Santorum Was Right

“ “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.” –Bob Hope Swany—how I love ya, how I love ya My dear old Swany Shortly after the odious Lawrence v. Texas decision in which the US Supreme Court, in a grim foreshadowing of the short shrift it has given the desecration of the concept of marriage, decided to toss a couple of millenia of Western Civilization so no one’s libido would be restrained by law, Rick Santorum gave an interview with Associated Press: And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. [...] This [decison] is, quite honestly, the kind of figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that got us into this mess. I don’t intend to argue “relativism” here, other to point out that to the average reader of English this looks a helluva lot like it and I suspect Linker rejects tying relativism to bestiality because of his own philosophical and political biases. The way we have fetishized “tolerance” and “affirmation” and linked it to sexual perversion guarantees very few are going to like where this trip ends. And if we aren’t headed for Gomorrah, you will certainly be able to see it from where we are bound. Back to Rick Santorum. When the Supreme Court ruled that a state had no right to regulate sexual behavior, presumably because the same “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution that decided Griswold now protected butt-sex it didn’t take a genius to see where this was going to end but the left and libertarians had to make fun of Santorum because he gave away their game. Now we are here and there is no way to arrest the momentum. Illustration: Leda and the Swan by Jules Roulleau. Speaking just for myself—this is one tough subject for anyone with "gay" male friends/family members (lesbianism isn't in my calculus here), whom you love unconditionally, to deal with.  However—and cutting to the chase—I see pancreatic cancer scale damage done when the courts regulate sexual behavior.  Yes, Griswaldish rulings will provide legal protection for, erm, extraordinary behavior, but at what cost?  Does a good field commander refuse to sacrifice a platoon in order to save the company?  They do here. And what happened to "doing your thing" quietly, and without the parade?  What's that?  You say, Georgia might prosecute you if  push comes to shove (no pun intended)?  Then move somewhere more tolerant to your situation, and STFU.  And for chrissake, don't lose your sense of humor about the human condition. Santorum had it right, which wasn't hard because it's common sense. I suspect we all innately knew what was coming. Aside, My 300,970  word original post is available if there is enough demand. ”