Posted on 08/31/2007 3:32:33 PM PDT by nathanbedford
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The first involves the business of the state in prohibiting public sex. There are serious public health issues involved here that in my estimation do fall within the Constitutional purview of the state. Whether this may be extended to solicitiation of sex in public is highly debatable. However, in practice is isn't only solicitation that goes on in these places, it's the act itself, hence the interest of the state in preventing it by discouraging its precursor. I can see both sides of this but am tempted to conclude that were solicitation the only thing involved it shouldn't be illegal. But that brings us to the second point.
It was illegal. Whether this was by virtue of malum in se as the moralists (and the hygienists) would have it, or merely malum prohibitum, the fact is that it was illegal and Mr. Craig was a professional in the business of making law for others. One might or might not support such a law as the one he pleaded guilty to breaking, but the fact of the matter is that as a public servant he is, in my estimation, absolutely obligated to obey it. The rest of us are. If it is a bad law we should review it, but in the meantime it is the law.
One of the most corrosive actions possible with regard to controlling the size of government is to exempt those making the laws from following them. In the Kennedy, Studds, and Frank cases (among many, many others) we already have this sort of de facto exemption in place. That does not mean we should expand it to be "fair", it means we should contract it by applying the law across the board. In practice we have a long way to go to effect this, but that does not mean we should abandon it.
The legal verdict already is in in this case - a guilty plea. The moral verdict will have to wait until Craig stands before his Maker. The professional verdict, however, is strictly between Craig and his employers, the citizens of Idaho, and I am in no doubt whatsoever what that verdict would have been were he to have stood for re-election.
He pled because he made a judgment that was the best way out for him. His problem was not the criminal liability which might attach even for solicitation, his problem was the loss of his Senate seat which would ensue in the wake of notoriety. That is why he pled. And that is why he chose to plead to an ordinance which had nothing to do with homosexuality.
This is the problem with this case and with our approach in the law to these matters.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We hear libs sounding bogus alarms for the pulic health and well being day in and day out, and NOTHING about the dangers of this disease and injury ridden lifestyle. I will not lie to them. That is called being an enabler, and it isn’t helpful or loving.
You have a good deal of faith in this individual. You should angle you’re intelligence towards more fruitful areas IMO.
The Supreme Court based its grant of her right to commit sodomy in private on the nonexistent privacy clause of the Constitution-the same clause which justifies abortion. I see no law in the Constitution which grants to the federal government through the judicial branch the right to restrain a state from regulating sodomy on privacy grounds. I say that you have it exactly backwards, that it was the Supreme Court which ruled as a matter of morality and not of law. When you say they weighed that morality against privacy I say that is a moral judgment because there is no such privacy clause in the Constitution.
I applaud the efforts of this city to stop this indecent and disgusting problem.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
They mean kwazy-public and kwazy-private don’t they?
The Supreme Court did not, and cannot wreck right and wrong. They just condoned and underwrote a wrong...that does not make it right.
"-- This is an example of the trouble the law gets into what it attempts to criminalize a tool or means of a crime instead of, or, at least as well as, the criminal behavior itself.
So we attempt to make guns illegal to prevent gun violence instead of concentrating on prosecuting the violence itself.
We criminalize public Intoxication and possession of illegal drugs rather than prosecuting the antisocial behavior which they might produce.
We go one step further with drugs when we criminalize the possesion of paraphernalia because the possession of the stuff might lead to the use of drugs which in turn, might lead to antisocial or criminal behavior.
I suppose we must ultimately stop this chain of causation when we get to Original Sin. -- "
Jeff, the Supreme Court did not "condone" the sin of sodomy. -- They said that a State cannot criminalize that practice, -- any more than State/local gov'ts can criminalize our right to own & carry arms.
“As a conservative you had a problem last November and you are very likely to have an even bigger problem November 2008.”
That may be, but as a conservative, the problem is the newer laws and policies not the Constitution, which does not allow for depravity. The more we dumb down what is acceptable in society, the less we get from people as far as decency.
I find sodomy to be as disgusting as the next man but indulging our righteousness has cost conservatives dearly. There will be more Craigs if we don't get clear about this.
Bingo
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
And ditto to you too!
Thanks for a great, thoughtful essay (we should expect no less from you).
Here's the problem with "civil unions". So-called "civil unions", shorn of their stamp of approval on homosexuality, don't add anything new to existing contract law.
Anyone can appoint a power of attorney for healthcare, anyone can will their estate to anyone they wish, anyone can execute a reciprocal personal services contract with another to assume certain obligations.
The purpose of a "civil union", therefore, is to bundle these various, already legal contractual pieces, into an instrument for the state to ostentatiously approve of that which most citizens do not approve of.
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.