2003

Senator Hatch Meet Senator Santorum

Santorum displayed his usual level of bigotry with his comments yesterday:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."

Not only was it bigoted, but as Sullivan points out:

It’s about whether conservatism is about freedom from government or subjugation to it.

So Santorum thinks sex lives should be regulated? No surprise. The question is what does one of his colleagues think:

"I’m not here to justify polygamy," he said. "All I can say is, I know people in Hildale who are polygamists who are very fine people. You come and show me evidence of children being abused there and I’ll get involved. Bring the evidence to me."
Hatch said he could not take unsubstantiated claims and enforce law, and he would not "sit here and judge anybody just because they live differently than me. There will be laws on the books, but these are very complicated issues," Hatch said.

Who is closer to right? Hatch. Polygamy is a difficult subject. Most often in practic polygamy involves exploitation of women. Young women–especially minors who have no business being married off and it essentially is a form of child abuse in such cases.

In theory, the government shouldn’t be regulating how a religion decides to practice and having multiple spouses is not necessarily exploitive and as such the state should stay the hell out of it. Steve Chapman has made this point previously:

. The argument for allowing polygamy has much in common with the argument for letting gays enter into matrimony. If consenting adults who prefer polygamy can do everything else a husband and wife can do?have sex, live together, buy property, and bring up children jointly?why should they be prohibited from legally committing themselves to the solemn duties that attach to marriage? How is society worse off if these informal relationships are formalized and pushed toward permanence?

And about the abuses:

ritics have a ready answer: because polygamy, as currently (and surreptitiously) practiced in Utah and neighboring states has been rife with abuses?including forced marriages, sexual exploitation of minors, and welfare dependency. Green is a prime example: He married one of his wives when she was 13, and he was convicted not only of bigamy but of criminal nonsupport for failing to repay the state more than $50,000 in welfare benefits for his children. Other male polygamists have been convicted of child abuse and incest. A Salt Lake Tribune investigation found that a polygamous community on the Utah-Arizona border has one of the highest rates of welfare participation in the West.

But such unsavory conduct stems partly from the fact that when polygamy is illegal, the only people likely to practice it are nut cases and people with a deep-seated contempt for authority. Plural marriage, in this group, may be just one of many expressions of aggressive noncomformity. If the practice were legally permitted, on the other hand, it would be more likely to attract people with a strong law-abiding disposition. The need to stay under the radar of law enforcement agencies also breeds abuse by discouraging its victims from going to the authorities. Legalizing the practice would bring polygamists out from underground, making it easier to combat the real evils found in some plural marriages. Those who persist in such abuses can be prosecuted along with all the other pedophiles and welfare frauds?the vast majority of whom, it will surprise you to learn, are non-polygamous.

Strangely enough, Orrin Hatch has figured out a reasonable civil liberties position–if only he would extend it to gays and lesbians as well.

Pete Wilson: the Return

While I find it hard to dislike anyone called a libertine at the Republican National Convention:

”Abortion is murder!” Ken Scott of Denver screamed at California Governor Pete Wilson, Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. ”Why are you part of the Republican Party when you’re breaking God’s law? You won’t be able to run and hide from God!”

”You guys are libertines,” one pro-choice advocate shouted back. ”Get out of our party!”

Pete Wilson carries a lot of baggage. Between energizing the Latino base and having a nice target painted on his back for his administration’s handing the energy system’s regulation over to the energy industry, he would probably not be the shoo-in some think.

What is this–find the Republican moderate to run?

Of course, the Club for Growth might take a dim view of him and Edgar.

Link via Political Wire. Taegan also addresses his linking to pseudonymous bloggers . I obviously agree, but another thing to keep in mind is that bloggers mostly point to articles by known members of the press and add context and commentary. I do very little actual reporting on the blog as do the others he mentions so the pseudonymity matters even less.

Evolution of the Inane

The best demonstration that evolution is incorrect is the continued persistence of creationists and the more recent fruit cakes in the Intelligent Design camp. Today, Robert Bartley strangely swerves into a discussion of evolution. A discussion that is horribly confused.

Bartley claims:

On net, religious impulses are probably growing. September 11 persuaded others besides George Bush that evil is an active force in the world. The science of the Big Bang and DNA looks much more like the work of a creator than the cold world of Newtonian Laws and Darwinian evolution. And at least indirectly the horrors of the 20th century showed that the latter provides no moral compass.

I’m not quite sure what the work of a creator looks like and that is the essential problem with creationists–anything fits their claims. Other than finding ‘engineered by Yahweh’ inscribed on some DNA there really isn’t much to argue about here. One can accept on faith that God created the universe, but through means that follow natural methods. Insisting that God’s actions must be telegraphed seems a bit more in line with Greek Deities and not the God of the Bible.

More troubling is that Bartley thinks that a scientific theory is a philosophy. Of course, it is not. The method of scientific discovery is philosophically based, but is not a normative enterprise in terms of its practice. It is absurd to expect a description of how life on Earth evolved to explain moral questions. Bartley might as well be suggesting that explanations for El Nino are responsible for Peruvian corruption.


The Scopes Monkey trial of 1925, the great defeat of the fundamentalists, has in particular come in for reassessment. Noting for example that the ACLU advertised for a plaintiff, a 2002 PBS documentary let the people of Dayton, Tenn. say that they were not the dolts depicted by the news dispatches of H. L. Mencken and the 1960 movie "Inherit the Wind." And in his new Mencken biography "The Skeptic," Terry Teachout points to the unlovely side of the philosophy animating his account: A disdain of democracy, for example, in favor of credo of Social Darwinism, applying survival of the fittest to human communities, and its corollary of eugenics, shortly later discredited by the Third Reich.

I’m not sure how one gets to be a editor of a major national paper and cannot tell the difference between biological evolution as a science and social darwinism and eugenics as completely different concepts?