Posted on 04/24/2003 7:31:58 AM PDT by William McKinley
This week, the Associated Press published an interview with Rick Santorum, the third-highest ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate. Referring to a pending case involving sodomy laws, Santorum argued, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, 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."
David Smith, the communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's leading gay rights organization, accused Santorum of "disparaging an entire group of Americans." "He's advocating that a certain segment of American society be disavowed from constitutional protection," Smith charged. "The outrageous thing … is he put being gay on the same legal and moral plane as a person who commits incest. That is repugnant in our view and not right."
Why not?
Let's leave adultery and polygamy out of it for the moment. Let's set aside morality and stick to law. And let's grant that being attracted to a gender is more fundamental than being attracted to a family member. Santorum sees no reason why, if gay sex is too private to be banned, the same can't be said of incest. Can you give him a reason?
The easy answer—that incest causes birth defects—won't cut it. Birth defects could be prevented by extending to sibling marriage the rule that five states already apply to cousin marriage: You can do it if you furnish proof of infertility or are presumptively too old to procreate. If you're in one of those categories, why should the state prohibit you from marrying your sibling?
On Wednesday, I asked Smith that question. "We're talking about people; they're talking about specific acts," he said. "It has nothing to do with these other situations that are largely frowned upon by the vast majority of Americans." Is being frowned upon by the vast majority of Americans an acceptable standard for deciding which practices shouldn't be constitutionally protected? "It's not part of the discussion," Smith replied. I asked whether it was constitutionally OK for states to ban incest. "Yes," he said. Why? "There's a compelling interest for the state to ban that practice," he said. What's the compelling interest? For that, Smith referred me to HRC General Counsel Kevin Layton.
Layton pointed out that laws against incest "already exist side by side" with the Supreme Court's current right-to-privacy doctrine. From this, he inferred that the doctrine doesn't cover those laws. But laws against gay sex also exist side by side with the privacy doctrine. If coexistence implies compatibility, then Santorum wins on both counts: States can ban incest and gay sex.
I asked Layton whether states should be allowed to ban incest. "They have a right to do that, as long as they have a rational basis," he said. Do they have such a basis? "It's not my point to argue what a state's rational basis would be for regulating cousin marriage," Layton replied. "The only way the court's decision in [the sodomy] case would go down the slippery slope to incest is if legally they were the same thing, which they're not." Why not? Essentially, Layton reasoned that it isn't his job to explain why incest and gay sex are different. It's Santorum's job to explain why they're similar.
But HRC's own arguments hint at similarities. Like Smith, a defender of brother-sister incest could accuse Santorum of "disparaging an entire group of Americans" and "advocating that a certain segment of American society be disavowed from constitutional protection." In its brief to the Supreme Court in the sodomy case, HRC maintains that "criminalizing the conduct that defines the class serves no legitimate state purpose," since gays "are not less productive—or more dangerous—members of the community by mere dint of their sexual orientation." They sustain "committed relationships" and "serve their country in the military and in the government." Fair enough. But couldn't the same be said of sibling couples? Don't laugh. Cousin couples are already making this argument.
I'm a lifestyle conservative and an orientation liberal. The way I see it, stable families are good, homosexuality isn't a choice, and therefore, gay marriage should be not just permitted but encouraged. Morally, I think incest is bad because it confuses relationships. But legally, I don't see why a sexual right to privacy, if it exists, shouldn't cover consensual incest. I think Santorum is wrong. But I can't explain why, and so far, neither can the Human Rights Campaign.
When the child is over 18, it is no longer child abuse.
And sodomy is a (the?) leading source of AIDS.
Not true for South Africa. The predominate carriers of AIDS are spread through normal, consentual heterosexual relations.
If we CAN'T outlaw certain acts---EVEN IF they take place "in the privacy of your own home"---then what prevents ANY activity being done "in the privacy of your own home" from being made illegal? Such activities as murder, euthanasia, abortion (even by a non-licensed provider), infanticide, computer hacking, embezzlement via computer, etc. could ALL be legal if done "in the privacy of your own home."
Please, common sence is such a rarity today. Concentual means that all parties agree to this activity. Murder usually involves an unwilling partner. There is a big difference between where you place Mr. Winky, and killing somone, vandalizing, and stealing. At least there is a big difference to me.
Is your life so perfect, that you have the capability, wisdom, intelligence to dictate how other people live their lives too? Personally, I think not.
Like I said before:
Personally, I don't care what people do in private. As long as it's consentual adults doing it. It's simply none of my concern.
I think all of us have our hands full managing our own lives. I do not know anyone who is so wonderful at managing their life; that I wish them to also manage mine. Now, I may not personally agree with every lifestyle out there. Heck, Jerry Springer produces some fine specimens of human debris; but the fact remains that we all possess the God-given right to mess up our lives as much as we can. Hopefully, most of us will realize the foolishness of our errors, and change our ways.
Not all incest involves the rape of a minor, for example, consentual incest between adults.
Another problem is that people generally think of incest as child abuse. It's also possible between consenting adults. England's Bloomsbury circle argued for the theoretical right to adult incest on the same grounds that they argued for open relationships and the legalization of homosexual relations. But in retrospect, it's the exploitative incestual relationships imposed by the stronger on the weaker, equivalent to pedophilic or pederastic activities, that are remembered.
Legalizing incest opens the door to condoning exploitative parent-child or teacher-student relationships. Once you legalize something and set an age of consent, those who want to indulge in the activity will always argue that 16 is as good an age as 18, 14 as good an age as 16 and so on. It truly becomes a "slippery slope."
One thing that's curious is that while homosexual relationships have become permissable in many parts of society, teacher-student relationships have become ever more restricted and condemned. Rightly so, because of the power imbalance involved and the questions of trust and betrayal, but many old academics got to know their spouses in precisely these sorts of relationships, and wonder at the "puritanism" of our day.
Golly, can me and sis really get into trouble if'n we didn't know that there's laws out there agin our relationship?
Well, considering that only Tx and Mo have anti-sodomy laws still on the books; and Tx is having it's laws challenged; I don't think I'm really advocating changing the laws of society. I'm am for personal liberty, and consistency is a good start.
Whether you are setting laws to coincide with Islamic virtues, or Christian virtues; the fact remains that one is inflicting religon upon those who may not share your world view. Not everyone agrees with Blue Laws (as an example), some companies do (Chick-a-filet for example) does and I can respect that. They make a darn good sandwich too.
But, what I do resent is the world view that "I do not like ...... therefore you may not .....". Such as, I do not like porn, therefore you may not rent, buy, or watch anything I deem to be pornographic. I do not like dancing, therefore you may not have dances in your school. I do not like meat, therefore you may not have a BBQ on public grounds ... etc. This arguement appears to be on the same premise.
Bottom line, if you do not want to do something, you should not be forced to participate. However, I draw the line at someone dictating what I (or other concenting adults) may choose to do, or not to do. It's my decision, not yours.
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.