perfidy

Rick Santorum's comments viz-a-viz the Texas sodomy laws are at best misguided. But, as my blog-mates have indicated, it does open a question of the legislation of morality. I raised this during part of my lecture this evening, which covered reform movements in the U.S. in the 1820s and 1830s. Now, I think that broad issues of moral relativism went out with the Holocaust, despite postmodernist attempts to argue in favor of it. As I told my students, there are some issues of morality present in every culture. No matter who you talk to, killing someone in cold blood is immoral. 

The problem comes with moral issues upon which we cannot agree. For Santorum, and many others, homosexual relations are immoral practices. For others, it makes no nevermind. I believe that homosexual relations between two (or more) consenting adults pose no moral problems whatever. It's perfectly fine for two consenting adults to have whatever kind of sex they like. It's none of my business. Santorum, however, believes it's an erosion of what he calls family values. So the question is, does the government have a right to legislate morality on behalf of the people they represent?

The response is equally problematic. In some cases yes, in some cases no. As Buckethead argued well, the government legislates morality by prohibiting theft and murder. These things are bad. Case closed. But what about sexual behavior? Well, provided it is between the two or more aforementioned consenting adults and no one gets hurt, the government has no basis to step in. The government, as our elected representatives, can legislate to keep people from hurting one another. That's part of the social contract and leaving the state of nature, allowing the government to protect our lives, liberty, and property by sacrificing our ability to bash each other's skulls in for shits and giggles. But if two guys, or two women, want to get each other off, then what's the harm? This is where our republic does not need government intervention. 

Santorum doesn't see it that way. He believes that the government should promote his vision of morality, upon which everyone does not agree. The recourse against people like Santorum, as Buckethead would point out, is to vote against him or those who also try to legislate morality that doesn't fall under the we're all for it category. I could also write to him and tell him I disagree, but that's less effective than casting a vote for other representatives who think that the government does not need to uphold laws against homosexual intercourse. 

All that being said, I think we just need to keep talking, and permit the legislation of morality when it pertains to matters of don't kill, steal, or key someone's car just because they parked in front of your house. Other than that, we need to figure out what's a sheer judgement call and what isn't. That happens through discourse. I realize that I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic about all this. These things happen