(no subject)

[jfb]

It turns out Rick Santorum's remarks equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest were taken out of context, but the context is that he doesn't think you have a right to any kind of sex in the privacy of your home. That's not what I want to talk about, I just came here to post the best line from the Associated Press interview:

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Comments

[dongle.livejournal.com]

The problem for people like Santorum (and, to an extent, I'm in that camp, although unlike him I think state sodomy laws should be repealed) is that a whole bunch of federal court cases are operating on a constitutional right to privacy that was discovered as part of a legal proceeding rather than intentionally placed into the document by legislative process. If a right to privacy exists - and I believe it does - then it should be legislated. Santorum seems to agree; later on he says

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.

Regardless of the merits of state laws about private sexual activity, the federal government has no business in our bedroom. Legislation is the expressed views of the people's representation, the proper mechanism for determining whether the law should recognize a "right to privacy" and setting the boundaries around how that right should be exercised is the legislature. Santorum is offering the opinion that such a right should become law through action in state legislatures rather than the federal courts. How he would feel about legislation at the federal level concerning privacy isn't revealed from his comments; all we have is his opinion on what is commonly referred to as "judicial activism."

[dongle.livejournal.com]

But, yeah, "man on dog" took me by surprise too...

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

Except that all state laws are subordinate to the Constitution of the US, and it's the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constution's relevance in these situations.

If a state law disagrees with how the Supreme Court decides, BEEP, it is invalid. The business of the federal government is not to be in our bedroom, but to prevent the states from going into our bedrooms when they don't have the right to. The states should not have any right to disregard the Constitutional unalienable rights, even if those right weren't explicitly stated in the original draft.