Santorum rips gay sex ruling

Santorum: You have the right to do anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

You do have the right to do anything. It's called FREEDOM. The only limits to a free people are: The Law-you do not have the right to act illegally; and personal virtue. (Or conscience.) I believe it was John Adams who may have said that the Constitution is worthless if the citizens are without virtue. (Conscience.)

But that is distinctly different from a privacy ruling.

That's a decent point. Perhaps I should choose a more appropriate analogy, like Roe vs. Wade. You mentioned elsewhere on the thread that abortion isn't considered "commerce" because it's medical. That's an arbitrary distinction. It charges customers for its services, and it's a booming industry. One might as well call prostitution a "psychiatric" service.

Does freedom of expression necessarily mean "a cultural agenda to push?"

When "freedom of expression" is defined the way the courts have defined it, it most certainly does. What's your opinion of laws against public S&M? That's expression, right?

Prostitution is not a medical process... nor is it "therapy."

These are purely arbitrary distinctions. There is such a thing today that goes by the name of "sex therapy" that in some cases is little more than prostitution. There's no rhyme or reason, beyond purely legalistic classifications subject to manipulation by lawyers, why one thing should be in one category and another thing in another. Abortion may be "medical" (assuming, of course, that the oath of Hippocrates is irrelevant), but it's also commercial in that it charges for its services. How do you think the federal government justifies its regulation of the medical industry, if not through the commerce clause?

In any case, states have just as much power to regulate the practice of medicine as they do commerce.

Are there "laws against public S&M?" I vaguely remember somebody being busted somewhere for walking another person on a leash... it was something like "kidnapping," even though the other person agreed to it. I've been to dance clubs that had ladies dancing in cages... I've also seen people smacking their lover in public... (that wasn't consensual)...

I'm talking about public sex. I referred to an extreme form for the purpose of highlighting, but any public sex at all is illegal in most states, despite the fact that it's apparently curtailing people's "free expression".

But you seemed to be saying that the COURT had a "social agenda to push" in Lawrence. What has that got to do with "laws against public S&M?"

The conversation had moved to nude dancing. You said that court rulings protecting it were merely protecting "freedom of expression". I was simply trying to see exactly what you understood that phrase to mean, so that's why I brought up that example.

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.