Posted on 04/23/2003 11:42:58 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Last week's Washington tempest blew in when Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said that if the Supreme Court in a pending case rules that homosexual practice is constitutionally protected, "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. You have the right to anything."
Gay advocacy groups quickly made political hay. The Human Rights Campaign expressed outrage that Santorum "compared homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery" in his "deeply hurtful" remarks. The Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights similarly complained that "his remarks show nothing but contempt for lesbian and gay people."
Whoa! Who's showing contempt here? Logical gay groups should applaud Santorum's recognition that a Supreme Court gay breakthrough will also bring liberation for others with non-monogamous sexual interests. Since when do homosexuals look down on others who follow their own bliss? But maybe this is good news: Our headline could read, "Gays join conservative Christians in criticizing bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery."
The Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance unctuously proclaimed, "Discrimination against any group of citizens based on who they are is simply wrong" -- yet the gay lobbies were implicitly discriminating against those involved in consensual incest. "Extremism in the defense of vice is no vice," they should say, and then proceed to the postmodern claim that it's all a matter of opinion whether a particular act is vicious or virtuous.
But let's move to the politics, since this is all about trying to drive a wedge within the GOP. "We're urging the Republican leadership to condemn the remarks," said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. "They're the same types of remarks that sparked outrage toward Sen. Lott."
No, they're not. Trent Lott resigned his Senate leadership post in December after making remarks widely seen as supporting racial discrimination. Lott's words ran counter to the Bible, which is color-blind. Santorum's words reflect the Bible, which says that homosexual practice, like adultery or incest, is wrong. President Bush, who looks to biblical teaching for guidance on important issues, rightly criticized Lott, but he should support Santorum continuing as conference chairman, the third-highest seat in the GOP Senate leadership.
Good politics, good theology, and good constitutional law go together here. The Republican Party should be open to Bible believers, people of other religions and atheists, but if it wants to retain the support of Christians and Orthodox Jews, it should not chastise those who defend biblical truth. Besides, even though the state of Texas may have been unwise under current social conditions to prosecute a case concerning homosexuality, the Supreme Court should not establish a new, loose constructionist constitutional right.
Some Republicans who covet gay lobby campaign contributions will pressure the president to signal a Santorum sack. Because he spoke out in the Trent Lott controversy, he should not sit this one out; Santorum foes will see silence as consent. This is a crucial political fork in the road, and the George W. Bush -- who was tough enough to stand up to supporters of Saddam -- should refuse to be pushed around by supporters of sodomy.
Instead of being defensive, Republicans who are both wise and shrewd will go on offense. They should ask gay interest groups and Democrats to respond to Santorum's challenge: Make a constitutional argument that will differentiate the right to consensual gay sex from a right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery. Legislatures, of course, have long differentiated among certain acts, but what happens if the Supreme Court tells them to cease and desist?
Republicans (and others) who want to become wiser on such issues should read "What We Can't Not Know," a new book by my University of Texas colleague J. Budziszewski. The book is not a Bud Light, but non-professors can readily follow its discussion of "natural law," the "developmental spec sheet" that God has given us. As Santorum knows, once we move off that spec sheet, anarchy reigns.
Are there any laws on the books against adultery? Can people be arrested or ticketed for sleeping with someone other than their spouse?
Polygamy and bigamy are not legal, but they are marriage issues and no marriage issues are in play in the Texas case. So that is irrelevant.
Are we defining incest as between blood related members of the immediate family? Some states permit marriages of at least second cousins, I believe. In any event, what is the penalty for, say, a brother sleeping with his sister if they are both over the age of consent? Can police lawfully arrest them?
If there are no laws against these things, and there is no penalty... I'd say they have a de facto right.
Is the Pope a practicing Catholic? Duh. Of COURSE there are laws against adultery on the books in many jurisdictions.
Ditto consensual incest. Ditto bestiality.
The point of the homos is that there shold be no laws that regulate what they do with their little weenies and thingies in private.
Well, if those privacy considerations govern for homos, then they also govern for animal lovers, family "get togethers", and every other sort of consensual romp.
If not, then not, but the principle holds.
So give me an example of what happens when they are caught. Are there any?
"Ditto consensual incest. Ditto bestiality."
Bestiality wasn't mentioned, and it has consent issues.
"The point of the homos is that there shold be no laws that regulate what they do with their little weenies and thingies in private."
Do you think there should be?
"Well, if those privacy considerations govern for homos, then they also govern for animal lovers, family "get togethers", and every other sort of consensual romp."
There's no such thing as a consensual romp for "animal lovers". As for me... yeah I agree with that statement. I might be disgusted by them, but I'm not in favor of police arresting people because they had sex with a consenting adult.
Should there be a law against it?
Ain't MY logic. It's the logic of the United States Constitution.
