Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Socializing the Cost of Sin

The Warrior found an interesting item in Front Page. As you'll note, the underlying thesis has two edges....

One of the great lies of the latter half of the twentieth century is that there is a Constitutional right to privacy. The right to privacy was established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which the Court ruled that the state could not restrict the use of contraceptives. That law hadn’t been enforced in nearly a hundred years when it was challenged, but that didn’t stop liberals from trying to strike it down.

Why? They wanted to make a point, and make it they did: according to the Court, the Constitution guaranteed a “right to privacy.” Where did this right to privacy come from? “[S]pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance,” wrote Justice William O. Douglas, in one of the silliest and least substantive lines of reasoning in legal history.

All true. Douglas was the inspiration for most of today's lawyer-jokes.

Going on...

There’s only one problem: the left isn’t truly interested in the right to privacy. What starts in the bedroom doesn’t stay in the bedroom for the left. It ends with government pushing their bedroom agenda-of-the-day.

Now, it’s not enough that a woman has a right to choose to abort her baby – we have to publicly fund it. Now, it’s not enough that people have the right to have unmarried sex – we have to pay taxes to fund their child-rearing.

In California the courts have recently ruled that the right to privacy now requires that the state make no distinction between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. Marriage is not a privacy issue — it is an issue of people’s relationship with the state. But the radical gay movement has not restricted itself to worrying about non-interference in the bedroom. It wants societal acceptance and legitimacy. By the same token, homosexual adoption isn’t a privacy issue — it impacts a child. But the left has sought to extend the right to privacy to cover the right to raise children without a mother or father.

Also all true, and now (I assume) you see the problem.

What the author does NOT mention (he might have, in another context) is that socializing the 'cost of sin' also applies to bankers. We are paying for their sins--not "mistakes", sins--in a lot of the cases.

2 comments:

John Foust said...

Check out the Bible's abortifacient / adultery detector recipe.

Anonymous said...

"This is what's known as 'legislating morality' [from the bench] requiring that the right thing be done."

I wonder where I've heard this before...