In The Pooper

“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.” — Senator Rick Santorum

I know it’s old news, but the White House has come out supporting this guy, but this just blows my mind. Let’s dissect it… the law is against sodomy (I think you all know where this is going, and if you’re not a grown up and can’t handle thinking or reading about this, please move on). So, the senator is against sodomy, because it’s a “gateway” sex act to legalizing incest and bigamy? Let’s talk about what each of these is and how ignorant the Senator is making himself look (he may indeed be ignorant, but this just makes him seem ignorant). Sodomy is an act that can happen between two consenting adults. If the two are consenting and undertake the “enterprise” of sodomy aware of the risks of such, then why is that against the law? See, here’s why I have a problem with these laws. They’re degrading. If consenting adults (sense a theme) feel it’s OK for them to engage in such an act, they should be free to do so without fear of prosecution. And this is where Mr. Santorum misses the mark (all definitions from Mirriam Webster):

  • Bigamy: the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another. Usually, this is a case of fraud, where one or more of the parties does not consent. Therefore, as a case of fraud, I can support there being laws against it.

  • Incest: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship. In the common meaning, this is an intimate relationship between parent and child, most often when the child is either under undo psychological influence, or of such an age as to be unable to give proper consent. Again, no problem having laws against this, because it’s more than likely an abusive relationship, and the taking advantage of a weaker party by a stronger with extraordinary influence over them.

  • Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. Ahh, this one’s a little tougher. I think it’s definitely punishable in a civil sense if the spouse who isn’t the adulterer in unaware and has not consented to the other committing adultery. Do we need a criminal statute? No, not really. We have divorce lawyers and marriage counselors.

  • Polygamy:marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. Why is polygamy illegal other than our county’s Puritanical background? If all parties are of an age to consent to the marriages, and all give their free and uncoerced consent, then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to do it.

So, Mr. Santorum, do you just not know the meaning of the words, or do you want everyone to be subject to your own personal moral code? I would much rather live by my own.

Categorized as politics

By Kevin Lawver

Web developer, Software Engineer @ Gusto, Co-founder @ TechSAV, husband, father, aspiring social capitalist and troublemaker.


  1. Jen the Great says:

    I knew I married you for a reason! You are so smart. I nominate you for “Smartie of the Year.” Too bad the higher ups don’t listen to you -seems to be a repeating theme in your life 🙂 Love you and your funny pro civil rights ideas.

  2. Alisha says:

    Far as im concerned…what ever happens in the bedrooms between two consenting adults is their business. ^_^

  3. Dawson says:

    I agree with Kev. They’re trying to control society through sexuality, which they’ve been doing forever. However, I think the Patriot Act is a much larger threat to our liberty than this little pissant.

  4. Kurt says:

    Gen 3:7 And man began to view the world by his own personal moral code(s) and make decisions on his view of good and evil. By what scale do you judge Senator Rick Santorum’s moral code better or worse than your own? Where do you base your moral convictions?

  5. Kevin says:

    He has every right to his religious and moral beliefs. He does not have the right to legislate others’ beliefs. He also does not have the right to legislate how people express their love for one another, unless that “love” involves preying on the weak, or committing acts of fraud on unconsenting parties (ie: incest, child abuse and bigamy).
    The problem I have with the whole thing is how close-minded it is. How would it feel if your whole life was outlawed? If everything that felt right and the way you expressed love was considered illegal? It’s a hard life, and it’s unfair.
    It seems the Senator lacks any sort of empathy for people who are different from himself. He equates different with deviant and evil, which drives me nuts, and is one of the reasons I’ll probably never vote Republican again. The GOP has been overrun by small-minded zealots who want to legislate our morality and create a theocracy out of a representative democracy.
    It’s fine if you agree with the President and his friends, which I think is why we’re not seeing a lot of hubbub from the average American on this. But, when the ideology changes a little from your own, will it still be OK that these folks are running the country? When the prayer in school isn’t your’s, will you still support it? When they start outlawing your personal belief, what will it feel like?
    My personal moral code is based in free will. Man was meant to make his own decisions. That free will must be weighed against the needs of a civilized society. I think our society can handle repealing outdated laws based solely on prejudice and hate. This is getting really long, so I’ll probably do another post based on this stuff in the near future.

  6. Kurt says:

    So a basic summary of your ideal moral code is anything goes as long as no one gets hurt? That argument breaks down when you have to choose who decides who really got hurt.
    What we are looking at in this particular situation is man’s attempt to rule over man with laws loosely based on those of God’s. It, like all other forms of government created by man, will fail eventually. For some reason, it just seems that ours is failing faster today than the previous two centuries. Perhaps there is a reason associated with that failing.
    I look forward to your next installment on this topic.

  7. Kevin says:

    I don’t think it does. The line where “no one gets hurt” is a little vague and we may come down a little to either side, but I think that approach works better than a dogmatic approach completely lacking in nuance or empathy.
    You make some interesting points, which I appreciate. I’m working on a series of posts on what I want in my elected officials, and from our government. Unfortunately, I don’t see most of them now.
    The essence though is you’re right that our laws are grounded in the past and scripture. But, we need to have laws that don’t force everyone to believe what we may, or force others to practice our form of religion. Our government should be decidedly agnostic. I believe firmly in the separation of Church and State, and that’ll show up in the list. Expect the “preamble” tonight (hopefully). Thanks again for the comments, and keep ’em coming. My ideas are subject to change, and I’ll take anyone else’s ideas about how things should be, so bring ’em on!

  8. howard says:


  9. Kevin says:

    There are all kinds of snide comments I could make about the fact that you’re “letting” an omnipotent diety be true like it’s up to you, or that you posted the same comment eight times, perhaps because you think your weak argument will be stronger if you put it in all caps and repeat it several times.
    But, on to your point, or lack of one. It speaks for itself. Just because you think something is “disgusting” doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Just because homosexuality isn’t your idea of fun, doesn’t give anyone the right to outlaw it. You can’t legislate “it makes me feel oogy” or several forms of sushi and liver and onions would be illegal.
    It’s time to get past the idea that because a lot of people in this country are Christians and have certain ideas about how people should live, that 1) we have to legislate those behaviors and 2) you have any right at all to tell people how to live and use the law to enforce it.
    Let’s try this. Most Christians in America (including me) think that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document. If you believe that, then you also believe that there was a good reason for the separation of Church and State. Your religious beliefs should not be made into laws unless those beliefs fall into those categories of “maintaining the peace, providing for the common defense”, etc. That many laws have been made in clear defiance of that concept speaks to the need for that amendment in our Constitution.
    I was planning on writing something about the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the Texas anti-sodomy law. This is pretty much it, in a comment, at 2 in the morning (that’ll teach me to just “check my mail” before I go to bed).
    And if you come back and comment again, you only need to say it once. I can read. I’ve deleted your repeat comments. If you do it again, I’ll ban your IP, which I would really rather not do. We can disagree, and you can even not like me – but we can do it civilly. If you can’t be civil, then no one will listen to your argument, and you’ll never convince anyone.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: