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.
have to be applied to everyone who has sexNo, on this is would not be. Sodomy does not equal intercourse.
Somehow, Georgia survived for generations without the state becoming Big Brother.
I think it was a silly, unenforceable law, and it wasn't enforced, except in rare occasions-- when the act was committed in public, for example. I think that law did more harm than good. But the nightmare situation you described as being what would happen, didn't.
I get the sense that you would like to see no laws regarding sexual activity to be on the books, which is fine as an opinion. However, that is about as far out of the mainstream as you were trying to suggest Santorum was in his comments.
As for what I think should be and shouldn't be legal, see post 196.
If these laws are silly and unenforceable, why have them on the books at all?A good question for a legislature to handle.
I never said that. I just don't think there should be a sex law on the books that only applies to a certain part of the population.Pretty much by definition, any sex law on the book only applies to a certain part of the population- the part that partakes in the act.
The laws should be applied equally. If gay people can't commit type X sex act then heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to commit type X sex act either.I think, although I am not sure, that most sodomy laws are written this way. They don't outlaw male-male sex acts, they outlaw anal intercourse. The Georgia law I mentioned above didn't outlaw male-male intercourse and oral sex, it outlawed anal intercourse and oral sex, period.
(although there's no way to enforce it other than barging into one's bedroom which is exactly what started this court case)That may or may not be what started this court case. But it is clearly not the only way to enforce it.
That's all I'm saying.Been a fun discussion, but at this point I am dropping out. Time to take care of other things away from the computer.
Even bootleggers? ;-)
And you obviously can't read. My point was that if one accepts that consent and privacy are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior should be legal, then there is no reason to prohibit a sadist from murdering a masochist for sexual pleasure.
Please try to follow along.
My point was that if one accepts that consent and privacy are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior should be legal, then there is no reason to prohibit a sadist from murdering a masochist for sexual pleasure.
How does inserting a penis into a rectum or mouth equate to murder? You are directly comparing murder to sodomy. These are your words, not mine. What consenting adults do (sexually), in the privacy of thier own homes is none of your business. Obviously, murder, cannabalism, forgery, drug sales, kidnapping, cheating on taxes, ecetera, are not sex.
If the criteria for sexual conduct are privacy and consent, they are not enough.
Why? Because there are any number of very questionable sexual practices would satisfy both rules: incest among parents and offspring, incest among sisters and brothers, among grandparents and grandchildren. Sexual sadists and masochists would satisfy both critera, as would those who would want to hold multiple wives.
If the criteria for sexual conduct is privacy and consent, all of the above could easily satisfy the criteria in question. My example of a sadist and a masochist engaging in murder for sexual pleasure is meant to bring the point home.
And once again, all these activites are PRESENTLY happening, and have been going on for millenia, it's nothing new. Although we may find these actions revolting, I don't believe I want a gov't to have the ability of kicking down bedroom doors to inspect the activities inside. It's frankly, none of your business when, how, how often, what position, and who adults have consentual sex with. How would you police these activities anyway? Randomly storm bedrooms? Bug private citizen's bedrooms? If you can't enforce a law, it's pretty silly to have a law.
I assume you know that the reason this is being tried by the Supreme Court, is because police responded to a bogus burglary call, and kicked the door down of a private residence to find two men having sex in their own home. The bogus call was made by a jealous 'boyfriend'. The police, after having invaded a private home, decided to charge the owner and his 'guest' with a crime, rather than being sued for kicking down the front door of an otherwise 'normal' house.
What exactly is the Texas statute? I'd like to look it up.
Sadism, masochism, incest have certainly been practiced throughout the ages. They've also been nearly universally condemned in nearly every culture. I didn't say that any of these acts were "new." What is "new" is that the Supreme Court may legitimize these acts by appealing to privacy and consent. That is the issue here.
"Although we may find these actions revolting, "I don't believe I want a gov't to have the ability of kicking down bedroom doors to inspect the activities inside."
I don't suppose that, even if these activities are illegal (and many of them currently are), we would have a proactive police force on call to weed out funny business in peoples' bedrooms.
"It's frankly, none of your business when, how, how often, what position, and who adults have consentual sex with."
And why not? It's a free country, and I'm a citizen. Are you saying that citizens have no right to decide if incest or sadism should be allowed in their communities? If so, how do you reconcile restricting my freedom in favor of the freedom of masochists, sadists, and those practicing incest?
"How would you police these activities anyway? Randomly storm bedrooms? Bug private citizen's bedrooms? If you can't enforce a law, it's pretty silly to have a law."
The laws against incest are currently enforced; laws against all sorts of deviant sexual behavior are currently enforced without stormtroopers breaking down doors.
Next argument?
"It's frankly, none of your business when, how, how often, what position, and who adults have consentual sex with."
You replied: And why not? It's a free country, and I'm a citizen.
And everyone else is free too. They are free to worship as they chose, associate with people as they choose, and certainly should be able to have sex with whomwever they chose; whether you like it or not. As a citizen, you are neither in charge of enforcing your morality, nor imposing your ethos upon anyone else. It used to be illegal for blacks and whites to have sex; and I'm certain people like you would have loved to intervene in that situation too.
In 48 states in America (with the exceptions of Mo and Tx) people are free to behave sexually with whomever they want (assuming adults and consentual). Texas will not likely win the Supreme Court; thus Mo will be the only state dictating what manner of sexual congress is legal within it's borders.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that "consent and privacy" by themselves are the two criteria by which one establishes whether or not sexual behavior of any kind should be legal.
However, when it comes to homosexuality, unmarried sex or adultery between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes...most Americans simply don't want police barging into people's bedrooms and arresting them.
Rick Santorum should clarify if is supporting the idea of police arresting and jailing adults for private acts of adultery or homosexuality.
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.