Are there any laws on the books against adultery? Can people be arrested or ticketed for sleeping with someone other than their spouse?
Polygamy and bigamy are not legal, but they are marriage issues and no marriage issues are in play in the Texas case. So that is irrelevant.
Are we defining incest as between blood related members of the immediate family? Some states permit marriages of at least second cousins, I believe. In any event, what is the penalty for, say, a brother sleeping with his sister if they are both over the age of consent? Can police lawfully arrest them?
If there are no laws against these things, and there is no penalty... I'd say they have a de facto right.
SANTORUM AND THE CONSTITUTION:" There are a couple of points about the Santorum controversy that are worth re-examining. The first is his problem with the Constitutional right to privacy. As I said yesterday, this is a perfectly respectable position, and one with which I have some sympathy. My preference would be for Texas voters to throw out this invasive and discriminatory law. My second choice would be for the Court to strike down the law on the grounds of equal protection, in as much as it criminalizes the same "offense" for one group of people (gays) but not for another (straights). But as a simple matter of constitutional fact, the right to privacy is very well entrenched. More to the point, one critical precedent for it, as Santorum concedes, is the Griswold ruling, protecting couples from state interference in their use of contraception. Now what is the real difference - in Santorum's moral universe - between contraception and non-procreative sex, i.e. sodomy? I don't see any myself. From a Catholic viewpoint, they are morally indistinguishable. So the question emerges: if Santorum believes, for religious reasons, that people should be jailed for private gay sex, why does he not think people should be jailed for the use of contraception? If his goal, for civil reasons, is "strong, healthy families," then contraception might even be more problematic than gay sex. It actually prevents heterosexuals from forming families at all. Does Santorum therefore endorse making contraception illegal? Would he allow the cops to police this in people's bedrooms? Will anyone ask him these obvious questions? Of course not.
SLIPPERY, SLIPPERY:" The second issue is whether his point about a "slippery slope" from non-procreative sex to incest to polygamy, and so on, is valid. Where do we draw the line in policing private sexual behavior? My golden rule in matters of limited government is an old and simple one. It is that people should be free to do within their own homes anything they want to, as long as it is consensual, adult and doesn't harm anyone else. Bigamy and polygamy are therefore irrelevant here. Bigamy means being married to more than one woman; polygamy, likewise, means being married to more than two women. There's nothing inconsistent between saying you don't want such marriages to be legal (I don't) and also saying that what people do sexually in their own homes should be their own business, and not the government's. Do I think it should be a crime for a man to have sex with two women at once? Or an orgy? Nope. It's none of mine or the state's business. And that applies to having live-in long-term girlfriends, or any other type of consenting private relationship people might want. The only relevant issue is if a child - an involuntary participant in this private set-up - is the result of such relationships, in which case, we have another party involved, who might be harmed in some way. (This is also, for many, the issue with abortion and privacy.) That changes the equation, and makes some state interference defensible. Incest is more complicated, but it also fails the test because it involves the possibility of a child, in this case subject to physical problems as well as severe emotional ones. What these cases show is that the state's interest in policing private sex should only be related, and then only at some considerable distance, to the protection of children. But all this shows is that the case of private gay sex is perhaps the relationship that the government should be least concerned about. Why? Because it's the one least likely to involve children. In fact, as a sexual act, it's the only one that will never lead to children. So why, one wonders, is it the relationship that Santorum most wants to police? Hmmm.
CRIMINALIZING ADULTERY?" Now let me turn the slippery slope argument around. Santorum argues that I should be jailed for having private consensual sex with my boyfriend in my own home. (He lets it slip at the end of the interview when he says: " If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right..." [My italics.]) Why does he believe this? Because, somehow, my relationship prevents others from forming "strong, healthy families." I have no idea how my relationship has such a bad effect on others - but leave that for a moment. If that is the criterion for the government to police our bedrooms, then why should not adultery be criminal? It has a far, far more direct effect on "strong, healthy families". It's far, far more common than gay sex - hurts children, destroys families, wounds women, and on and on. To argue that gay sex should be illegal but adultery shouldn't be, makes no sense at all. Again, Santorum must be asked if he believes adultery should be criminalized. Will anyone ask that? Not on Fox News."
The Bible says that adulturers should be put to death, period. Where does that fit in, good politics, good theology, or good Constitutional law?
Georgia's sodomy law was challenged in 1986 under Bowers v. Hardwick -- the USSC upheld it as it applied to homosexuals, without comment in regards to heterosexuals.
It was tossed in 1998 by the Georgia SC in Powell v. State -- after having been applied to heterosexual incest with an underage girl.
Kinda ironic, huh?
Which exactly parts of the remarks Mr. Smith want to be condemed? Abiut incest or about adultery?
That sums up the feeling by many. It is beginning to look like many Americans are awakening to exactly what the homosexual agenda for this nation truly means.
I think the biggest lie being foisted onto the public here is the lie that "whatever I do in the bedroom has nothing to do with the rest of the society". If anything should be clear to everyone in America, the untruth of that statement should be.
What have we had for the past 30 years but a tireless, militant advocacy for "acceptance" of the Gay lifestyle?? Not content to simply press for equal treatment, many Gay advocacy groups insist that we subject our children to teaching that indoctrinates them in the belief that homosexuality should be "celebrated" (and I do quote). This, contrary to the express wishes and beliefs of the parents who send their children to school to "educated".
The fact of the matter is, what is done in the bedroom or privacy of our lives will always find expression outside those confines if for no other reason than an inate need for approval. Garnering approval, the next instinctive desire is for majority status. This is just "plain old" Bible teaching about basic human nature and it's surprising to see so many, especially here, denying it.
The Rick Santorums of the world know this to be true and look down the road and see the pernicious effects of a society that opening the door to these kinds of practices will bring down on our heads. To me, it's something like marijuana being a "gateway" drug, to use a cheap analogy. Any kind of civil sanction of an immoral practice works the same corrosion, although not always to the same extent.
I can't recall the exact year, but I remember watching a documentary on one of the Gay March on Washington events. What the researcher was at pains to show was who was in the train following the Gay marchers. It is absolutely on point to note that following the so-called "mainstream" Gays, were pedophiles (NAMBLA in particular), masochists, sadomasochists, bestiality practitioners and so on. When asked why THEY were there, they used the EXACT logic Sen Santorum is using, namely, "If THEIR (the Gays) lifestyle is ok, what is wrong with our 'consensual sex' lifestyle? We want OURS TOO." It was ironic to see how they were ignored by the mainstream Gays.
As to laws regarding this behavior being unenforceable, I'd argue that one aspect of the law is not just penal (no pun intended), but also prescriptive in that it states the norms that the society enacting them holds. In this case, the US is saying (in its majority, through law enacted by popularly elected officials), "We draw the line here." No society can hold itself together and not draw boundaries and distinctions somewhere, and those "somewheres" will no doubt leave some folks unhappy. This, it seems to me, is what the hubbub is all about.
There is nothing new, the Preacher says, under this old sun. The battle between Goodness and sin continues. There will always be prophetic voices pointing out our sins and those voices will always draw the wrath of us sinners.
Preach on, Senator Santorum!