From March 2004 (and revised)
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2004
The “slippery slope” is one of the most popular
arguments raised by the anti-freedom forces when it
comes to gay marriage. Once you start the ball
rolling by letting homosexuals wed, the argument goes
that the “marriage ball” will just gain more momentum
and speed as it tumbles down that hill and before you
know it, nothing else is safe when it comes to the
Sacred Institution.
Sen. Rick Santorum said as much a couple of years ago. (Don’t get
confused; when I say “santorum” I’m not referring to
most common definition of the term, namely the frothy
mixture of fecal matter and lube which is often a
by-product of anal sex. I’m talking about the
Republican Senator from Pennsylvania. I don’t want
anyone to get confused.) In the April 7, 2003 USA
Today interview that made his name a household word,
Sen. Santorum warned America of the slippery slope
that is gay marriage.
“(I)f the Supreme Court says that you have the right
to consensual sex within your home, then you have the
right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, …you
have the right to adultery. You have the right to
anything.” According to the Senator, even pedophilia
and bestiality will be legitimized if gay marriage
gets the green light.
I’m expressly leaving aside the argument about
non-consentual sex with kids and dogs, (both of which
are even more disgusting than having to clean santorum
from the sheets), but I do want to discuss the
Senator’s fears about gay marriage leading to the
legitimization of polygamy.
He’s right. It’s already happening.
In January 2003, G. Lee Cook and D. Cook, a married
couple, and J. Bronson, a single woman, (all adults)
asked for a marriage license to allow Ms. Bronson to
be Mr. Cook’s second wife, with Mrs. Cook’s consent.
The Salt Lake City clerk’s office refused, and the
would-be marital trio brought suit in the U.S.
District Court for Utah. The case is pending.
The trio’s lawyer, Brian Barnard, lists several
reasons why Ms. Bronson should be allowed to be the
second Mrs. Cook; one of them relies upon the U.S.
Supreme Court’s ruling last summer which outlawed
Texas’ anti-sodomy statute. If the government can’t
prohibit homosexual sex, the argument goes, it
shouldn’t be allowed to prohibit multiple-partner
marriages, either.
The Cook-Bronson case is one of several in Utah that
are challenging the state’s anti-polygamy laws.
They’re all relying heavily upon recent court cases
all over the country which are easing bans on same-sex
marriage.
That’s right. The state of Utah, where George W. Bush
is considered a leftist pinko, is becoming a hotbed of
support for gay marriage, not for its own ends, but
because the door is left open to legalize polygamy as
well.
Talk about politics making strange bedfellows.
And I don’t normally agree with a frothy mixture of
fecal matter and lubricant, but Senator Santorum is
right about one thing; once the door is opened for gay
marriage, polygamous unions will demand to be able to
walk through the door as well.
I say, “Let ‘em in.”
There is no logical reason to endorse gay marriage
without also endorsing polygamous unions, and vice
versa. I realize that logic and reason have no place
in American politics, but hey. Activists in both
camps need to band together and work toward a common
goal. It’d be like the Osmonds marching in New
York’s Gay Pride parade.
Here’s what it comes down to for me. I’ve said it
before, and I’ll say it again. Whatever consenting
adults do in their own bedroom is their own damn
business and nobody else’s. If Steve and Mark want to
get married, more power to them. If Frank and Julie
and Susan want to tie the knot, go for it. I’ll buy
them “His” and “Her” and “Her” bathtowels.
Ironically, one of the anti-freedom forces’ arguments
against gay marriage actually works in polygamists’
favor. While the Bible apparently frowns on men lying
with men, it’s full of endorsements of the polygamist
lifestyle. Lamech, Esau, Jacob, King David, and
Solomon, to name only a few.
Now, if you check out websites like www.polygamy.com
or www.polygamy.net, they tend to endorse the Biblical
concept of multiple marriages, namely one man with
multiple wives, all of whom must be subservient to the
husband. (Technically, this is ‘”polygyny” Having
multiple husbands is called “polyandry.” Just so you
know.) Being the sensitive new-age guy I am, I can’t
get enthusiastic about this idea. To be fair to
everyone, let grown-ups be grown-ups, and if somebody
wants two wives and three husbands and consummating
their marriage looks like something out of a Seymour
Butts video, let them knock themselves out.
