about
archives
lite version
You're viewing an archive page. To see the current content on wickens.ca, please go to the main page.
27 March 2003 
Lawrence v. Texas
The United States is in a world-wide fight against fanatics who want to force their religious morality on others. At the same time, in that country's Supreme Court, two men who had consensual sex in the privacy of their home are fighting to overturn the law that made them criminals for it. Not only is this ironic, it's depressing. There really are politicians, lawyers, policemen, and judges who, in 2003, enforce and defend such outrageously intrusive laws. For once, I'm proud to be a citizen of the country whose future Prime Minister said in 1968, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." (Alas, just about everything else he said and did was not so pride-inducing.)
Andrew Sullivan links today to Dahlia Lithwick's good summary of yesterday's proceedings in the case. He also links to his own long article on the case. I haven't read it yet, but if I understand his argument, I disagree with it:
The case in front of the court is about the right to privacy, equal protection and so on. The case I make is something related but more fundamental. I try to argue that sodomy - i.e. non-procreative sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual - should not merely be defended negatively. It needs to be defended positively. It can indeed be an absolute moral good.Perhaps a case does need to be made for the morality of such sexual activity, but it isn't one that should be made to the government. All it needs to understand is that consensual sex infringes on no one's rights. Arguing on any other terms just concedes the mistaken and dangerous premise that politicians need only deem something immoral in order to outlaw it. For a proper case against sodomy laws, see this op-ed by Onkar Ghate.
08:35 PM |
Principles Without Context
From Dave Winer's Scripting News:
Presidential candidate Howard Dean gave a talk at Harvard last night. He asked an interesting question. Next year, how will we feel when China invades Taiwan because they think they have weapons of mass destruction? Has the new Bush Doctrine, pre-emptive wars, unleashed a philosophy of world power that we may not be so comfortable with?Yes, and I suppose we should also worry about policemen shooting violent criminals because of the slippery slope it puts us on. Has moral equivalence gone so far now that people don't see the difference between the dictatorship of Iraq and free, democratic Taiwan? Between Communist China and the United States of America?
11:38 AM |