Sunday, December 12, 2010

After All, It's Just a "Biblical" Injunction

Epstein v. New York.

The defense is that it was 'consensual.'

And the law? Well, that's merely "Biblical," or "traditional."

You know, the mythology of the slack-jawed bitter clingers.

Scalia was right in his shredding of Lawrence.

When Prop 8 gets to SCOTUS, there is great risk.

The link includes a great McCain quotation.

18 comments:

Deekaman said...

The comments are shocking and frightening. They are not Libertarian in nature, but rather anarchist in nature. There is most certainly an injured party here, possibly several.

Epstein is an animal and his daughter, damaged. Badly. This didn't start when she turned 20.

donumvitae said...

I agree that the behavior in question is morally illicit. I would argue that consensual sexual actions performed in private should not be criminalized. Obviously, statutory laws still apply in full (consent is not possible).

While I find the behavior abhorrent, I am NOT willing to grant the government the authority to enforce laws such as this. If the action is in private, the ONLY way this can be enforced is through very severe invasions of privacy. If the activity is in public, all kinds of decency laws can take effect.

I also have NO problem with the government choosing not to reward activity that is of no benefit to society (so gay "marriage" should not exist).

These actions are revolting, but I think in this case the cure is more dangerous than the disease.

God bless!
Wayne

Dad29 said...

Umnnnhhh...

First off, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. That was invented by Justice Brennan in Griswold.

But even if we concede 'privacy,' the case at hand would not fit into your "privacy" concerns. Somebody talked, meaning that it is no longer "private."

The greater point is this: it is impossible to completely divorce 'moral' questions from civil law. If the prof was banging his daughter (even if she were 18++), it is morally reprehensible, as you state.

Who ELSE will enforce the law other than the State?

(In the old days, the Mom would have simply shot the father, but we've "grown" beyond that, right?)

Deekaman said...

Those who believe the state should not interfere also believe the state should not interfere in bestiality? No one is hurt, right. Is it consensual? I'd argue,"yes". The animal is very capable of fending off the attack.

Jim said...

Since a gay person is subject to the same laws against incest and beastiality, there is no connection between this case and Prop 8.

A heterosexual can marry the person of his or her choice subject to incest and bigamy laws. A homosexual cannot (except in 5 states now). Neither can marry a horse, more that one person at a time or their daughter.

It's a matter of equal protection under the law.

donumvitae said...

Dad29:

There are still a few problems with such a law. The most common place for "bedroom anomolies" to occur is within the privacy of one's home. I think the 4th amendment applies here.

You state that someone talked. Since when is hearsay admissible in a court of law? How do you actually gather legal evidence of such an action?

Finally, you ask who will enforce the law other than the state. There are two main avenues this should follow.

First, it is entirely appropriate for a community to ostracize those who behave in an uncivilized fashion. I have no problems with businesses being permitted to be selective regarding their clientele or employees.

Second, God will enforce His laws. I am not willing to allow the state to invade the privacy of the home and enforce morality where there is no clearly defined legal victim. I have seen too many "moral" laws proposed by the left to grant them this prerogative.

Regarding the mother "enforcing" the cultural norm: I think that could be justifiable homicide.

God bless!
Wayne

Dad29 said...

You state that someone talked. Since when is hearsay admissible in a court of law?

I haven't read a 40-page detail on this case, but your gloss of my remark is ....naive.

There HAD to have been a COMPLAINT filed for an arrest. Arrests happen on complaints all the time.

I have no problems with businesses being permitted to be selective regarding their clientele or employees.

Good. Then re-write Federal laws. In the meantime, I'll live in the real world.

where there is no clearly defined legal victim

I am utterly astounded. Prostition has no "victim" either. Are you in FantasyLand/Orlando?????

Dad29 said...

there is no connection between this case and Prop 8

Oh, yes there is. See "consenting adults."

It's a matter of equal protection under the law.

Wrong. It is a matter of the definition of marriage which STILL includes procreative possibility or the semblance thereof.

Thanks for serving as the example of why you were wrong on the first question I highlighted in this response, by the way.

donumvitae said...