“What about the sanctity of marriage,” somebody’s
screaming. “Gay marriage and polygamy will bring the
institution down!” Yeah, the virtues of heterosexual
one-man-one-woman relationships are well-documented,
thanks to people like Britney Spears, Kobe Bryant,
Frank and Kathy Lee Gifford, Elizabeth Taylor, Larry
King, Pamela Anderson, Bennifer, and all those idiots
on TV shows like “The Bachelor,” “The Bachelorette,”
“Average Joe,” “Joe Millionaire,” “Who Wants To Marry
A Millionaire,” and on and on and on.
The only drawback to this idea is the paperwork
involved, especially if somebody wants to get
divorced. Dividing marital property among five or six
people would probably only be slightly less
complicated than understanding the U.S. tax code. But
I figure all those lawyers’ billable hours would be
good for the economy. That sort of thing couldn’t be
outsourced to India.
So G.Lee Cook and D. Cook and J. Bronson ought to give
Rosie O’Donnell and her new bride a call so they can
all join forces. It’s time to get this ball rolling
down that ol’ Slippery Slope.
And for the record, while I endorse gay marriage and
polygamy as concepts, I’m not interested in getting
another spouse for myself, male or female. Multiple
wives mean multiple mothers-in-law.
Not that there’s anything wrong with mothers-in-law.
For the record, my own mother-in-law is great; she’s
so great, in fact, I can’t imagine being lucky enough
to get another one nearly as fantastic, so I won’t
even bother trying.
I love ya, Mom.
Remember I said that.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
"If We Let Gays Marry....
this is the next step on the slippery slope..."
As well it should be.
From the article:
"The fact [that] much of American legal culture is based on monogamy does not justify a ban on polygamy," their attorney, Brian Barnard, of Salt Lake City, wrote in a brief filed this month with the Denver-based appeals court.
Barnard argued that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that prohibited sexual conduct between same-sex couples "provides individuals with protection from state intrusion as to intimate relationships."
The referred-to decision is Lawrence v. Texas. When the decision came down, the Holy Terrors shit enough bricks to build a pyramid. "This'll start a slippery slope," they said. "The next thing you know, consenting adults will start trying to do whatever they want!"
And they were right. Which is as it should be.
As for me, I have no interest in a second wife. (Two wives, two mothers-in-law. Thank you, but no.) But if consenting adults want to shack up in a "His and Hers and Hers" arrangement, it's none of my damn business.
For that matter, I don't think there's a problem with a "Hers and His and His" arrangement, either. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
IMHO, I'm afraid G. Lee Cook, D. Cook and J. Bronson won't get very far in their case. At least, not in this go-round. But there is hope.
I just find it funny and ironic that three people in Utah, (on of only three or four states still conservative enough to give Dubya positive approval ratings) are relying on a precedent that was favorable to homosexual conduct.
Talk about politics and strange bedfellows...
As well it should be.
From the article:
"The fact [that] much of American legal culture is based on monogamy does not justify a ban on polygamy," their attorney, Brian Barnard, of Salt Lake City, wrote in a brief filed this month with the Denver-based appeals court.
Barnard argued that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that prohibited sexual conduct between same-sex couples "provides individuals with protection from state intrusion as to intimate relationships."
The referred-to decision is Lawrence v. Texas. When the decision came down, the Holy Terrors shit enough bricks to build a pyramid. "This'll start a slippery slope," they said. "The next thing you know, consenting adults will start trying to do whatever they want!"
And they were right. Which is as it should be.
As for me, I have no interest in a second wife. (Two wives, two mothers-in-law. Thank you, but no.) But if consenting adults want to shack up in a "His and Hers and Hers" arrangement, it's none of my damn business.
For that matter, I don't think there's a problem with a "Hers and His and His" arrangement, either. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
IMHO, I'm afraid G. Lee Cook, D. Cook and J. Bronson won't get very far in their case. At least, not in this go-round. But there is hope.
I just find it funny and ironic that three people in Utah, (on of only three or four states still conservative enough to give Dubya positive approval ratings) are relying on a precedent that was favorable to homosexual conduct.
Talk about politics and strange bedfellows...
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Getting back to the doomed war on porn...
This is a reprint of a column from March, 2005
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE WAR ON PORN
That damned First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor of freedom of speech, nor of the
press, nor of the peoples’ right to peaceably
assemble, nor of the peoples’ right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”
Who knew that single paragraph would cause so much
trouble for the Morality Brigade?
