Good for Romesh Ponnuru, who at least manages to say something about Santorum. But then he says that I’m exaggerating. Ponnuru should become a lawyer his parsing of Santorum’s comments are so, well, fine. Ponnuru says that all Santorumm is saying is that no courts should stop people from selectively (or even unselectively) enforcing sodomy laws and that there’s no “valid moral principle that prohibits the governmental policing of consensual sexual behavior.” That, according to Ponnuru, isn’t radical or extreme at all. I guess that depends what you mean by moral or valid. Could there be such a “valid, moral” principle barring the state from arresting people in their own homes for consensual sex? How about the dignity and freedom of the human person – that he or she should be allowed a zone of privacy, especially in sexual affairs, that is immune from government intervention? Does Ponnuru think that moral case is invalid?
THE BACK-FLIP: But then he contradicts himself by conceding that Santorum – as a simple practical, empirical matter, regardless of any such “valid moral principles” – supports anti-sodomy laws. Ponnuru disagrees with Santorum on this: “Wrong, Santorum may be. I think he is wrong on the question of whether states should ban sodomy.” Ponnuru lets Santorum off the hook because he doesn’t see any evidence of Santorum wanting the laws enforced. Don’t you love this new conservative approach to the law – that it can be ignored if necessary? I don’t remember them making that argument during president Clinton’s impeachment. But the real problem is deeper. Like so many other conservatives, Ponnuru stays mum on the question of sodomy laws except deep in a defense of someone attacking them. But if National Review had a shred of consistency in its own arguments, it would take on sodomy laws as a matter of conservative principle. Even Stanley Kurtz opposes them. Even Bill Kristol. I’ve personally asked Kurtz several times to write about the subject. Silence. I’ve asked other conservative editorialists to do the same (those who agree with me on the subject). Silence. The best you can hope for is the Wall Street Journal referring to these laws as an “anachronism,” an anachronism that recently threw two people into jail. What exactly would it take to get conservatives to defend the principle of limited government and individual privacy? That it not involve any defense of homosexuals? Look at their defense of privacy when it comes to “outing” people. They have a fit (and rightly so) when some journalist dares ask questions about someone’s sexual orientation. But when the government comes crashing through someone’s bedroom door, they look politely the other way. Don’t they see how transparent their double standards are? Or do they only care about these issues when it could affect “someone like them”?
AVOIDANCE ISSUES: It seems to me that the genteel form of conservative obtuseness to homosexual dignity and freedom now comes in this form (these are, obviously, my words):
I don’t personally want to jail people for private sex; but as long as it’s homosexuals alone who are subject to this invasion of privacy, I’m not going to get too exercised about it. If I did, I’d upset a few of my friends on the far right, and, heavens, we cannot afford a real fight over this. And, anyway, they don’t enforce these laws, do they? Except when they do. They’re being abolished anyway. Why should I add my voice to a chorus that’s winning? And, (now talking to himself) isn’t good for the homosexuals to be just a little scared that they could get arrested? Deters a few. Sends the right message. Keeps them in their place, after all. Ensures that our public morality is, well, heterosexual. This is the status quo and it’s not too uncomfortable, is it? Well, I don’t find it uncomfortable. That Sullivan, fine fellow in some ways. What a pity he’s so obsessed by these personal issues. A few people’s lives ruined for doing something I’ve sometimes done with my girlfriend isn’t too high a price to pay for conservative unity, is it? It’s not as if there’s a valid moral principle involved here.
This is the voice of conservative excuse-making. It sickens me.
The Dish 