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.
Again, governments have no rights, they have powers. The Constitution allows the States powers not reserved to the Federal government, e.g., the power to coin money.
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.
I refer to the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote that individuals have rights and governments are created to secure those rights. No other purpose for government -- secure individual rights, that's all. Jefferson, at the time, obviously wasn't making any distinction between some yet to be invented Federal/State relationship, therefore it applies to both.
Since the Declaration was our stated argument for breaking from England and forming our own country, abandoning the notion of government using power to secure rights would delegitimize the Constitution.
There are many functions of government that have to do with things other than the protection of individual rights. I would like more information on where this concept comes from. One sentence, out of context, from the Declaration of Independance does not cut it.
I know men who've been happily married (from all outward appearances) who have subsequently decided they were "gay". (In fact, one such just recently died of AIDS.)
There are also many married men who engage in anonymous homosexual sex - cruisin', to use the popular term, at dirty book stores, restrooms, via chat rooms, etc.
The "predisposition" seems awfully like a matter of choice.
My belief is that most men engaging in homosexual behavior do so because of the more ready availability of homosexual sex. Could you tell the sex of the other person when you're doing it through a "glory hole" ? Is it a matter of "attraction" or just a quick orgasm ?
Conjures up images of abuse of power, doesn't it? Given that I'm no expert, I'll respond to what I can.
Establishment of Memorial Day? Government has the power to raise and army and navy to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. Memorial Day can be a way to express our gratitude to those who served, thereby encouraging future citizens to choose such service in protection of our rights.
Postal System? Probably an internal mechanism of government as it exercised its just powers. Elements of government must communicate among themselves and with the citizenry.
Scientific Research? Depends on the project. Some might be justified under research for military purposes. Protection of property rights could be cited for things like pesticides. Protection of life for medical research.
Interstate Highway? Was justified by Eisenhower for efficient military movement and civilian evacuation should we be attacked.
I agree with you, that is what she is saying.
Did you choose to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite gender, and conversely, sexually repulsed by those of the same?
Without going into gory details, yes. I find the thought of kissing a guy extremely repulsive. Could I choose to be the other way, or both ways? As a happily married man, I have no reason to, but I certainly know people who have.
No, government can only pass laws protecting individual rights. You are talking about "public relations".
Postal System? Probably an internal mechanism of government as it exercised its just powers. Elements of government must communicate among themselves and with the citizenry.
No, government can only pass laws protecting individual rights. The governments internal mechanism does not protect individual rights.
Scientific Research? Depends on the project. Some might be justified under research for military purposes. Protection of property rights could be cited for things like pesticides. Protection of life for medical research.
No, government can only pass laws protecting individual rights. You state military advancement and property rights.
Interstate Highway? Was justified by Eisenhower for efficient military movement and civilian evacuation should we be attacked.
No, government can only pass laws protecting individual rights. Public goals such as mass evacuation is not a protection of individual rights.
See how difficult it is to realistically deal with any legislative question with the phrase:
No, government can only pass laws protecting individual rights.
No, government can only pass laws protecting individual rights. You state military advancement ...
I stated that our government is exercising a just power ceded it by its citizens to secure their individual rights to life and property from foreign invasion. The purpose of the army is to protect each of our individual rights. In order to secure those rights, the army must be prepared to repel an invasion. To repel an invasion, they must have weapons capable of doing so. How effective do you imagine our army would be repelling an invader today using musket and ball? About as effective as the Iraqi army was stopping us? Probably less so. How is the army supposed to move from a musket and ball capability to one capable of defending our rights today? One way is to devise new weapons. One part of devising new weapons is to "research" them. There is nothing specifying how the government exercising its justly ceded power to accomplish that research. Empowering means they decide how.
If you can't make the connection between military research and the ability of the army to protect our rights, I have nothing left to discuss with you.
I specifically tailored the question to elicit a personal response from you. Not what your buddies might be asserting, but what you personally experienced. Growing up myself, I certainly was attracted to girls and was repulsed by ANY thought of boys. That's the way I was. It wasn't something I chose. Could I have, after my initial impulse, have chosen homosexuality? I don't know nor do I care really. My point is, without any conscious effort I was a specific way. It seems you were too.
I can't argue your points about married men straying because I've known a couple who have. But when I asked one of them how he could do such a thing (I know him well enough to ask), he told me it was always something that he felt he wanted.
No doubt some may engage in homosexual behavior because it's available.........but I think those are in the minority. I respect your viewpoint on this, but like I said.........either you're pre-disposed or your not.
Of course like someone else said, one could always abstain for moral and personal reasons. That would be my hope for them.
Of course military dependancy is important, but you will find many on this site who follow your initial rationale to extremes and argue that there should be no standing army.
Seriously.
They read the Constitution in such a narrow way that when it says that Congress shall not budget for the military in no more than 2 year blocks that means that the Founders never intended the Federal Government to have a standing army, just that the Congress could raise an Army and support it for 2 years at a time.
That is the level of discussion that I must deal with each time I come into a discussion of Governmental spending. Frustrating, right?
The fact is that as a precept in the Declaration of Independance, Jefferson was making clear that Government should be something that is beholden to the constituency and not the other way around. He was saying that Government should support a people and provide them freedom rather than a people provide Government with largesse. He did not mean, and neither did Locke or Paine, that Government's only function was to directly support individual rights. It is a function of Government, but as you point out providing for common defense, organizing itself to be effective, and supporting the advancement of it's people as a whole are also functions of a Government.
Sometimes that means that the Government does things that are unpopular to a large minority of people. Sometimes that means that the Government does things that are unpopular to a majority of people. Does that mean that the Government does not have the right to do them? If the people gave the Government that right, you better believe it does.
Emminant Domain.
Does the Government have the right of Emminant Domain? The writer of the Declaration of Independance believed so and was very convinced of that right of the Federal Government after the Louisiana Purchase. How does that square with your beliefs? How can the concept of Emminant Domain be reconciled with Government's only duty being to uphold individual rights? How could Jefferson write the Declaration of Independance and yet support such a notion?
The same way he could write "All men are created equal" and still own slaves. Idealism and Pragmatism must both be employed in Governance, for a Government of one without the other is doomed from the start.
The Marv Albert case was a notable one.
It appears to have a lot more to do with culture than biology.
That wasn't about heterosexual sodomy. It was about assault.
So far there is no definitive proof in either direction
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.