Rick Santorum and bumping nasties

A great many people who I respect and generally agree with seem to be getting their panties all in a bunch about Senator Santorum’s comments on the anti-sodomy case currently before the Supreme Court. Apparently, Texas has a very old law banning non-heterosexual sex in the home. Naturally, the gendarme don’t go bashing down doors after hours looking for people banging away in the privacy of their own home but, in this case, some neighbor called in a possible burglary, the police arrived and discovered two men enjoying each other’s company in a Bibilcal sense. I’d say citing these two fellows was a damn bad call but whaddaya wanna do? It is Texas after all.

So, now the Supreme Court is asked to rule on the Constitutionality of such laws and Sen. Santorum made the following comments which have led to the afore-mentioned panties bunching:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” the Pennsylvania lawmaker said in a recent interview, fuming over a landmark gay rights case before the high court that pits a Texas sodomy law against equality and privacy rights.”

So, what’s wrong with that? He’s not saying the laws are a good idea, he’s not equating homosexuality with all the sins in the calendar. All he’s saying is that it’s not a good idea to enshrine a Constitutional right to whatever sort of sexual behavior you want to pursue in your own home. And he’s absolutely right in his conclusions, if you have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to consensual sexual activity in your home then no form of consensual sexual activity can ever be banned. That opens the door to polygamy, polyamory, bestiality (so long as you can prove the hamster offered its consent), etc. Does anyone honestly think that’s a good idea? Certainly there are some who do, but they’re also the sort of people who see society as hopeless and therefore open to complete destruction before they erect a shining new edifice in its place – the penile symbolism might be intentional.

I can’t say that a moral stand can be taken on homosexuality. There are cases to be made for all sides of the issue and I don’t know what to think. I am inclined, however, toward the live and let live school of thought. You do what you like, I’ll do what I like. There are things that should not be acceptable though due to their impact on society. Two men or two women in bed together isn’t neccessarily one of them, three men and two women or one man with ten wives just might be. And that’s what we do not wish to see enshrined as a “right.”