Homosexuality and rights
by Kevin
Speaking of cultural litmus tests (see below), it seems Senator Santorum has stepped right into one: homosexuality. Ben Domenech rises to his defense. I agree with Ben that the Supreme Court should let the Texas law in question stand. As I have noted before, I think the law is stupid but that the people of Texas are capable of handling that themselves if they so choose.
What I disagree with Ben on is the logical consistency of Santorum’s statement. Ben beleives that Santorum’s statement is logically consistent but it is only consistent if you hang everything on the word consensual. If banning consensual activities was unconstitutional then a great many activities would suddenly become legal. So if you parse Santorum’s statement real tight, yes it is logically consistent. But that is not really the issue here. The issue is the Texas law unconstituational because it discriminates against a particular group or, in another way, does the law intrude government into private matters in an inappropriate way. What Ben and the Senator seem to be saying is that if you don’t allow government to ban private acts then moral anarchy break loose. This is what I disagree with because I think it is another slippery slope argument. Instead, I believe that we can choose wich private acts should be prohibited an which should not. With prudence and good judgement we can decide where to draw the line. In the past we have drawn that line to protect soceity and the family from moral corrosion. In fact the list Ben uses points out the line: “bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery.” Obviously we can ban bigamy, polygamy, and incest without making adultery illegal because we are doing it right now.
What Santorum has done, in typical GOP fashion, is to create a controversy without touching on the central issue involved. The issue is not whether the Supreme Court views state laws banning consensual acts as unconstitutional but weather the Texas law is an overerach by state government at the expense of people’s rights. Ruling against the Texas law will not create a slipperly slope toward moral anarchy but it would be yet another evisceration of the concept of federalism.
I am so confused. Agree or disagree with Santorum, I cannot understand the outrage from the left. Wasn’t it only last week that the free speech or Robbins, Sarandan, and friends was being defended as the essence of what democracy is all about? So, how come a view such as that expressed by Santorum is any less important to the interchange of ideas in a free society? As reprehensible as some may find Santorum’s opinion to be, the hypocrisy of those who would say he is not entitled to articulate his viewpoint is far worse.
On the issue, I am firmly in the camp of not wanting the gov’t intruding in my bedroom, and whatever consensual activities between adults that occur there “ain’t nobody’s business but my own.”
John McCrarey
Actually, it was my understanding that the line of cases running from Griswold (contraceptives) to Roe(abortion) to the prior sodomy case hung together on the principle that it was the activity of reproduction – not sexual activity – which was the constitutionally protected activity. [Before anybody even starts thinking that I'm an idiot, please actually read the Griswold decision.] So, while everyone is currently assuming that sex is the activity which is “private,” in fact the activity is reproduction. Now, if the court reverses field in the Texas case, then it will have recognized a dramatic extension of constitutional protection with respect to “privacy.” I agree that the Texas sodomy statute is obnoxious, but it really is an issue for Texas.