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.
Texans are, and should be, proud of it's REAL men and it's REAL women, the ones who build and maintain this state with a view to the future, who really do what they do "for the children," and not for selfish license of their dispicable inhuman urges.
Pardon the self-righteous tone, I'm sick of the sodomist agenda.
There's plenty of room in Ca. and Vt. for the third "gender."
So it's at the discretion of the wronged party, correct?
"No, its not. It is entirely relevant because it IS illegal and infringes on the supposed right to privacy."
No. It's irrelevant because the government has to get involved in bigamy and polygamy, since they'd have to get a marriage license (I think.. unless the government cracks down on people who only get the religious wedding ceremony performed, which I don't think they do).
" Are you saying gay marriages should be legal?"
Well that's another issue, but yes. A civil union, anyway.
"That minimum age requirements for marriage are irrelevent and should be ignored/repealed? "
No, I think states have a right to set age of consent laws.
If they applied sodomy laws to everyone, there wouldn't be an issue. If you want to arrest men for performing fellatio, then you'll have to arrest women as well.
The Texas "homosexual conduct" law makes it a crime to engage in "deviate sexual intercourse" -- defined as oral and anal sex -- with another person of the same sex.
Exactly why it can be attacked.. it discriminates on the basis of gender.
Do the cops go breaking down doors to arrest those adulterers?
The Bible says that adulturers should be put to death, period. Where does that fit in, good politics, good theology, or good Constitutional law?
Oh no!!! A queer in public office!!!
This could sully the wonderful and clean reputations of our wonderful elected officials!!! What to do? What to do?
So it would be possible for you to choose to be homosexual?
Do you know of any criminal cases against heterosexual couples committing sodomy?
Since the Bible states that those who divorce their spouses and remarry commit adultery against them, then not only do people in the United States have a right to adultery but they get all sorts of tax breaks to do so.
It's too early in the morning for pretzel logic!
Although I have a suspicion that later in the clarity of full light both physical and intellectual, the fallacy of this statement will become clear.
non enforcement of a criminal statute transforms it into a "right"?
I see what you are saying about the agreived party...I will have to check on that further. I just know it happened and there was a jury award and a prosecution.
The law in question in Texas attempts to limit behavior much as the ones we are discussing. Its written to apply to both sexes. That 'mos feel adversely impacted is irrelevant, esp. since their argument is that breaking the law is the only way they can have sex. Ain't THAT just too bad?
If the sc supports the law in Texas, it does not mean a witchhunt for gays, any more than it does for others. It WILL reinforce the right of the people to determine what is acceptable or not in this realm.
Where is the equal protection in that?
Well.. technically I disagree with several laws that prohibit what I consider to be rights. Nothing new there.
I'm a lesbian, but even I don't consider fellatio to be comparable to manslaughter. ;-)
Anyway, SUPPOSEDLY manslaughter laws apply to all of us, in theory. The Texas sodomy laws do not.
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.