If you’ve ever watched a porn movie by the company
called “Extreme Associates,” you’ve probably come away
with a wave of nausea in your gut and a desperate urge
to scrub the icky feeling off your skin with a wire
brush. Extreme Associates, run by the husband and
wife team of Robert “Rob Black” Zicari and Janet
“Lizzie Borden” Romano, specialize in the kind of porn
that gives porn a bad name. Their films feature
simulated rape and murder, verbal and physical abuse,
and the simulated forcing of women to drink
“cocktails” of semen, blood, and vomit. And did I
mention rape? Lots and lots of simulated rape. (The
key word here is “simulated.” Zicari and Romano have
gone to great pains to provide verification that every
single person in every single sick, twisted moment of
film is a consenting adult engaging in a paid acting
performance). No doubt about it; as pornographers go,
Extreme Associates the stuff at the bottom of an
abandoned Port-a-potty, only with a much less pleasant
odor.
So when the U.S. Justice Department decided to launch
an offensive in its War on Pornography, Extreme
Associates made the perfect target. The company
produced the worst of the worst, with no redeeming
literary, artistic, political, or social value
whatsoever, and it wouldn’t be missed when it was
gone. In August, 2003, the Justice Department brought
criminal charges against Extreme Associates for
violating Federal obscenity laws.
And the result? A slam-dunk. For the defense. On
January 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Gary L.
Lancaster dismissed the case against Extreme
Associates, on the grounds that the First Amendment
protects their line of work. In his ruling, Judge
Lancaster pointed out that as long as people have the
right to view such materials in the privacy of their
own homes, Extreme Associates has a right to market
it, and that the State of Pennsylvania couldn’t ban
such material simply because government officials
found it objectionable.
The Justice Department has vowed to appeal the
decision, and newly-appointed Attorney General Alberto
Gonzalez swore in his confirmation hearings that he
would vigorously continue the Department’s policy of
vigorously prosecuting distributors of pornographic
materials.
Who’s he trying to kid? If the Powers That Be
couldn’t nail a couple of sleaze artists like Zicari
and Romano, what makes them think they stand a chance
against more conventional distributors of porn like
Vivid Studios and Seymour Butts Productions?
Especially since, as I myself have mentioned in
previous columns, porn has irrevocably entered the
American cultural mainstream.
We’re awash in porn-themed coffee table books,
biographies, documentaries, and reality TV shows. Not
to mention cable and the internet. On the one hand,
the Morality Brigade can scream that the inundation of
porn into the mainstream is proof positive that it’s
got to be eradicated. On the other hand, logic,
common sense, and the law itself make it clear that
the War on Porn was doomed before it even began.
For a book or movie to be considered “obscene” under
Federal statutes and case law, it has to be a
violation of the standards of morality of the
community in which charges are brought. Las Vegas,
Nevada would probably have a different opinion of what
constitutes obscenity than would, say, Salt Lake City,
Utah. So when the Powers That Be tried to prosecute
Zicari and Romano and Extreme Associates, they didn’t
bring the case in Northridge, California, where the
couple lives and works, but in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, which presumably would be more likely to
find their videos offensive.
Obviously, this plan didn’t work. I don’t know how
hard it might be to buy a dirty magazine or rent a
video in Pittsburgh, but I doubt it’s any harder to
download that stuff off the internet there as it is
anywhere else in the U.S. And since Pittsburgh has
bookstores and premium cable the same as the rest of
the U.S., I’m sure I’d have no problem buying a copy
of Timothy Greenfield-Sanders’ coffee table book,
“XXX: 30 Porn Stars” or watching Seymour Butts’
“Family Business” reality show on the Showtime
Network. If the Justice Department still wants to
bring an obscenity prosecution in a community that’s
easily shocked by porn, they’d maybe better find a
nunnery in The Middle Of Nowhere, Alaska.
So, where stands the War on Porn? The First Amendment
still stands as a bedrock for protection of all forms
of expression, offensive or otherwise. However, a
recent study by the John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation found troubling signs that the next
generation of voters sees the First Amendment as doing
more harm than good. One half of surveyed high school
students believed that the government should approve
of news stories before they are published. More than
one in three students surveyed said that the First
Amendment “goes too far” in protecting speech.
Small wonder. The Powers That Be have successfully
made dissent a four-letter word in the post-9/11 era.
For a generation of kids growing up in the past three
and a half years, it’s no surprise that they’ve
acquired a mentality that opposes the dissemination of
ideas they find objectionable.
