diet coke for breakfast


Thursday, June 26, 2003

Posted by Jake
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Sodomy Law

About friggin' time. You know it is under very rare circumstances when I recommend a judicial remedy, but I think the courts rejection of morality-based legislation, which is by-and-large dictated by a horde of freaky people, is an unequivocably good thing.

Now time for my subliminal message: Social Conservatives...Leave the Party...Go to Pat Buchanan...You'll be happier away...

[Yeah I have to agree with that sentiment... This was an absurd law, but it is interesting to note however that there are some legalities behind this case worth considering. The central theme here is that government should not be allowed to interfere with people's sex lives. Generally this is a good idea, but it got me thinking dangerously, and it seems such a policy doesn't always hold up: there are all sorts of "non-violent sex crimes" out there (incest and polygamy for example) where there may be a true compelling interest for the state to prevent. It could even be argued (as I'm sure it was) that homosexual behavior is bad for the state (although often humorus)... Of course, common sense makes this absurd, but it merits thought about what the boundries of law making are. -- Matt ]

[Careful there big guy. That's the kind of talk that got Rick Santorum into trouble. That's the slippery slope argument, however it doesn't hold up. The easy counter argument is that incest is almost never consensual, and polygamy victimizes the multiple wives. --James]

[Yeah I think that's where I first heard the arguement actually and I agree its a stupid slippery slope argument, but I meant my comment more as a thought question: Can you legislate sex lives on any level? As someone of a rather libertarian bent, I'd like to say "no" but my imagination isn't dirty enough to consider all the possibilites which might change my mind. - Matt]


0 Comments:

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?