Setting a new standard. (last word).
But it shouldn't be, because the Texas case was only superficially about sodomy. It was really about the right to privacy and the moral standard by which that fight should be applied.
And that is something they and every other Jack and Jill should care about, because there may be one or two things they do in their bedroom, or perhaps at, the Super 8 Motel, to which Republican U.S. senator Rick "Sanitarium" Santorum of Pennsylvania and his would-be dormitory patrol would take mighty exception if they caught them at it.
So we come to the thorny questions of privacy now bedeviling the nation: How should we determine which private sex acts the law should protect and which ones it shouldn't? Should we follow the standards of the Christian right and criminalize anything but prrocreative intramarital inter-course?
Or should we slacken the cuffs and let married people behave with impunity but nab gay folk for doing the same thing--which is what the disputed Texas law did?
Or should we--gasp--let it all hang loose and allow gay people equal protection of the laws in the romper room? But if we do that, where will we draw the line? What will we do about incest, adultery, polygamy, and every other deviancy that Greek tragedy has made known to us? If we throw out the biblical standard, or some vaguely fudged version thereof, what will happen to family and civilized society?
There's a simple answer to these questions: one that, consistent with the framers' intent, separates church and state while setting clear, morally defensible boundaries around privacy, a right that is integral and indispensable to any true notion of liberty.
The legal standard for sexual privacy should be this: No private sexual act should be illegal as long as all parties to it are consenting adults and no one else is harmed in the process.
By this standard, as long as they do not involve children, such practices as incest, polygamy, sadomasochism, oral sex, sodomy, orgies, and even prostitution should be legal, because they harm no one but their consenting adult practitioners and are, therefore, nobody's business.
Now, Santorum et al. would argue that society at large is in fact harmed by deviant sexual acts committed in private; that the family in particular is ostensibly torn asunder by such acts.
Of come, the grand fallacy in this argument is that most homosexuals, not to mention many supposed perverts of every stripe, were raised in "normal" heterosexual families and are the products of civilized society. As recent events have disclosed, the Roman Catholic Church itself has nurtured, enabled, and shielded from prosecution a number of pedophiles, practitioners of one of the few sexual perversions even the libertarian standard criminalizes.
So you see, the strict standard of the Christian right isn't just invasive, it's hypocritical and selectively applied. This is why we all need to worry about what sodomy, broadly defined, means. Because in the mind of the holy GOP, the slippery slope of sexual privacy slides both ways. Just as legalizing sodomy has the potential to legalize incest, criminalizing it, as Santorum's recent remarks implied, has the potential to criminalize adultery. And after that, what's next? Impure thoughts? One shudders to think.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Advocate (The national gay & lesbian newsmagazine)|
|Date:||Aug 19, 2003|
|Previous Article:||Worldly wisdom: Brad Gooch wrote his way through the sex-drenched '70s and AIDS-plagued '80s. These days he's proving that gay sexuality can be...|
|Next Article:||Billy in the out field.|