Santorum and his views on our privacy rights

[Guest FroggyOne2]

I can see that this thread has expanded way beyond to what is Rick's supposed views, to U'all's views.. and the rights to privacy in my opinion don't have anything to do with states rights under the 10th.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Marriage against the State: Toward a New View of Civil Marriage | Jason Kuznicki | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Here's a link to a video from a Knoxville church who invited a Reverend and professor of theology from Sewanee seminary to speak on what the Bible says and doesn't say about homosexuality.

Edited January 12, 2012 by East_TN_Patriot

[Fallguy]

Well, it's deeper than that wrt who gets custody of a child when a parent dies, etc. Not to mention that if one state recognizes a gay civil union, but another state does not, what happens if they move to the other state (work, whatever)? I'm NOT a federal power guy (at all) - I'm a strict constitutionalist - but there's a lot more to civil unions than just tax breaks and who gets what in divorce proceedings.

I don't have an answer for this, just pointing out the complexity of the issue.

If it is a contract between two people whether male/female, male/male or female/female then AFAIK the full faith an credit clause makes it a valid contract anywhere in the country. The only trouble comes when you call it a marriage. Which IMO should be something between two people and their faith in each other and/or whatever higher belief they have and NOT the government.

[East_TN_Patriot]

The religious argument against gay marriage is a huge problem in my opinion. I would argue strongly that our laws are not based upon a specific religious or moral code, but a collection of moral codes defined by groups who have the ability to sway public and/or legislative support. In fact, many of our foundations of justice and law actually came from cultures that pre-date Christianity.

Cesare Beccaria, a political philosopher who was very influential over those who founded the United States, warned about allowing religion to creep too far into political affairs, law, and justice, including oath-taking.

John Locke refers to religion regularly, but solely as a foundational concept. Locke acknowledges that God created the Earth and humanity. He endowed humans with natural rights and the ability to reason and ultimately organize into social groups and establish government. He states, "...God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men." Not to regulate morality or pursue a particular interpretation of the Bible, but to keep us from doing harm to one another.

Rousseau was even more harsh. He said, "But I am deceiving myself in talking about a Christian republic; these terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is too favorable to tyranny for tyranny not to take advantage of it at all times. True Christians are made to be slaves..."

Rousseau further states, "The dogmas of civil religion ought to be simple, few in number, precisely worded, without explanations or commentaries. The existence of a powerful, intelligent, beneficent divinity that foresees and provides; the life to come; the happiness of the just; the punishment of the wicked; the sanctity of the social contract and of the laws. These are the positive dogmas. As for the negative dogmas, I am limiting them to just one, namely intolerance... whenever theological intolerance is allowed, it is impossible for it not to have some civil effect; and once it does, the sovereign no longer is sovereign... priests are the true masters..."

In short, the philosophy of our American government was not one that suggested that the state has any authority to legislate Christian morality, or the morality of any other religious doctrine. Clearly, it is easier when the vast majority of the society believes in the same religious interpretations and concepts. However, in our society, we have a multitude of views on religion and morality, and our system of government and ideas of freedom, liberty, and equal protection under the law obligate the government in particular to tolerate behaviors and lifestyles that are not directly harmful to others. Every generation has picked a particular aspect of society that they claim is going to lead to the moral decay and downfall of our society. Whether it was doing away with slavery, allowing women to vote, not embracing Christianity, electing a Catholic to the White House, rock and roll music, allowing blacks to vote, birth control pills, inter-racial marriage, showing married couples in the same bed on television, Elvis' dance moves, marijuana, alcohol, or any other number of folk devils identified by people, our society has survived. In today's world, it's homosexuality and gay marriage that is being targeted for intolerance under the warning that it will collapse the foundation of our society. I think that being tolerant and encouraging people to love one another and commit to one another can only help our society.

Now as far as the original point of my post is concerned, Santorum is using his own particular views on a private moral issue to undermine our fundamental right to privacy contained in the 4th Amendment. This is exactly what Rousseau was trying to communicate. If Santorum doesn't even think that your private sexual affairs in your own home, even consensual heterosexual relationships, are protected from public intrusion in the name of the "common good" why would anyone think that any other aspect of our private lives isn't at risk? All one has to do is make an argument that whatever is happening behind closed doors is potentially dangerous and the government then has the authority to prohibit, criminalize, regulate, and legislate it out of existence.