Dad29:

I haven't read the complaint either, but I am betting the complainant is his wife, who is seeking a divorce. Wives are harmed by adultery as well, but it is not outlawed. Again, I don't think it is a law that can be enforced without undue governmental meddling.

Businesses are currently allowed to discriminate for any reason that is NOT prohibited by law. A business can choose not to serve a person who insults the owner, for example.

Finally, prostitution is a slightly different case, in that it is a prohibited form of business transaction. There has always been less privacy in business transactions than private life.

God bless!
Wayne

Dad29 said...

I never suggested that adultery become a prosecuted offense.

Businesses must hire according to BFOQ standards. (Not that they do, but there IS a standard.) Regardless, "banishment" doesn't work in the US.

Your defense of current prostitution laws is subject to EXACTLY the same weakness as "consenting adults" incest. But nobody bothered to try the case.

donumvitae said...

What fundamental legal difference is there between incest and adultery? Both are types of sexual conduct that harm society.

Prostitution is necessarily a business transaction. If a woman simply goes to bed with some guy she met in a bar, they have not broken any law. The state obviously has an interest in regulating businesses.

You may be correct regarding societal pressure for unacceptable behavior. I still think laws banning things that are simply "uncivilized" are very dangerous. Who defines "civilized" activity? This can rapidly lead to a tyranny of the majority.

It is refreshing to have a courteous debate on such a contentious topic.

God bless!
Wayne

Jim said...

"STILL includes procreative possibility or the semblance thereof."

So anybody who cannot possibly procreate should be banned from marriage? That argument has lost and continues to lose in every court so far.

Dad29 said...

What fundamental legal difference is there between incest and adultery?

None. There is a much greater natural revulsion for the former, which has to do with the argument: this is nature, not merely 'law.'

Law is instituted to assure comity in civilizations. (TA, approximate quote.) Thus, violation of good law (as opposed to bad law) is injurious to society as a whole. So the State's ban on adultery, fornication, homosexual conduct, incest, prostitution are all of a piece.

It is a given that the State will not enforce anti-adultery law (if it's still on the books); same with adult/consenting homosexual conduct and fornication.

That doesn't mean that the State's decision is for the better of society. It was pragmatic AND driven by a "me/rights" agenda.

That same agenda underlies the homosex-marriage drive and what COULD be the 'incest is best' result of this case.

O tempora, O mores!

As to the 'business' aspect of prostitution: yes, the State has an interest in regulating business. But it is merely a sham. I happen to agree that it is the right thing to do, but the fundamental reason should NOT be 'business.'

Dad29 said...

Did I say "semblance thereof," Jim?

donumvitae said...

Dad29:

My objection to this law is primarily pragmatic. The state has an interest in enforcing all of its laws. Enforcing this law could very easily lead to SIGNIFICANT 4th amendment "difficulties." I consider it more important that the government respect the security of the home than that certain immoral activity be punished. This is the same reason that I think sodomy laws are impractical.

This is also the reason I have no problem with laws banning prostitution. The government can prosecute these cases without running afoul of 4th amendment concerns.

Ironically, I am STRONGLY opposed to gay marriage. Marriage is a means the state uses to reward the family unit most beneficial to society. Gay "marriage" does not offer these benefits, so there is no reason to reward this lifestyle.

God bless!
Wayne

Dad29 said...

It seems that you are equating the 4th Amendment with "privacy"..

I wasn't kidding when I stated that Brennan fabricated--from nothing--a "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

THAT eventuated in a "right to abortion."

By the way, the 4A forbids 'unreasonable' searches. We might debate the meaning of the term, but not its plain-letter existence.

donumvitae said...

Dad29:

Valid point regarding the verbiage of the 4th amendment.

I do not think an intrusion into the bedroom to enforce a moral evil with a highly nebulous legal victim is reasonable. Remember, there are many who believe that having "too many" children is also immoral.

We have already encountered a society where religious beliefs are enshrined in law. It is called sharia law. I think it best that religious morals be enforced by their respective church, not by the state.

At this point, I think I have explained my position as fully as I am able. As a result, I will not further belabor this point. I will simply agree to disagree.

Have a blessed Advent!
Wayne

John Foust said...

What about a few real men who want to get together, admire the heft of each other's guns, drink a few beers, polish their boots... should that be illegal, too?