But to answer your posed question as sincerely as possible: you are right, there is NO constitutionally protected right to masturbation.
Should there be a law against it? I would prefer that there not be, but I am only one among many.
COULD there be a law against it. Sure. No problem in principle, but enforcement would be problematic, to say the least.
But enforcement issues have never kept people from passing stupid laws in the past, and I suspect that won't change.
Where is the equal protection in that?
SANTORUM AND THE CONSTITUTION:" There are a couple of points about the Santorum controversy that are worth re-examining. The first is his problem with the Constitutional right to privacy. As I said yesterday, this is a perfectly respectable position, and one with which I have some sympathy. My preference would be for Texas voters to throw out this invasive and discriminatory law. My second choice would be for the Court to strike down the law on the grounds of equal protection, in as much as it criminalizes the same "offense" for one group of people (gays) but not for another (straights). But as a simple matter of constitutional fact, the right to privacy is very well entrenched. More to the point, one critical precedent for it, as Santorum concedes, is the Griswold ruling, protecting couples from state interference in their use of contraception. Now what is the real difference - in Santorum's moral universe - between contraception and non-procreative sex, i.e. sodomy? I don't see any myself. From a Catholic viewpoint, they are morally indistinguishable. So the question emerges: if Santorum believes, for religious reasons, that people should be jailed for private gay sex, why does he not think people should be jailed for the use of contraception? If his goal, for civil reasons, is "strong, healthy families," then contraception might even be more problematic than gay sex. It actually prevents heterosexuals from forming families at all. Does Santorum therefore endorse making contraception illegal? Would he allow the cops to police this in people's bedrooms? Will anyone ask him these obvious questions? Of course not.
SLIPPERY, SLIPPERY:" The second issue is whether his point about a "slippery slope" from non-procreative sex to incest to polygamy, and so on, is valid. Where do we draw the line in policing private sexual behavior? My golden rule in matters of limited government is an old and simple one. It is that people should be free to do within their own homes anything they want to, as long as it is consensual, adult and doesn't harm anyone else. Bigamy and polygamy are therefore irrelevant here. Bigamy means being married to more than one woman; polygamy, likewise, means being married to more than two women. There's nothing inconsistent between saying you don't want such marriages to be legal (I don't) and also saying that what people do sexually in their own homes should be their own business, and not the government's. Do I think it should be a crime for a man to have sex with two women at once? Or an orgy? Nope. It's none of mine or the state's business. And that applies to having live-in long-term girlfriends, or any other type of consenting private relationship people might want. The only relevant issue is if a child - an involuntary participant in this private set-up - is the result of such relationships, in which case, we have another party involved, who might be harmed in some way. (This is also, for many, the issue with abortion and privacy.) That changes the equation, and makes some state interference defensible. Incest is more complicated, but it also fails the test because it involves the possibility of a child, in this case subject to physical problems as well as severe emotional ones. What these cases show is that the state's interest in policing private sex should only be related, and then only at some considerable distance, to the protection of children. But all this shows is that the case of private gay sex is perhaps the relationship that the government should be least concerned about. Why? Because it's the one least likely to involve children. In fact, as a sexual act, it's the only one that will never lead to children. So why, one wonders, is it the relationship that Santorum most wants to police? Hmmm.
CRIMINALIZING ADULTERY?" Now let me turn the slippery slope argument around. Santorum argues that I should be jailed for having private consensual sex with my boyfriend in my own home. (He lets it slip at the end of the interview when he says: " If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right..." [My italics.]) Why does he believe this? Because, somehow, my relationship prevents others from forming "strong, healthy families." I have no idea how my relationship has such a bad effect on others - but leave that for a moment. If that is the criterion for the government to police our bedrooms, then why should not adultery be criminal? It has a far, far more direct effect on "strong, healthy families". It's far, far more common than gay sex - hurts children, destroys families, wounds women, and on and on. To argue that gay sex should be illegal but adultery shouldn't be, makes no sense at all. Again, Santorum must be asked if he believes adultery should be criminalized. Will anyone ask that? Not on Fox News."
EXACTLY! Now how will we prevent women from demanding the right to vote, or black people from riding in the front of the bus??
Well, I'm not really sure.
Ticketed, no but there are laws against adultery and civil penalties can be attached for such things as alienation of affection....recently a woman was awarded a one mil judgement because hubby had an affair[adultery]. So yes there are penalties. Not all penalties are criminal, ya know.
Polygamy and bigamy are not legal, but they are marriage issues and no marriage issues are in play in the Texas case. So that is irrelevant.
No, its not. It is entirely relevant because it IS illegal and infringes on the supposed right to privacy. Are you saying gay marriages should be legal? That minimum age requirements for marriage are irrelevent and should be ignored/repealed?
Can police lawfully arrest them?
yes. Check out the laws in your state or others.
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.