Priority of Taboo Maintenance

Yet More on Gay Marriage
Jacob Levy on Stanley Kurtz of NRO fame:

His [Stanley Kurtz's] panic at the thought of legalized gay marriage has always struck me as absurd. ... It's wrong; and it doesn't even try to make a case for the priority of taboo-maintenance over the moral concerns on the other side.

Traditional sex regulation is not absurd on its face. It was a broad based regulatory scheme that sought to control sexual behavior and channel it into heterosexual child-focussed marriage. Thus fornication, adultery, sodomy, and bigamy were outlawed as was prostitution. Because the authorities recognized that such behaviors were tough to control through the operation of the criminal law because of proof problems, they also banned lewd cohabitation (living in sin) and lascivious carriage (being in a compromising physical position with another) since these were easier to prove.

Now we as moderns may reject their desire to promote marriage and mixed-gender, monogamous-couple, child rearing but it's disingenuous to claim shock at the tradition. It's been around for a long time. Moreover, I can name hundreds (thousands) of modern regulatory inventions that are absurd on their face and represent significant violations of our traditional liberties: smoking bans, stock parking bans, outlawing discrimination against transvestites, requirements that home builders install wide bedroom doors, bans on private ownership of Kevlar vests ad infinitum.

Surely this statement by Orin Kerr can't be true:

The 2002 Wiretap Report is now out ... . Keep in mind that the report covers only wiretapping performed in criminal cases, and does not include wiretapping in national security cases. Those numbers are classified.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretap numbers are reported annually. Here's the latest one covering 2001. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has a complete set of reports on this page.

Now, wiretaps of communications outside the US aren't under FISA but those conducted in the US are supposed to be.

The Pro Market Party vs the Pro Sodomy Party

As between someone who believes that all non-heterosexual-marital sexual activity ought to be criminalized and someone who does not believe that, there's a difference in kind, one I have trouble commensurating with the tax difference [between Republicans & Democrats].

Casting the Dems as pro privacy, pro protection of intimate relations, and pro sanctity of the home is disingenuous. Any party that claims the right to design your toilets and the width of your bedroom door for you [and imprison you for disobedience] can hardly gain absolution from charges of tyranny by permitting you some forms of sexual intercourse.

Consider a list of things the Democrat Party won't let you do "in the privacy of your own home.":

* Install high-water-volume flush toilets.
* Install narrow residential doors (must be wide enough for crips in chairs).
* Eliminate smoke/CO2 detectors.
* Hire/fire/teach/trade/earn/profess (with other consenting adults) as you please.
* Possess firearms (in many cases).
* Worship with others (zoning).
* Keep your own money and keep your own financial affairs secret.

In fact, the whole panoply of state regulation and taxation extends into the home. If the Feds can design and mandate your toilets, that is certainly "government regulation of an intimate association".

But what about the Democrat Party and issues of sexual behavior. I see little evidence that their position is preferable to the Republican position -- and it's arguably worse. Republicans consist of religious conservatives, BoBos (bourgeois bohemians), and libertarians. Those groups differ in specifics but not even all religious conservatives believe that intimate relations should be controlled by the criminal law. On the other hand, the Democrat Party is pretty monolithic in believing that certain forms of intimate sexual relations should be controlled by government.

Sodomy yes -- Modesty no!

There are many forms of intimate sexual (or gender) behavior that the Dems seek to suppress. Here are a few:

* Patriarchy (note that Patriarchy is a form of gender preference that should logically be protected if other sexual and gender preferences are).
* Modesty
* Sexual Restraint
* Innocence

If you seek to pursue traditional intimate relationships, the Dems will try anything to stop you including criminal punishment. Teachers will attempt to destroy the innocence of your children (if you send them to government schools). The various "Children's Services Divisions" in the states will invade your home and arrest you if you deviate from modern approved child-rearing techniques. (I've often wondered why those who are criticized for spanking or other forms of domestic discipline don't defend themselves by referring to it as Bondage & Discipline.) The law will prevent you from controlling or even knowing about the medical treatment of your children. Massive taxation combined with massive wealth transfers will destroy the ability of a husband to support a wife and children and have the effect of replacing patriarchy with state tyranny.