Thursday, April 24, 2003 :::
I heard a lot of talk-radio the other day, and read blogs quite a bit, and I have to say, I'm really surprised this Santorum thing took off the way it did. Are people surprised that Santorum is a social conservative? I knew that, and not because he told me in a secret conversation -- he hasn't been hiding it.
And do people really think a slippery-slope argument is untenable here? It's not like the lawyers for the homosexuals in the case argued that, well, the 37th Amendment to the US Constitution reads "no state shall enforce a law against sodomy." The arguments being made are based on fairly abstract common-law concepts of privacy and police powers (legal concepts, BTW, which I don't have much of a grasp on -- not that this will stop me from spouting off about them). These concepts could apply here, but they're pretty vague. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to argue that they do apply in this case and wouldn't apply to, say, concensual incest. But I certainly can't see why people are gambling-at-Rick's shocked that someone thinks they might.
I'm a lot more libertarian than Santorum is (and, as I said, I could have told you this a week ago), but I find it a lot more surprising that people are talking about this than that Santorum said what he did.
::: posted by Steven at 12:00 PM
|
