Posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:33 AM PDT by RJCogburn
IN AN April 30 essay titled "The Libertarian Question," my fellow National Review Online contributing editor Stanley Kurtz argues that laws against sodomy, adultery and incest should remain on the books largely to protect the institution of heterosexual marriage.
By stigmatizing sexual relations outside that institution, Kurtz believes "the taboo on non-marital and non-reproductive sexuality helps to cement marital unions, and helps prevent acts of adultery that would tear those unions apart."
Kurtz also states that keeping adult incest illegal will reduce the odds of sex between adults and their minor relatives. Anti-pedophilia laws, virtually everyone agrees, should be energetically enforced, whether or not the child molesters and their victims are family members.
But Kurtz overlooks the fact that anti-sodomy laws can throw adults in jail for having consensual sex. Approval or disapproval of homosexual, adulterous or incestuous behavior among those over 18 is not the issue. Americans should remain free to applaud such acts or, conversely, denounce them as mortal sins. The public policy question at hand is whether American adults should or should not be handcuffed and thrown behind bars for copulating with people of the same sex, beyond their own marriages or within their bloodlines.
If this sounds like hyperbole, consider the case of Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, currently before the Supreme Court.
On Sept. 17, 1998, Harris County sheriffs deputies responded to a phony complaint from Roger Nance, a disgruntled neighbor of John Geddes Lawrence, then 55. They entered an unlocked door to Lawrence's eighth-floor Houston apartment looking for an armed gunman. While no such intruder existed, they did discover Lawrence having sex with another man named Tyron Garner, then 31.
"The police dragged them from Mr. Lawrence's home in their underwear," says Brian Chase, a staff attorney with the Dallas office of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund (www.lambdalegal.org) which argued on the gentlemen's behalf before the Supreme Court. "They were put in jail for 24 hours. As a result of their conviction, they would have to register as sex offenders in Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. If this arrest had taken place in Oklahoma, they could have faced 10 years in prison. It's kind of frightening." Lawrence and Garner were fined $200 each plus $141.25 in court costs.
Ironically, Chase adds by phone, "At the time the Texas penal code was revised in 1972, heterosexual sodomy was removed as a criminal offense, as was bestiality."
Even though some conservatives want government to discourage non-procreative sex, those Houston sheriff's deputies could not have apprehended a husband and wife engaged in non-reproductive oral or anal sex (although married, heterosexual couples still can be prosecuted for the same acts in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia). And were Lawrence caught naked in bed with a Rottweiler, consenting or otherwise, the sheriffs could not have done more than suggest he pick on someone his own species. However, because Lawrence preferred the company of a willing, adult human being of his same sex, both were shuttled to the hoosegow.
"The point is, this could happen to anyone," Chase says. "This was the result of a malicious prank call made by a neighbor who was later arrested and jailed for 15 days for filing a false report."
As for grownups who lure children into acts of homosexuality, adultery and incest, the perpetrators cannot be imprisoned quickly enough. The moment members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association go beyond discussion of pedophilia to actions in pursuit thereof, someone should call 911 and throw into squad cars the men who seek intimate contact with males under 18. Period.
The libertarian question remains before Stanley Kurtz and the Supreme Court. Should laws against adult homosexuality, adultery and incest potentially place taxpaying Americans over 18 behind bars for such behavior? Priests, ministers, rabbis and other moral leaders may decry these activities. But no matter how much people may frown upon these sexual appetites, consenting American adults should not face incarceration for yielding to such temptations.
Here is the libertarian answer to this burning question: Things deemed distasteful should not always be illegal. This response is one that every freedom-loving American should embrace.
Your approach, using the power of government and laws to stigmatize and control their behavior, will continue to bring the matter into our Courts, until such a moment as these Courts will call it "persecution" and give homosexuals protected status under Civil Law.
If homosexual behavior is to be "stigmatized" based on our morals as a Christian nation, this needs to be done by the religions of our nation, not the government.
Oh, indeed. . . within the context of a male/female marriage (lifetime commitment).
Oh, spare me the excuses.
This is the extent of my starting "name-calling" in our conversation?
"The objective reality here is that we live under the governance of a secular government, and a system created by some people who took great pains to, in spite of their strong beliefs, impose obstacles on religious zealots from duplicating the work of tbe Taliban in this country."
I drew a comparison between out form of government, and a well-known theocracy.
