.
This idea that a law must be coupled with a right of individuals that it is defending has intrigued me. Whose idea was this originally? Paine? Jefferson? Locke? This surely doesn't seem like any of their writings. This sounds more like a populace philosophy, like something Bryan would espouse.
Please let me know so I can look further into this idea, I've seen it fairly often recently and would like to understand where and who this is coming from.
This concept seems easy to defend and hard to impliment with many exceptions and quandries waiting the the wings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.