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.
All very well and good in theory, however that's not the way our laws have been, are or will be made. Moral, and yes legal, constraints on private behavior have always been a part of countries like ours who love liberty. It's just an historic fact, the homosexuals' arguments notwithstanding. Laws on age of consent, incest, beastiality, necrophilia, drug abuse, suicide, ANYTHING done in private--have nothing to do with legality (Income tax cheats or other forms of fraud, for example are by definition done "in private" so since the perpetrator wants it secret it must be secret, and legal?)
The problem becomes, as someone earlier pointed out, figuring out just what is private...and also what is consensual. That's why a specific "right to privacy" is never spelled out in the U.S. Constitution--and why the effort to carve that right out (of the thin air, or from "eminations from the penumbra from the bill of rights" to quote a famous phrase by a SCOTUS justice) resulted in the abortion of law, Roe, which is the "consitutional right to abortion."
Its a serious thing and undemocratic thing for an unelected court to tell a state that it can't regulate behavior--simply because the powerful gay lobby has pushed other states into not regulating it...
I believe they have at times.
HODAR RESPONDED: "When the child is over 18, it is no longer child abuse."
I AM RESPONDING BACK: No argument from me.
==============================================
I WROTE: "And sodomy is a (the?) leading source of AIDS."
HODAR RESPONDED: "Not true for South Africa. The predominate carriers of AIDS are spread through normal, consentual heterosexual relations."
I AM RESPONDING BACK: Are we talking about South Africa now? I thought we were talking about sex (and other activities within one's home) and the alleged "right to privacy" in the United States.
=================================================
I WROTE: "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."
HODAR RESPONDED: "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."
I AM RESPONDING: "Since you bring up "consensual," would you AGREE then that ABORTION is NOT a "consensual" agreement between the mother and child, but a UNILATERAL decision by the mother to eliminate someone ELSE's OWN body and life? Therefore, by YOUR OWN definition, ABORTION IS MURDER!
I AM ADDING: And what about euthanasia? Kevorkian gets the victims' distressed consenting permission to kill them.
==================================================
HODAR WROTE: "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."
I AM RESPONDING: "Actually, I have a lot of capability, wisdom and intelligence, but being a Christian, no, I'm not perfect---just forgiven."
If you only have sex within marriage, then how can it spread? There is no one to give it to either partner in the marriage.
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.
Given the size of the Gibbon Monkey, more than likely a bite. One need not necessarily have sex to catch AIDS. SARS is another virus that apparently made the leap from the animal world, to ours. Virus's mutate, it's just one of those things they like to do.
My point remains that there are rational public health reasons to regulate sex, but if the government regulated every hazardous behavior, we could do nothing without government approval.
Of course, that's true now...
I merely pointed out the falacy of your statement. How a virus spreads does not change with geographic location. In this case, your assertion is simply wrong.
Therefore, by YOUR OWN definition, ABORTION IS MURDER!
Wow, do you have to take a running jump to make a logic leap like that? My assertion remains 'what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of your business". Would you please now derive a Unified Field Theory from that statement, as it has as much to do with physics as it does abortion.
"Actually, I have a lot of capability, wisdom and intelligence, but being a Christian, no, I'm not perfect---just forgiven."
And having faith is a fine thing. However, I sincerely doubt my faith is the same as yours. I would not dream of being arrogant enough to inflict my beliefs upon you, especially in the privacy of your home. Why do you feel that you have the rights to impose yours on the population at large?
I have no idea what your faith is.
My stance on abortion, euthanasia, murder, homsexuality, etc. are NOT MY ideas---they are GOD'S commandments. It's NOT MY word---it's HIS WORD!
GOD is a better judge of what is right and wrong than you, me and ANY other human, and GOD DOES have a right to demand HIS stance.
I'll just follow and condone HIS commandments---the best as humanly possible---even though HE knows I'll fail from time to time.
As I stated before, as a Christian, I am not perfect---just forgiven.
And the terrorist just knew that Allah commandments dictated that they fly planes into buildings. And the people of Salem just knew that they should burn witches at the stake. The Taliban just knew that anyone who objected to their philosophy needed to be killed. Need I go on?
If you want to live your life by the Bible, Quoran, Torah or Black Bible (for the Satanics), go ahead and do so. But, when you force everyone else to follow your philosophy, expect resistance.
I RESPONDED: "Since you bring up "consensual," would you AGREE then that ABORTION is NOT a "consensual" agreement between the mother and child, but a UNILATERAL decision by the mother to eliminate someone ELSE's OWN body and life? Therefore, by YOUR OWN definition, ABORTION IS MURDER!
HODAR RESPONDED BACK: "Wow, do you have to take a running jump to make a logic leap like that? My assertion remains 'what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of your business"...
I AM RESPONDING: You stated: "Concentual means that all parties agree to this activity. Murder usually involves an unwilling partner..." I merely made the LOGICAL progression that since the BABY GETS NO CHOICE in the matter of abortion, then, by you own statement, you must consider abortion MURDER.
On a different aspect, if an unlicensed provider (e.g. a live-in boyfriend) were to perform an abortion "in the privacy of their own home," then according to your apparent overall claim, THAT would be legal.
That would fall under the auspices of "practicing medicine without a license".
Did you notice that EVERYTHING you mentioned about the ISLAMIC and SATANIC religions, is about KILLING and the so-called "RIGHT" to do so...that their god is the god of KILLING.
Have you ever noticed that:
(1) JEWS DON'T KILL PEOPLE who don't believe they way they do (and they don't really try to convert non-believers)---they just mainly keep to themselves.
(2) MORMONS DON'T KILL PEOPLE who don't believe the way they do (but they strongly DO try to convert people to their religion).
(3) JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DON'T KILL PEOPLE who don't believe the way they do (but they strongly DO try to convert people to their religion).
(4) CATHOLICS DON'T KILL PEOPLE who don't believe the way they do (but they lightly try to convert people to their religion).
(5) BAPTISTS DON'T KILL PEOPLE who don't believe the way they do (but they strongly DO try to convert people to their religion).
(6) HINDUS DON'T KILL PEOPLE who don't believe the way they do (I don't think they try to convert people to their religion).
WHY DO MUSLIMS KILL PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE THE WAY THEY DO???????
The JUDEO-CHRISTIAN God and the ISLAMIC god are NOT the same God. The JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD is a God of LOVE and FORGIVENESS and MORALITY. From everything I have seen and from what I have read in the Koran, the ISLAMIC god is a god of HATE and KILLING and IMMORALITY.
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.