Far from name-calling.
You may be correct that using the power of law to call something that is inherently wrong wrong will continue to bring the matter into our courts. I understand your point of view and respectfully disagree.
Shalom.
No, you drew a comparison between our form of government and a well recognized dangerous theocracy with the intent to disparage those who disagree with you.
It would be the same thing as me calling those who support the homosexual movement the gaystapo or gay Nazis.
All laws are based on a moral position. Without that moral position there can be no law. Our desire and our goal is to base our laws on the correct moral position. If we can not be sure the position is correct (absent faith) then we tread carefully.
Let me give you an example. I could make a strong case for a property-rights environment based on the notion that if you aren't strong enough to hold onto your property you don't deserve to keep it. That is a particular moral position with lots of cultural advantages. Why shouldn't the U.S. take such a position?
Other than the fact that stealing is wrong.
Shalom.
Are you saying that sex is not pysically pleasurable outside of marriage?
We're done...I refuse to "debate" with the deliberately disingenuous.
LOL!
MEGoody: Oh, indeed. . . within the context of a male/female marriage (lifetime commitment).
Luis Gonzales: Are you saying that sex is not pysically pleasurable outside of marriage?
We're done...I refuse to "debate" with the deliberately disingenuous.
Luis, First you ask a question but declare any answer than the one you presuppose is a lie. Then you intentionally twist what MEGoody has to say.
You are either a disruptor or you are twisted yourself. Either way, I'm glad you're done.
Shalom.
That was uncalled for.
I am worthy of freedom.
It takes a lot to make me jumpt to such a conclusion. It seems obvious to me that L.G. was trying to find a way to misinterpret what ME had said. However, in my life I have learned that some people really do think that way. It is not a healthy way.
Personally, I think he's a disruptor.
I appreciate your bringing your thoughts to my attention. Let me know if you can't agree with my reasoning.
Shalom.
How can a human being be worthy of anything?
Shalom.
No, dear, but in your original post to which I was responding, you invoked the name of God (or G-d as you refer to Him). God did not design sex for use any old way with any old person. He designed it for procreation as well as unification/bonding of a husband and wife. God will allow people to go outside that design if they so choose, but there are consequences to that.
I'd say it was YOUR post that was disingenuous. Thank God you are 'done'. LOL
You are absolutely correct.
Is there some reason that you think two people who disagree with you can't disagree for different reasons?
I am glad that you have uncovered the mystery of God's plan to such an extent that you know what His intentions were.
"God will allow people to go outside that design if they so choose, but there are consequences to that."
When did He chose the US government to enforce His laws?
Pax
** The Laity Rules! **
Someone quoted from Saint John Chrysostom, from his work: "De Sacerdotis," or, "Concerning the Priesthood." He wrote concerning the behavior of priests in the Church, and their relation to society. He cautioned that priests are not there to be rulers, to lord over the faithful.
Of course, he was writing in the 4th Century. There were no democracies then. Governments come and go, but the Church stands forever. The Church has to take a long-term view of society. Saint John Chrysostom, a Father of the Church, and a Patriarch of Constantinople, did not say that the laity, the faithful, should have no voice, though. We, the laity, have not only a right, but an obligation, to determine what sort of society we are to live in. We do this through the political process, through our votes, and through political discussions.
Have I ever said that people should give over their secular rule to Bishops or Cardinals? No. Religious leaders shouldn't be secular rulers of the country. The Church doesn't have a secular role. The Church and the secular are different. But that doesn't mean to say that the people themselves shouldn't enforce morality. People themselves have a right to say what kind of society they live in, what their children are taught, what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable.
When Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco wrote to the Superintendent of Schools, concerning the school board's plan to distribute condoms in the schools, the Archbishop offered the advice and wisdom of the Church, as a matter of discussion.
We have an obligation, (if we are lucky enough to be born in a moral society), to MAINTAIN that moral society for all future generations. To allow the degradation of morality, to accept a "let-live" attitude in morals, to turn away from evil behavior, would be cruel to not only the present generation, but also to future generations, as well.
People have a right to determine
What sort of society they are to live in.
Their society will be MOST SUCCESSFUL
If it is based on a religious morality,
Based on the infinite wisdom of God,
Rather than based on secular morality.A secular morality
Is uninformed,
Is half-informed,
A product of a merely human intellect,
With no wisdom.
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.