The Supremes are at it again. Seems like they have been bending over lately
to anger conservatives, people of faith, and those who have standards of
justice more in tune to the founding fathers, than the tortured pretzel of
what passes for justice these days.
No, I am not complaining about the University of Michigan decision. That
was days ago. Old hat by today's standards of instant justification and snap
decisions. I am referring to the decision to strike down Texas' anti-sodomy
law. Whilst I am loathe to side with the homosexual agenda, there IS something
good and defensible about this decision.
Apparently, the court decision stems from an arrest of two gay men in Texas
doing in their own home what gay men do about as often as straight couples,
I would guess. And while I reiterate that I abhor the gay agenda (which
seems to be primarily aimed at children), I do think that any decision that
boots the government out of our houses does have some good, solid positives
First of all, we need to put our blinders on about the emotional reactions
to this decision as a "gay rights" issue. If we look at the underlying concept
of government interference into the private life of its citizens, we need
to remind ourselves that privacy is a two way street. If we don't want the
government to interfere with the way we raise our children, or the magazines
we read, or the shows we watch, than we need to realize that there may be
some parts of the concept of personal privacy that we may not personally
agree with. How can we demand freedom from the government when we visit conservative
web sites, then demand that the government disregard the freedom of others
when they do something private that we disagree with?
That makes us no better that the politician who imposed upon us the 1.5 gallon
flush toilets, then had millions of gallons of water spilled from a dam to
float his canoe for a photo op. The blatant hypocrisy of telling us
peons that water is a scarce resource when we need to flush out toilets,
but no problem when HE needs a photo op is really the same when we demand
that the government stop telling us what to do in our own homes, yet we demand
the right to tell other people what they can do in their own homes.
When you look at the decision less as a gay issue and more in the light of
a person's right to be secure from government intrusion in their own homes,
then there is indeed a silver lining on the cloud. I mean, who really wants
to empower the government to snoop into our private lives any more than they
do now? I think that the government, with its inexhaustible resources, usurped
from the working class, wields these resources like an old spinster snooping
on families up and down the block needs to be slapped down every now and
again. When they spend our money on electronic snooping of every email we
send/receive and web site we visit, isn't that too much? I mean, aren't we
supposed to be a free society?
Let's look at the primary reason the government gives for such unprecedented
surveillance of innocent citizens going about their daily lives: to look
for terrorists. Right. What that does that really mean? It's code speech
for "somebody needs to be caught because they MIGHT do something." And people
wonder if we are descending into a police state. It's too late to wonder
- we're already there.
So in light of the potential for this decision to set a new precedent of
reaffirming the right of the citizenry to be secure from unwarranted government
intrusion in their own homes, who can argue that the decision is 100% "bad?"
I think that seen in this light, the decision is GOOD for conservatives -
it reestablishes the concept that there are certain private arenas in which
the government has no business.
So where do we go from here? If we have a right to privacy in our homes for
sexual acts, don't we also have a right to keep the government from telling
us not to smoke in our own homes? Or how about telling us that we need to
build our homes to ADA standards. And now we have a privacy precedent that
what we do or say in our own homes is none of the government's business?
I don't know about you, but I see more to be thankful for in this decision
than to rage about. When taken further, this decision really gives people
the right to tell the government to buzz off. Is this a bad thing?
So twice this week the Supreme Court has passed down decisions that are anti-conservative
on their surface, yet really pro-freedom when you really look at them. Whilst
some things this decision allows are repugnant to me, the basic concept of
being free in my own home from all kinds of government interference is appealing
Email Steve Pudlo
this article to a friend