Bush: happy for Cheney's gay daughter pregnancy

In terms of natural rights, I do not think that there exists a right to do something wrong, as in the examples of an employer unjustly firing a competent employee or a person eating or drinking himself into a dangerous unhealthy physical condition. (In the latter case, I realize that addictions may develop in these areas that restrict the freedom of the will, as well as in the case of narcotics.) However, in terms of government intervention, there exist areas that do not justify coercive intrusion. Rights are not a matter of a government granting them, but are pre-existent in the human condition, or are endowed by their Creator, to use the language of the Declaration of Independence.

Contrary to what you stated, there is no correspondence between the Taliban philosophy regarding homosexual sodomy and that of traditional Anglo-American legal philosophy. The Muslim position is far harsher toward homosexuality than other forms of sexual behavior. The older legal codes in America and other Western nations banned not only homosexuality, but fornication, adultery, bigamy, etc. Muslim political order does not recognize such legal standards and civil rights as are in Anglo-American common law and the Constitution, such as probable cause, habeas corpus, protection against self-incrimination, and trial by jury. The difference is that Western, and particularly American, jurisprudence balances the rights of the individuals with the perceived need for public order and decency. Sharia law does not. The men who established the post-Revolutionary governments at the Federal and state levels established restraints on governmental power, but also continued the common law prohibitions against various forms of sexual deviancy. Even Thomas Jefferson, one of the least Christian and more anti-statist of the Founding Fathers, supported the anti-sodomy laws passed by the post-independence Virginia legislature.

Focusing on homosexual sodomy, as the "pro-gay" posters have, begs the question of whether any sort of restriction on sexual activity is justified on the part of government. Polygamists, pederasts, and prostitutes are currently restricted by law, and would desire the same permission others now have. A greater question lies beyond sexuality, in a vast range of areas: commerce, education, the environment, self-defense, narcotics and alcohol, and so forth. The question is: what, if any, restraint should be placed on individual freedom and what should be the basis for our laws. Since I am not a libertarian but a classical liberal in the Jeffersonian sense, or a Goldwater-Taft conservative, I believe that cases may be made, for the sake of public order, decency, and justice, where local (though not Federal or even state) governments may properly prohibit certain activities, not only in the area of sexuality, but in other areas of human action. These prohibitions must be conducted in light of necessary restraints on police and prosecutorial action, as exemplified in the Bill of Rights, and punishment should never be excessive.

If this is your answer to the question:

Since I am not a libertarian but a classical liberal in the Jeffersonian sense, or a Goldwater-Taft conservative, I believe that cases may be made, for the sake of public order, decency, and justice, where local (though not Federal or even state) governments may properly prohibit certain activities, not only in the area of sexuality, but in other areas of human action. These prohibitions must be conducted in light of necessary restraints on police and prosecutorial action, as exemplified in the Bill of Rights, and punishment should never be excessive.

Then it seems you are saying that in some cases local governments could make sodomy illegal - but not the federal or even state government. I agree that local governments ( and even state governments) are the proper place for domestic concerns. However, the Supreme Court has now decided that sodomy is a *right*. And so no state or local government can make it illegal.

As to the idea of whether people have the *right* to do wrong. My view, which I have stated in other posts - is that that is what free will is. People unquestionably have the *right* to do wrong...they have the *right* to choose. And people demonstrate that every minute of every day around the globe. For those who say that people do not have the *right* to do wrong - that is, imo, the same kind of thinking as the Islamists. Ask any Islamist if people have the *right* to do wrong - and I'm sure they will agree with EV - that no one has the *right* to do anything that they believe is wrong. I disagree.

So, it seems we disagree. Hopefully - that is no surprise to you.

Here is a quote I like from Goldwater:

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them . . .

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being . . .

...I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

. . . I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

And this is clever:

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals.

"That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." -- Lynn Lavner

Your focus and that of many posters on both sides of this thread on homosexuality is understandable, as the issue that started this thread was Mary Cheney's pregnancy. Homosexuality is but one aspect of human sexuality. In turn, sexuality is merely one aspect of human action. The really important issue is what is the role of civil government in maintaining justice in view of the rights of the individual.

As far as it goes, the Supreme Court has, since the late 1930s entirely abandoned the natural law and limited government underpinnings of the Founders. With the partial exception of Clarence Thomas (although the positions of Alito and Roberts are not yet clear), the justices and the American judicial system in general have abandoned the doctrine of original intent for one of the Constitution as a "living document" (i.e. a wax nose) on the part of the liberals or stare decisis (let the opinion stand) on the part of the so-called conservatives (Scalia included). The high court's overturning of the Texas sodomy law was ahistorical, against both original intent and established practices in all states from 1788 to 1960. I have focused on the issue of sodomy, but the principle of inventing reasons for government intervention was as specious here as it has been in many other cases, including Roe v. Wade.

What liberals, RINOs, "law 'n' order" types, and many libertarians fail to realize is that a central government powerful enough to override state and local decisions virtually at will may also be powerful enough to interfere with their own liberties. The same liberals who denounce the Patriot Act seem to have no problem when, under a Democratic administration, the IRS harasses conservative organizations and the full force of Federal police power is unleashed against militias or religious cultists. Local tyrants like Boss Tweed in New York, Huey Long in Louisiana, or the Prendergasts in Kansas City are bad news to the locals, but the nation as a whole is not affected. It is better in many respects to restrict Federal control to give leeway to "bad" local and state governments so long as some fundamental level of civil rights is preserved.

You also have not clarified what you mean by rights. I adhere to the natural law standard that individual rights are those that are necessary for the human condition, with the primary rights being those to life, liberty, and property. They are granted by God and not the state. I also believe that humans are given free will with respect to their actions. However, free will and rights are two different things. No reasonable person would say that the free will decision of a Jeffrey Dahmer or a Charles Manson to kill people constitutes a right on their part.

With regard to Islam, my understanding is that Muslims believe in a sort of determinism that limits free will. OTOH, the Christian religion recognizes free will though also believing that the effects of original sin weakened that will. For this reason and the respect afforded to the individual, there is a great difference between how morality was reflected in the civil law in the United States prior to 1960 and how it exists under sharia law.

You also have not clarified what you mean by rights.

Actually I have stated several times what I mean by *rights*. All people have the *right* to do whatever they want – whatever they want – as long as they do not infringe on someone else’s rights – as long as they do not consciously harm others – as long as they do not break the law. I am *for* the most freedom possible.

And I am open to that changing. Not to us losing *rights* and freedoms (as has sadly happened) – but to us gaining more. Something like this:

” Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” – Thomas Jefferson

I noticed this article making the rounds today. If true – you can give up on trying to control people’s sexuality:

“More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past…”

yahoo

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.