For that matter, the First Amendment itself has been a
sort of “black sheep” when it comes to protecting
liberties and freedoms. Under the First Amendment, we
can’t pray in school, but we can burn flags in public
and crosses on peoples’ lawns. We can’t say, “under
God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but we can have a
bumper-stickers that say, “Fuck Bush” on our cars.
The First Amendment has even turned people like Robert
Zicari and Janet Romero into folk heroes.
Despite high schoolers’ views of the First Amendment
and the Department of Justice’s War, I still have
faith porn is here to stay. In February, Adelphia
Communications, the country’s fifth largest cable TV
provider, announced that it would soon be offering
hard-core adult films to subscribers via pay-per-view.
The company, (which contributes heavily to Republican
Party operatives and campaigns), simply sees this as a
terrific opportunity to cash in on the multi-billion
dollar porn industry.
Phooey on the First Amendment. The Department of
Justice doesn’t stand a chance against the Almighty
Dollar.
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE WAR ON PORN
That damned First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor of freedom of speech, nor of the
press, nor of the peoples’ right to peaceably
assemble, nor of the peoples’ right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”
Who knew that single paragraph would cause so much
trouble for the Morality Brigade?
If you’ve ever watched a porn movie by the company
called “Extreme Associates,” you’ve probably come away
with a wave of nausea in your gut and a desperate urge
to scrub the icky feeling off your skin with a wire
brush. Extreme Associates, run by the husband and
wife team of Robert “Rob Black” Zicari and Janet
“Lizzie Borden” Romano, specialize in the kind of porn
that gives porn a bad name. Their films feature
simulated rape and murder, verbal and physical abuse,
and the simulated forcing of women to drink
“cocktails” of semen, blood, and vomit. And did I
mention rape? Lots and lots of simulated rape. (The
key word here is “simulated.” Zicari and Romano have
gone to great pains to provide verification that every
single person in every single sick, twisted moment of
film is a consenting adult engaging in a paid acting
performance). No doubt about it; as pornographers go,
Extreme Associates the stuff at the bottom of an
abandoned Port-a-potty, only with a much less pleasant
odor.
So when the U.S. Justice Department decided to launch
an offensive in its War on Pornography, Extreme
Associates made the perfect target. The company
produced the worst of the worst, with no redeeming
literary, artistic, political, or social value
whatsoever, and it wouldn’t be missed when it was
gone. In August, 2003, the Justice Department brought
criminal charges against Extreme Associates for
violating Federal obscenity laws.
And the result? A slam-dunk. For the defense. On
January 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Gary L.
Lancaster dismissed the case against Extreme
Associates, on the grounds that the First Amendment
protects their line of work. In his ruling, Judge
Lancaster pointed out that as long as people have the
right to view such materials in the privacy of their
own homes, Extreme Associates has a right to market
it, and that the State of Pennsylvania couldn’t ban
such material simply because government officials
found it objectionable.
The Justice Department has vowed to appeal the
decision, and newly-appointed Attorney General Alberto
Gonzalez swore in his confirmation hearings that he
would vigorously continue the Department’s policy of
vigorously prosecuting distributors of pornographic
materials.
Who’s he trying to kid? If the Powers That Be
couldn’t nail a couple of sleaze artists like Zicari
and Romano, what makes them think they stand a chance
against more conventional distributors of porn like
Vivid Studios and Seymour Butts Productions?
Especially since, as I myself have mentioned in
previous columns, porn has irrevocably entered the
American cultural mainstream.
We’re awash in porn-themed coffee table books,
biographies, documentaries, and reality TV shows. Not
to mention cable and the internet. On the one hand,
the Morality Brigade can scream that the inundation of
porn into the mainstream is proof positive that it’s
got to be eradicated. On the other hand, logic,
common sense, and the law itself make it clear that
the War on Porn was doomed before it even began.
For a book or movie to be considered “obscene” under
Federal statutes and case law, it has to be a
violation of the standards of morality of the
community in which charges are brought. Las Vegas,
Nevada would probably have a different opinion of what
constitutes obscenity than would, say, Salt Lake City,
Utah. So when the Powers That Be tried to prosecute
Zicari and Romano and Extreme Associates, they didn’t
bring the case in Northridge, California, where the
couple lives and works, but in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, which presumably would be more likely to
find their videos offensive.
