SODOMY
& FELLATIO
First, let me tell you where I stand on this. Fortunately, I have two legs so I am able to stand in two places at the same time. Sometimes, surfing the Net, I am hit with pop-ups of two men in the act of kissing, fellatio or sodomy. To me, it’s disgusting. How could they? I cannot imagine my doing any of those things, or anything close, with any male friend, much less a male stranger. I don’t think I could go to the opera with a male friend. (One, a doctor friend who is an opera singer is the exception.) On the other hand, I can (and do) regularly imagine doing at least two of those three acts with almost any number of women, known or unknown. Any number of movie stars, prior lady friends, prospective lady friends and, frankly, a former wife occasionally comes to mind. Thus, it is not the ACT to which I object, it is that the ACTors playing the parts are, in my opinion, miscast. That, Gentle Reader, is just my tough luck. Second, it is also none of my damned business that two males decide to conduct themselves in ways invidious but otherwise harmless and unaffecting me or anyone else. More important, it is absolutely not the business of the governments of the United States, at any level, federal, state, county, city village or unincorporated area. Period. Third, the issue turns on whether the conduct is deemed sinful, i.e. immoral, or not sinful, i.e. not immoral. It is essentially irrelevant how I, or you, determine the morality of any such conduct. None of us is God. It is extremely relevant that any government not determine the morality of any such conduct. Once the government adjudicates itself to be God, there is no end to its intermeddling. Look at the Ayatollahs. Anyone concerned with the slippery slopes of government, judicial fiat or meddling in moral issues should be sharp and clear eyed as to where a wrong Supreme Court decision will lead. It would take us to an earthly perdition akin to that to which some condemn the homosexual. Such a place is sometimes called Teheran or Riyadh. (Note that lesbians generally escape these judgments.) Fourth, if you’re counting, what brings these issues to the fore is not just Sen. Santorum’s opinion. There is a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court - Lawrence and Garner v. Texas - which concerns homosexual conduct in the privacy of one’s home. What happened was that a neighbor called the police about an alleged gunman (never a gunwoman; gunwoman isn’t even in my spell checker). In response, the police entered Lawrence’s 8th floor apartment through an {allegedly) “unlocked” door, a condition cops frequently encounter when they don’t have a warrant. There was no gunman but there were Lawrence and his buddy Garner, having homosexual sex. Naturally, they were arrested, handcuffed and, in their underclothes, taken to the police station where they were booked and spent the night, courtesy of the local government. They were later tried and convicted. Now the case is before the Supremes. I suppose we must go through the process but one wonders why. This seems like a no-brainer in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Leave them be. Imagine a homosexual nation where heterosexual sex is proscribed. That is what some (presumptively) heterosexuals are attempting to impose on America’s homosexuals. Leave them be. If you think homosexuality is sinful, then leave them to Heaven. On earth, particularly on American earth, leave them be. And, fifth, leave Sen. Santorum be as well, He has a particular religious point of view, shared by tens of millions, probably a majority, of Americans. He did not condemn the two men involved. He specifically did not want the federal government to proscribe homosexual conduct. He wanted it left up to the state government which, while not my belief, is at least consistent with the Tenth Amendment, the most ignored in its breach of all Constitutional commands. Remember, too, none of this speaks of child homosexual conduct, child or adult incest, polygamy or associated variants of sexual conduct. Each is different though Santorum believes that if the Court approves of private, homosexual conduct between consenting adults, it ineluctably will lead toward the condonation of these other sexual acts. Maybe. But never underestimate the ability of a group of lawyers to split hairy issues and discover that they are separate, and perhaps unequal as rights. The media should grant Santorum his right to a sincere religious belief which he was not attempting to impose on others. The media, in contrast, repeatedly attempts to impose its opposite beliefs on all others. Leave Lawrence, Garner, Santorum and their adherents be. Consenting, adult, private sexual relations are totally private, unassailable by anyone other than God. And She has not opined. I’m going to watch my favorite Demi Moore movie. In private, in my own home, with whomever I please. We all have that right. Leave us be. Post scripta: The neighbor spent 15 days in jail for filing a false police report. They are indiscriminate in Texas but just. Note
Santorum is a variant of sanctorum, as in sancta sanctorum, the holy
of holies. |