[Oh Shoot]

....If gays get the same tax benefits or legal coverage by getting married or having a civil union, what are the negative ramifications (from a government standpoint, not religious inspired morality)?

Only that fed would be on the hook financially for things they aren't on the hook for now, like survivor bennies for SSI, military, etc. Lot of other things like eligibility for married housing on military base, spouse eligible for burial in military grave, etc. Probably lots of other things I haven't considered, but all of them would seem to be money related only.

... don't have an answer for this, just pointing out the complexity of the issue.

I think most of us agree this could be a very complicated issue...

I see no complication at all. If a "civil union" carries same status as "marriage" does now, no other laws or procedures need to be changed. Everything stays the same, just that more folks are included under exactly same laws, procedures, and bureaucratic rules that already exist under state and federal agencies as regards currently married couples.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

....I see no complication at all. If a "civil union" carries same status as "marriage" does now, no other laws or procedures need to be changed. Everything stays the same, just that more folks are included under exactly same laws, procedures, and bureaucratic rules that already exist under state and federal agencies as regards currently married couples.

- OS

Meant to mention, it would also require private businesses to treat "civil union" folks the same as "married" folks now. This would affect insurance companies, loaning institutions, housing (married student housing on campuses that have that, agencies that only allow married couples under section 8 type stuff, etc etc), various other areas I haven't thought of.

Point remains, NOTHING would change, just that all agencies, both governmental and private, would have to treat "civil union" couples same as "married couples" without discrimination.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I listened to that woman give a good discussion and put things in a context I have never really heard

before. Good lecture. Now I have to watch the rest of them.

ET, you put some good stuff up here to ponder.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I listened to that woman give a good discussion and put things in a context I have never really heard

before. Good lecture. Now I have to watch the rest of them.

ET, you put some good stuff up here to ponder.

That's all I ask out of anyone, including myself. As I read, write, learn, and think, I come to find many things are not what I originally thought them to be. I'm glad you found that info interesting.

[kieefer]

Every generation has picked a particular aspect of society that they claim is going to lead to the moral decay and downfall of our society. Whether it was doing away with slavery, allowing women to vote, not embracing Christianity, electing a Catholic to the White House, rock and roll music, allowing blacks to vote, birth control pills, inter-racial marriage, showing married couples in the same bed on television, Elvis' dance moves, marijuana, alcohol, or any other number of folk devils identified by people, our society has survived. In today's world, it's homosexuality and gay marriage that is being targeted for intolerance under the warning that it will collapse the foundation of our society. I think that being tolerant and encouraging people to love one another and commit to one another can only help our society.

This and the comments from John Locke were enlightening, thanks for sharing.

[mav]

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long. One thing I am scratching my head over is the repeitition of arguments that were made 10 pages ago.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Isn't that the truth? I really think I haven't changed my mind on the issue of "gay marriage",

but the stuff Rick Santorum said definitely won't cut it.

Interesting points of view from some folks around here. There are really other issues to be understood

than just the proposal to allow gay marriage. And I won't even bother with them.

The law is something some people take for granted and never challenge, and once there it seems to stay.

If you don't question, be careful what you wish for.

[kieefer]

More from John Locke,

In a particularly telling passage in Locke’s famous Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke responds to an objection that if government cannot enforce religious truth it will open the floodgates to all sorts of strange and immoral religious practices:

If some congregations should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or, as the primitive Christians were falsely accused,lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous uncleanness, or practise any other such heinous enormities, is the magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a religious assembly? I answer, No. These things are not lawful in the ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore neither are they so in the worship of God, or in any religious meeting. [emphasis added]

It follows that if Locke believed the government could prosecute adultery, fornication, and sodomy, his approach to government would not mandate same-sex marriage.

John Locke and the Evangelical Retreat from Marriage « Public Discourse

I'm done with this.