Obviously, this plan didn’t work. I don’t know how
hard it might be to buy a dirty magazine or rent a
video in Pittsburgh, but I doubt it’s any harder to
download that stuff off the internet there as it is
anywhere else in the U.S. And since Pittsburgh has
bookstores and premium cable the same as the rest of
the U.S., I’m sure I’d have no problem buying a copy
of Timothy Greenfield-Sanders’ coffee table book,
“XXX: 30 Porn Stars” or watching Seymour Butts’
“Family Business” reality show on the Showtime
Network. If the Justice Department still wants to
bring an obscenity prosecution in a community that’s
easily shocked by porn, they’d maybe better find a
nunnery in The Middle Of Nowhere, Alaska.
So, where stands the War on Porn? The First Amendment
still stands as a bedrock for protection of all forms
of expression, offensive or otherwise. However, a
recent study by the John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation found troubling signs that the next
generation of voters sees the First Amendment as doing
more harm than good. One half of surveyed high school
students believed that the government should approve
of news stories before they are published. More than
one in three students surveyed said that the First
Amendment “goes too far” in protecting speech.
Small wonder. The Powers That Be have successfully
made dissent a four-letter word in the post-9/11 era.
For a generation of kids growing up in the past three
and a half years, it’s no surprise that they’ve
acquired a mentality that opposes the dissemination of
ideas they find objectionable.
For that matter, the First Amendment itself has been a
sort of “black sheep” when it comes to protecting
liberties and freedoms. Under the First Amendment, we
can’t pray in school, but we can burn flags in public
and crosses on peoples’ lawns. We can’t say, “under
God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but we can have a
bumper-stickers that say, “Fuck Bush” on our cars.
The First Amendment has even turned people like Robert
Zicari and Janet Romero into folk heroes.
Despite high schoolers’ views of the First Amendment
and the Department of Justice’s War, I still have
faith porn is here to stay. In February, Adelphia
Communications, the country’s fifth largest cable TV
provider, announced that it would soon be offering
hard-core adult films to subscribers via pay-per-view.
The company, (which contributes heavily to Republican
Party operatives and campaigns), simply sees this as a
terrific opportunity to cash in on the multi-billion
dollar porn industry.
Phooey on the First Amendment. The Department of
Justice doesn’t stand a chance against the Almighty
Dollar.
Friday, November 04, 2005
To clarify...
In case you didn't know, or knew but had simply forgotten, "Griswold" is Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the majority of the court held that the state of Connecticut couldn't prevent a medical doctor from providing contraception to a married couple. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, explained that within the framework of the Bill of Rights exists a Constitutional right to privacy for individuals, justifying the Court's decision.
Griswold was the primary precedent for, among other decisions, Roe v. Wade.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Griswold was the primary precedent for, among other decisions, Roe v. Wade.
Just thought you'd like to know.
An excellent idea
I think all right-thinking people need to get behind this
to quote Dan Savage:
"Here we are, decades after Griswold, and social conservatives and liberals are constantly arguing about whether or not the right to privacy, which is a popular right (naturally enough), and one to which most Americans believe they're entitled, is actually a right to which Americans are entitled, constitutionally-speaking. Liberals love it because the RTP underpins our constitutional right to have access to birth control, abortion services, gay sex, porn. Social conservatives hate it for that very reason.
***
I find myself wondering why we don’t just put it in there? If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, can’t the Dems propose a “Right to Privacy” amendment? Since the RTP is popular (unlike the anti-gay marriage amendment), the Dems should put it out there and let the Republicans run around the country explainging why they're against a right to privacy—not a winning position. Then, once it passes, we’ll be spared the debate over whether or not the RTP is in there every time a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court.
The Right to Privacy Amendment—c’mon, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Patty Murray, Barak Obama! Propose it!
***
to quote Dan Savage:
"Here we are, decades after Griswold, and social conservatives and liberals are constantly arguing about whether or not the right to privacy, which is a popular right (naturally enough), and one to which most Americans believe they're entitled, is actually a right to which Americans are entitled, constitutionally-speaking. Liberals love it because the RTP underpins our constitutional right to have access to birth control, abortion services, gay sex, porn. Social conservatives hate it for that very reason.
***
I find myself wondering why we don’t just put it in there? If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, can’t the Dems propose a “Right to Privacy” amendment? Since the RTP is popular (unlike the anti-gay marriage amendment), the Dems should put it out there and let the Republicans run around the country explainging why they're against a right to privacy—not a winning position. Then, once it passes, we’ll be spared the debate over whether or not the RTP is in there every time a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court.
The Right to Privacy Amendment—c’mon, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Patty Murray, Barak Obama! Propose it!
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
