| |
  | Ones and Zeros |
| An irregularly updated journal of my Fair and Balanced thoughts, reactions, opinions, biases, outrages, strategies, victories, and commentary. Whatever it is, it's much too subtle to be considered a parody... |
|
|
| |
|
April 23, 2003
| Politics |
|
Inspired by this thread on the newly redesigned Blogcritics web site, I have a few comments on Texas vs. Lawrence.
The Texas vs. Lawrence case involves the Texas anti-sodomy law, which specifies that sodomy is only illegal between people of the same sex.
A law that makes an act that is legal for members of one group to perform illegal for members of another group to perform is inherently discriminatory. The question is 'is this illegal discrimination?' Some discrimination is fine. It is legal to discriminate against 10 year olds who wish to vote. It is legal for the VA to discriminate against non-veterans who want free governement healthcare. There is a compelling state interest in discriminating that overrides the harm done to the discriminated class.
Senator Rick Santorum attempts to define this state interest by asserting that protecting gays from this discrimination will de facto protect bigamists, polygamists, people committing incest, and adulterers. It is clear under Texas law that all sodomy is not harmful, since it is no longer illegal between consenting adults if they are of opposite sexes. All Santorum has is the rather weak 'gateway' argument.
I don't think there is any merit to his position, because bigamy is illegal regardless of gender or orientation. Striking the Texas sodomy law because it illegally discriminates would be laudable. It would not inherently establish a right to privacy (regardless of the merits of such a right) and it would not invalidate existing laws against gender-and-orientation-blind behavior.
Senator Santorum may not be the homophobe that he's being painted, but he does a poor job of determining the harm done by a discriminatory law and he is far too willing to invade the bedrooms of consenting adults. I suspect he is not particularly different from John Ashcroft in this. It's run of the mill odiousness, not a particular stench that belongs to Santorum alone.
|
| .:Posted by Michael on April 23, 2003 9:39 PM:.
|
|
|
|
