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.
For a State to declare adultery a crime is for the State to promote the idea that a contract between a man and a woman and recognized by the State is binding and moral. For someone to break that contract and the State, which recognized it's existance, to turn a blind eye is to encourage a view that the State does not hold it's responsibilities to contractual endorsement very seriously.
Can you see where this can lead? If a man's wife has an affair and the State does nothing to try to penalize her for her breach of contract, how then can it penalize him for any breach of contract that he might persue in regards to his business dealing? Sure his business partner might be able to sue him, just as the man might be able to sue his wife. But can the State, in good conscience, punish him for breaking a contract that the State recognizes when the State is not willing to punish his wife for breaking a contract that the State recognizes?
Do I think adultery laws should be aggresively enforced? No, not really. Do I see the benefit of having them? Yes.
But I agree with Santorum, the right to have such laws should be recognized.
What about the non-violent crime of sex between consenting adults, homosexual or otherwise?
There's zero evidence that supports that, "gay gene" advocates notwithstanding. People choose who with and how they have sex. You might as well say "The devil made me do it !"
Which exactly parts of the remarks Mr. Smith want to be condemed? Abiut incest or about adultery?
There is no conclusive evidence otherwise.
"People choose who with and how they have sex. You might as well say "The devil made me do it !" "
True we choose WHO we have sex with, but homosexuality is more than that. It's defined not just by what you do, but who you desire to do it with. If you're a married male who has to fantasize about men in order to have sex with his wife, I'd say he's probably a homosexual.
And that's a reason that gives legitimacy to a law against adultery where a law against sodomy (assuming unmarried consenting adults) is not.
No one's rights are being violated in the sodomy relationship. Certainly there is no specific right to engage in sodomy in the Constitution, but I believe it certainly falls under the ninth amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
There's no Consitutional right to pick your nose. Should it be criminalized?
Let me propose my unsupported (other than anecdotes) theory.
Men like to have sex. They'll often do really stupid things to get it. They like sex for sex's sake. Much more so than women, who typically have sex to share emotionally.
It is much easier to find other males willing to have casual sex than women.
I believe that, plus habituation, is the origin of male homosexuality. My conversations with gay guys lead me to believe it's true. And a choice they make for easy access to "carefree" sex.
So while I would agree that a Federal anti-sodomy law would be very easy to challenge, a State law has a different level of engagement with the citizen. Likewise, a county or town ban on, let's say pornography, has more legitimacy than a state ban would have. The closer to a citizen, the more legitimacy a legislature has concerning moral codes.
This assumes of course that a higher level of government has not secured the right. For example, if a State has legalized gay marriage, a locality can not refuse the right. But if a State has made no statement on an issue, a locality has great flexability. A town may, for example, forbid more than 6 non-related persons cohabitating in a residence with only one bedroom.
Comparing consensual gay sex to murder is a a major stretch.
In the first case, no one's rights are being violated, in the second it's obvious that rights are being severely violated.
A town may, for example, forbid more than 6 non-related persons cohabitating in a residence with only one bedroom.
Whose rights are being violated in this example? Essentially you seem to be saying that unless it violates specifically enumerated rights in the Constitution, or some higher level goobermint established statute, anything goes?
So I can get 51% of the folks on my town council to outlaw nosepicking, and impose heavy fines for this unsightly and unhealthy practice?
It's "for the children", you know.
The closer the government, the more legitimate the social law.
Maybe that's true for some of them. I don't know any who think that way. Most of us tend to swap the "I knew I was different and I didn't want anyone to know" story.
Spitting is a public health hazard, albeit minor. Nose picking is not.
But we clearly have a majorly different view of the legitimate functions of government. Mine is that the only legitimate function of government is to protect peoples' rights.
I'm gathering the impression, possibly incorrectly, that your opinion is that there's no limits on government rules other than precluding those explicitly limited by the Constitution or by superior government law.
If that's right then
Nosepicking can be made illegal and punishable by imprisonment
Pens can be outlawed and everyone required to use a #2 pencil
Any underwear color than chartreuse can be illegal
Fish on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays can be mandated
And so on.
Have I got it right? Or am I doing you an injustice?
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.