Wendy takes on...

...the blopic of the day and wins! (or just muses)

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

 
A few weeks ago, I decided that I didn't have time to read what Andrew Sullivan wrote about Lawrence vs. Texas and the morality of sodomy. Silly me. Fortunately though, I did take the time to save it for later reading, so it was easy to find tonight.

I do not want to get into the morality of sodomy, though Sullivan explores it thoroughly and I really appreciated it. If you are interested in the evolution of the definition and morality of sodomy, the Sullivan article is a must-read. The reason I do not want to get into the morality is because it's none of your business whether I find this behavior to be moral or immoral, delightful or depraved. Just as it's none of my business how you feel about it or whether you engage in it.

I may or may not disagree with Senator Santorum, but I must respect his value system and his courage to stand up for what he believes is right. But when his personal values clash with my liberty, I will fight.

I was shocked and dismayed to read that "in 1973, Texas legalized heterosexual anal and oral sodomy along with bestiality, but simultaneously fashioned a new criminal law directed solely at gays."

First of all, CRIMINAL????

Second of all, this discriminatory practice should be declared unconstitutional because it denies individuals equal protection under the law. FULL FRICKIN' STOP

So, after reading more, I see that this specific case, is in fact, a "gay issue", but I contend that our battle cries for justice remain "equal protection" and "right to privacy". Homosexuality should never be a legal issue. All sexuality should be a personal, private matter.

Now, regarding Senator Santorum...

Sullivan wrote a better analysis of his comments (though far lengthier) and provided a link to the comments in full.

"The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that."

If Senator Santorum had said 'the idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' actions' I would disagree too. The state exists to protect my rights from being infringed upon by my neighbor. But to limit our "wants and passions"? That's a job for thought police. If that were even possible we would no longer want to consume oil or paper (but that's another blog).

"If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."

I have to say that I agree. New Yorkers should decide for New York and if Texas wants to make sodomy illegal for ALL individuals, that's up to Texans. However, the Supreme Court's job is to ensure that ALL citizens of ALL states in the Republic are guaranteed EQUAL PROTECTION and that is not the case in Texas.

I did not mean to imply in my previous blog that Senator Santorum was not gaybashing. I respect that your relationship with God demands that you not tolerate homosexual acts. Fine, don't tolerate them but don't deny you are intolerant. I'm not as quick to use the word 'bigot' as Sullivan, but I can't fault him for using it.

What I meant was that gaybashing is not the issue to be discussed in a court of law or in the US Senate. Privacy and equal protection are the issues to be discussed by the state.

And, does anyone else notice that Sullivan recognizes in print the fact that the right to privacy was something invented by the Court to allow families the right to make their own decisions on contraception and abortion? This is a point most people ignore, but it is a VERY important point. Fortunately, the right to privacy is now protected, but it was not something the founding fathers thought up.
Wendy 11:51 PM