Groan. So there's some fuss
Groan.
So there's some fuss about the comments made by Sen. Rick Santorum, regarding a case before the Supreme Court that would strike down state sodomy laws. Here they are, for those of you who like primary sources:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.
Of course, gay and lesbian groups are livid. (And while I haven't heard that Jesse Jackson is involved yet, it's just a matter of time before the Savior of All Who Are Oppressed enters the picture.) They don't much like having "consensual sex" -- which, in this case, is implied to mean "gay sex" -- compared to bigamy, polygamy, and, yeah, incest.
And then on the other hand, I was listening to Sean Hannity today on the radio, and he was pretty much in agreement with Santorum. Their point is basically the slippery-slope argument: "If we legalize gay sex, then we've got to legalize polygamy! And bigamy! And beastiality!" And no self-respecting Christian would allow that, right? (Hannity did make the point that both he and Santorum are Catholic.)
And of course, they miss the point entirely. They forget that this is a free country. It ain't a theocracy; it's a constitutional republic, whose Constitution, I might add, does not mention God or Christianity. (And by the way, guys, that was on purpose.)
You can't just outlaw certain consensual activities because they may "damage the fabric of society." People do it anyway; it doesn't hurt anyone, and making it illegal just undermines the legitimacy of the system that gave rise to such laws that are so out of step with what the people want. In short: they don't stop anyone from doing it, and trying to stop it just makes the government look oppressive (because, well, in this case, it is).
If we are free -- and supposedly, that's one of the guiding principles that our country was founded upon -- the government doesn't have the right to dictate what activites are allowed, when taking place with one or more consenting adults. Yeah, in addition to not having the right to dictate what bedroom activities one may engage in, government also doesn't have the right to tell you what chemicals to put in your body, if you so choose, although it most certainly has the right and the obligation to protect you against those who force them down your throat. And of course, if, while hopped up on your drug of choice, you lose control of your actions and end up damaging someone else's person or property, the government has every right to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law because you screwed with someone else -- against their consent.
I just wanna slap these guys around: IT'S ALL ABOUT CONSENT YOU IDIOTS. You don't have the right to tell me that I can't be gay, and yes, engage in gay actions, if I so choose. (And for the record, I am most certainly straight.) This is nothing more than the Republican version of social engineering, and it's every bit as despicable as the leftist-Democrat version, the let's-tax-the-things-we-hate-and-just-a-little-bit-tax-the-things-we-want-to-encourage version.
This is retarded policy. It's about 225 years behind the times, and it's time these guys got a clue. (On both sides of the aisle, please.
Posted by Matt at April 23, 2003 6:13 PM
