Kerfluffle
Apr. 22nd, 2003 06:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoSo, Pennsylvania's newest senator appears to have gotten himself into a bit of hot water -- and probably desperately wanted publicity -- by making a few remarks about Lawrence v. Texas, the case before the Supreme Court regarding whether "sodomy" can be outlawed. Key quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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."
The red flag he's really waving here is incest, of course. (Said the poly guy.)
But, as is usual in this situation, I don't think Sen. Santorum understands what he's really asking for.
See, majorities are always temporary. Mores are always temporary. And that means that enlightened self-interest requires a defense of civil rights, not necessarily because of a desire of equality -- though that would be nice -- but because of self-preservation.
To wit:
I dislike discrimination on the basis of race because I don't want the door to be open to being discriminated against. I believe in allowing freedom of expression because I myself have no wish to be silenced. I believe in the broadest possible franchise because I myself want to vote.
In a similar way, if Santorum thinks through his position... If one allows homosexuality to be criminalized now, one opens the door for heterosexuality to be criminalized in the future. If one allows polyamory to be criminalized now, one opens the door for monogamy to be criminalized in the future.
My own position is that the instrument of force and power representing us collectively that we call government has no business in regulating these matters for precisely the above reason -- sheer self-preservation on the part of each of us as individuals.
And if you don't think mores or majorities can shift radically in the span of a lifetime... Talk to a smoker over 50.
On the other hand, I think going after sodomy laws on a "privacy" basis is ill-advised. Probably the wiser path is to point out that there are no secular, public-policy objections to homosexuality (unlike, say, incest), and that where objections exist, they're usually on religious grounds. At that point, one is using the majesty of government to enforce religious opinion, belief, and practice -- and if that's not an "establishment of religion" under the first amendment, I don't know what is.
In other words, given judicial conservatives' wariness at privacy arguments because there is no explicit, black-letter allowance for same in the Constitution, I think moving to an argument where there is a black-letter prohibition is more forceful. :)
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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."
The red flag he's really waving here is incest, of course. (Said the poly guy.)
But, as is usual in this situation, I don't think Sen. Santorum understands what he's really asking for.
See, majorities are always temporary. Mores are always temporary. And that means that enlightened self-interest requires a defense of civil rights, not necessarily because of a desire of equality -- though that would be nice -- but because of self-preservation.
To wit:
I dislike discrimination on the basis of race because I don't want the door to be open to being discriminated against. I believe in allowing freedom of expression because I myself have no wish to be silenced. I believe in the broadest possible franchise because I myself want to vote.
In a similar way, if Santorum thinks through his position... If one allows homosexuality to be criminalized now, one opens the door for heterosexuality to be criminalized in the future. If one allows polyamory to be criminalized now, one opens the door for monogamy to be criminalized in the future.
My own position is that the instrument of force and power representing us collectively that we call government has no business in regulating these matters for precisely the above reason -- sheer self-preservation on the part of each of us as individuals.
And if you don't think mores or majorities can shift radically in the span of a lifetime... Talk to a smoker over 50.
On the other hand, I think going after sodomy laws on a "privacy" basis is ill-advised. Probably the wiser path is to point out that there are no secular, public-policy objections to homosexuality (unlike, say, incest), and that where objections exist, they're usually on religious grounds. At that point, one is using the majesty of government to enforce religious opinion, belief, and practice -- and if that's not an "establishment of religion" under the first amendment, I don't know what is.
In other words, given judicial conservatives' wariness at privacy arguments because there is no explicit, black-letter allowance for same in the Constitution, I think moving to an argument where there is a black-letter prohibition is more forceful. :)
