I really didn't want to dwell on this subject, but the usually eloquent Wind Rider has taken a bit of a flier on this one.* In fact, I'd respectfully suggest that he's engaging in some of the same sort of creative interpretation he starts out by accusing others of.
(*As usual, Blogger's permalinks aren't working -- scroll down to "Puzzlement," April 26)
What Wind heard:
I find that I must agree with Senator Santorum, or at least my read on what his point actually is, in this particular instance. While there is ample reason to believe that Santorum's personal views do not hold homosexuality, its forms or its practices in high regard, that is not the basis of his indictment. What that is, is that if society has changed so much that the practice of homosexuality, and its forms, are socially acceptable, then in fact, the law, she is an ass. And such laws, specifically with regards to sodomy, should be re-examined by the various legislative bodies of those states that still have such laws, and repealed or modified to better fit the sensibilities and practices of the society we live in.
What Rick said:
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And 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. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Santorum's not saying the sodomy laws should be re-examined, repealed or modified. To the contrary, he says quite clearly, in so many words, that the laws are doing exactly the job they were intended to do -- that they "were there for a purpose," and that purpose is to prevent the undermining of "the basic tenets of our society and the family." And he's stating categorically that polygamy, adultery and sodomy are all "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," i.e., to the American way of life as he would like it to be. No one is twisting his words, here. He's twisted them just fine all by himself.
What they both said (via WR):
As I perceive Senator Santorum's concern, I share it. By addressing this issue via the courts, and using this as another opportunity to construct a framework for an argument as to the existence of 'sexual rights', it is of great concern that by opening that door, and giving that concept credence, it would only be a matter of time before it was used to strike down, despite the sense of society as to their necessity as expressed through legislative action, the various laws proscribing bestial or incestuous or other such conduct, on the basis of the 'rights' argument. Put simply, and just as simply pooh pooh'd and dismissed, the slippery slope.
Yep, that's the argument. Postulate that what goes on between consenting adult human beings in the privacy of their own homes is their own business and not that of either their neighbors, the legislature or the courts, and the next thing you know, we'll have to license marriages between brothers and sisters, people and their pets, perhaps even between folks of difference races and religions (ooops, being there, doing that).
Well, I'm going to open a real can of worms and ask, hypothetically: so what? What if, under some (highly unlikely) reading of a Constitutional right to privacy, the Supreme Court decided we had to repeal state laws prohibiting incest and beastiality? Are we actively enforcing those laws much these days? Would it cause a run on such behavior among people who would otherwise find it abhorrent? Would it lessen the stigma attached to those acts? I think not. Isn't the real issue here that some people simply want, at any cost, to prevent or ignore an existing evolution of societal norms (and in my opinion a very positive evolution) with which they personally disagree?
Santorum:
And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
What we're seeing in our society is a recognition that love and affection are no longer considered mere tools in the implementation of a survival agenda -- the reproduction of the species, the race, the tribe in the face of possible extinction. This agenda was adopted early on as an exclusive province by church and state alike (and again by our Puritan founding fathers) and for some reason they still conspire to maintain the monopoly. It's a losing battle.
The devout Catholics and the ultra-Orthodox Jews and the fundamentalist Muslims will continue to view the primary purpose of their sanctified unions as procreation and proliferation, but the rest of us have other agendas. In fact, there are those of us who earnestly believe that the key to humanity's survival on this planet lies in discouraging wanton multiplication of the species. But that's a topic for another day.
Rick Santorum and Wind Rider are most certainly entitled to their opinions on this topic. I happen to disagree with both of them, but that's not the point. The point is that Santorum is a U.S. Senator who is clearly infusing his personal religious agenda into his job at the expense of a substantial number of his constituents. He should be held accountable for this. If enough of his constituents and colleagues believe that he nonetheless continues to represent their interests, he'll weather the storm nicely. If not, the democratic process will do its work. In the meantime, lobbying will continue on both sides.
Postscript: the Constitutional "right to privacy" that was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut back in 1965 (and that Rick Santorum claims does not exist) has come under attack from many quarters for many years. So far, it's proved to be fairly resilient. Regardless of whether that continues to be true in the future, there will always be behavior that's considered unprotected by any "right," just as there will always be some sphere of privacy recognized into which government may not intrude. How large or small you believe that sphere should be will probably depend upon where you fall on this grid.
