Regulating Morality

Senator Rick Santorum is right. He believes that if the Supreme Court decides that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, then the court must also agree that there is the right to polygamy, bigamy, or any other actions that the senator finds to be morally abhorrent. In truth, no government has any business in declaring such acts as its province. Though Senator Santorum and many other conservatives believe that it is in the interest of “society” to ban practices which their religion finds to be objectionable, America was founded on the principle of individual rights. These rights include the freedom to engage in the pursuit of happiness through actions that do not violate the rights of others – no matter how disgusting we may personally find these actions to be (and these actions do not include “consensual” sex between an adult and a minor – no such consent is possible).

Santorum stated that he has nothing against homosexuals – he just opposes their behavior. Supporting someone’s life but not their ability to act on their life to pursue their happiness is an assault on reason. This is no different than saying that you have nothing against liars, just their lies (or saying “I am for the troops but against the war”). It is this kind of illogic and the inability to reason that has allowed America to become the current mixed economy and quasi-socialist country that it is today.

Santorum would have us believe that marriage must be regulated and must be only between a man and a woman. He says that doing otherwise would undermine society and the act of procreation. But what if a couple is unable to have children or if they decide not to have children? Are they undermining society? And what is “society”, anyway? It is nothing but a group of individuals living together under a set of laws. Violating the rights of some individuals to please others for an indefinable “common good” is abhorrent and incompatible with the intentions of this nation’s founders. The argument that male/female marriage should be the only form of marriage because it is “tradition” is equally wrong. An issue can only be decided based on the facts. Using this “tradition” argument is another way of saying, “I refuse to stand firm on any principle. I will only base my decisions on what others decide is right.”

No federal or state government should be in the business of regulating such acts as marriage. Marriage should be a matter of private contract between consenting adults. The proper role of a government is to protect rights – not only through national defense but through the enforcement of contracts and protection from fraud. To create laws based on religious beliefs leads to theocracy, not democracy (though America is properly a constitutional republic, not a democracy).

Make no mistake - the outcry from many liberals’ over Senator Santorum’s remarks is equally disturbing because of the hippocrisy. Many liberals support “gay rights”, but in 1996 Congress overwhelmingly approved the “Defense of Marriage Act”, which gave states the right not to recognize gay marriage. In order not to sacrifice votes in an election year, President Clinton, who spoke out against gay marriage, signed the bill. In addition, there can be no such thing as “gay rights” (or, for that matter, “women’s’ rights”). There are only individual rights, which are specified in the phrase: “Certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

As long as conservatives wish to regulate behavior in the bedroom and liberals wish to regulate behavior in the boardroom, America will remain a long way from the utopia of freedom envisioned by such men as Thomas Jefferson. We must strive for a country that embraces the founding philosophy of individual rights embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.