Sanctus Santorum
Last week Rick Santorum, Republican Senator of Pennsylvania got a lovely taste of his own shoe leather while giving an interview to the Associated Press. What a nincompoop. These are the things that keep me a card carrying Libertarian and alienated by the Republican Party. Rick, boyo what were you thinking? Have you been hanging out a bit too much with John Ashcroft or maybe secretly hired Dan Quayle as your image consultant?
Okay, where to begin? Homosexuality = incest = bestiality = (and here’s where it gets interesting) heterosexual sodomy (that would include blowjobs, boys…) = adultery = basically any non-procreative sex not blessed by the covenant of marriage. The “right to privacy” does not exist and your government, for the “good of society” and the maintenance of the status quo, belongs in your bedroom. It's a (and I hate to use this term in an article regarding sex...) a "slippery slope" argument of the first order.
The only slippery slopes that I fear are the ones that lead to the government having more power to regulate personal behavior. Sexuality, drug use, guns... all of these things, if untepered have the potential to damage and destroy individual lives. However, even the best intended govenment attempts to regulate these behaviors has the potential to slip into something very sinister, very quickly. And when government steps in, it affects millions of people.
As long as the activity is between consenting adults and does not directly do harm to anyone else, the government should KEEP OUT. Don’t approve of oral sex… then don’t have it. Think that sex is only okay when performed in the “missionary” position in a marriage between a man and a woman without the benefit of birth control. Fine, then you have the right to confine your sexual activity to that venue. Just stay out of my sex life, okay? And I don’t have a personal ax to grind here. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with my wife for 22 years. The details of which are none of your f&%#ing business.
All of this hoohaw is ostensibly intended to “protect marriage”. If the institution of marriage is so powerful, so… holy, why does it need the protection of government? Why does marriage need the various states to regulate not only alternative contractual covenants, but the sexual behavior that underlies them?
Newsflash: Rick does not approve of bigamy. Okay Rick, I’m with you on this one. Bigamy presumes that a man has two or more wives who are not aware of each other… it’s a breach of contract. Then he goes after gay unions/marriage, polygamy and (presumably) polyandry (which I do not have a problem with because these family “arrangements” would be voluntary contracts between adults).
Whoa boy...
As long as a family configuration works for the people involved (especially the children who are a product of that family), what is all of the fuss about? What is so great about the nuclear family that is deserves to be the only state sanctioned life partnership? If a man wants to have more than one wife (other than being an unfathomable masochist for wanting to answer to more than one woman…), and the wives in question are adults and willing to participate in the relationship, what business is it of ours?
As long as someone is not compelled to have sex against their will and/or is not a minor, the state should STAY THE HELL OUT. It’s just that simple.
As for alternative family units, be they same sex, polygamy, polyandry, group marriage… why shouldn’t the state recognize them if they are economically viable and can promote long term relationships?
The Mormons were driven to Utah and then persecuted because their religious beliefs included polygamy. The Federal Government then chased them down and forced them to abandon the practice. So much for the freedom of religion.
As Andrew Sullivan suggests in this article, The Republican Party better not get too high and mighty after the victory in Iraq. First... the battle has not been won. There is a lengthy reconstruction process yet to be weathered. Second… there are many fiscally conservative/socially liberal voters out here that don’t take kindly to this crap.
GOP organizers like to talk about inclusion and the “big tent”. Unfortunately, Mr. Santorum and much of the GOP seem to believe that it’s a revival tent.
Last week Rick Santorum, Republican Senator of Pennsylvania got a lovely taste of his own shoe leather while giving an interview to the Associated Press. What a nincompoop. These are the things that keep me a card carrying Libertarian and alienated by the Republican Party. Rick, boyo what were you thinking? Have you been hanging out a bit too much with John Ashcroft or maybe secretly hired Dan Quayle as your image consultant?
Okay, where to begin? Homosexuality = incest = bestiality = (and here’s where it gets interesting) heterosexual sodomy (that would include blowjobs, boys…) = adultery = basically any non-procreative sex not blessed by the covenant of marriage. The “right to privacy” does not exist and your government, for the “good of society” and the maintenance of the status quo, belongs in your bedroom. It's a (and I hate to use this term in an article regarding sex...) a "slippery slope" argument of the first order.
The only slippery slopes that I fear are the ones that lead to the government having more power to regulate personal behavior. Sexuality, drug use, guns... all of these things, if untepered have the potential to damage and destroy individual lives. However, even the best intended govenment attempts to regulate these behaviors has the potential to slip into something very sinister, very quickly. And when government steps in, it affects millions of people.
As long as the activity is between consenting adults and does not directly do harm to anyone else, the government should KEEP OUT. Don’t approve of oral sex… then don’t have it. Think that sex is only okay when performed in the “missionary” position in a marriage between a man and a woman without the benefit of birth control. Fine, then you have the right to confine your sexual activity to that venue. Just stay out of my sex life, okay? And I don’t have a personal ax to grind here. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with my wife for 22 years. The details of which are none of your f&%#ing business.
All of this hoohaw is ostensibly intended to “protect marriage”. If the institution of marriage is so powerful, so… holy, why does it need the protection of government? Why does marriage need the various states to regulate not only alternative contractual covenants, but the sexual behavior that underlies them?
Newsflash: Rick does not approve of bigamy. Okay Rick, I’m with you on this one. Bigamy presumes that a man has two or more wives who are not aware of each other… it’s a breach of contract. Then he goes after gay unions/marriage, polygamy and (presumably) polyandry (which I do not have a problem with because these family “arrangements” would be voluntary contracts between adults).
Whoa boy...
As long as a family configuration works for the people involved (especially the children who are a product of that family), what is all of the fuss about? What is so great about the nuclear family that is deserves to be the only state sanctioned life partnership? If a man wants to have more than one wife (other than being an unfathomable masochist for wanting to answer to more than one woman…), and the wives in question are adults and willing to participate in the relationship, what business is it of ours?
As long as someone is not compelled to have sex against their will and/or is not a minor, the state should STAY THE HELL OUT. It’s just that simple.
As for alternative family units, be they same sex, polygamy, polyandry, group marriage… why shouldn’t the state recognize them if they are economically viable and can promote long term relationships?
The Mormons were driven to Utah and then persecuted because their religious beliefs included polygamy. The Federal Government then chased them down and forced them to abandon the practice. So much for the freedom of religion.
As Andrew Sullivan suggests in this article, The Republican Party better not get too high and mighty after the victory in Iraq. First... the battle has not been won. There is a lengthy reconstruction process yet to be weathered. Second… there are many fiscally conservative/socially liberal voters out here that don’t take kindly to this crap.
GOP organizers like to talk about inclusion and the “big tent”. Unfortunately, Mr. Santorum and much of the GOP seem to believe that it’s a revival tent.
posted by Royce at 2:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home