Motherf***er!

First, I read a brief news item about Howard Dean, presidential hopeful, wanting the Chairman of the RNC to step down, because he claims that the Chairman, Rick Santorum, compared homosexuality to incest. Then I read an article that my Alert Reader Scott sent me about the same thing, with an editorial angle. The gist is that Santorum is against legalizing sodomy, saying that if the court gives you the right to "consensual sex within your home," then it's also saying that other non-traditional relationships -- bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery -- would be therefore allowed by the court. The knee-jerk liberals say, "Hey, are you comparing gays (for whom the sodomy laws are being argued; nobody arrests a woman for giving her husband a blow job) to bigamists and people who marry their cousins? That's just not right?" But they miss the point. William Saletan, from Slate, can't bring himself to say that he doesn't think incest should be banned, but I have no problem with it.

I don't think the government should have the right to tell any consenting adults what kind of sexual relationship to have. They have the right to say who gets married, but (say it with me if you know the words) marriage is an outdated societal construct and anyone who lets the state sanction their relationship is just asking for trouble. (Hey, you wanna praise marriage? Get our own blog.) But I digress. Cousin relationships aren't that unusual, but even if some complete freaks want to bang their sisters, who am I, or the government, to say they can't? We're not talking molestation, or child abuse, or bestiality, here, but consesual adult sex, even if it does make some people squicked. It's not anyone else's concern (except the person/people you're doing it with) what you do in bed. Why should it be; why would it be?

Bigamy and polygamy: these fall under the heading of marriage, so they're not applicable. Let's remind ourselves, these sodomy laws aren't about marriages, they're about sex. Two wildly different concepts. OK, so perhaps legalizing sodomy would open the door for gay marriages, but that's an indirect effect. Adulterous relationships obviously aren't subject to the couple being married to each other, so the issue here is sex. Whom you can have sex with legally.

Can you actually go to jail for incest or adultery? Are those actually banned sexual practices, or is Mr. Santorum just filled with the fiery zeal of the righteous when he speaks of such things? These are the talking points, kids, I don't feel like laying the whole thing out, point by point, because with two people talking at cross-purposes, and an editorial opinion that teases at the seemy underbelly of sex in America but doesn't go for the bite, I'd need to make a diagram.

OK, fine. I'll make it simple.

Sodomy ("gay sex"): Not subject to marriage, illegal in some states.
Bigamy/Polygamy: Subject to marriage, illegal.
Incest: May be subject to marriage, legal to certain degrees with assumption of no breeding
Adultery: Not subject to marriage between partners, grounds for divorce

To me, it seems that Santorum has made a huge leap here in including adultery, while the bigamy issue could be applicable if the outcome opened the door to gay marriages. The incest issue is probably closest, because it's a relatively normal sexual relationship that is offensive to some people because of societal mores. So, Santorum's argument may not be completely sound, but I think if the Supreme Court does say that people have the right to any kind of consensual sex they want, within their homes, then that would make it impossible for the courts to ban incest or polyamory. That's ok with me. Adultery is right out, because that implies a breach of contract, and thus can be used in suing the adulterer. (Isn't marriage a lovely thing?) Will it bunch up the states' panties because they won't be able to use these reasons to prevent all these perverts from getting married? Sure it will. But here are the facts. If you open up state sanctioned marriage to same-sex couples, you must make it legal for these other groups as well, or it's discrimination. Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing scrapped, but there will always be the marriage freaks out there.

Howard Dean needs to rethink his reaction to Santorum's statement. Maybe actually think about the issue instead of jumping to the defense of gays, who didn't actually need defending in this case. And I am through.