It's the dichotomy between libertarian and religious conservatives that's most helpful,
I find it fascinating, but not all that helpful. Other than hearing some conservatives say that they just don't feel the religious right is all that powerful or dangerous, I haven't heard anything to explain how those two forces can coexist in the same party. Boggles my mind.
pretty much all the 'liberal' wing seems personally libertarian in most things
This seems to apply to religion, but I haven't noticed it applying to things PC.
I now know more about Mother Teresa than I ever wanted or needed.
You can say that again.
. Change brought in by the 60's?
I assume so. The swing was very fast and very dramatic. That's got to be hard on traditionalists, even if the changes are an improvement, and, of course, not all changes were improvements.
As for the regulation of personal behavior, here's a news item for you from Arizona. I happen to live in a state where virtually everyone I know is a felon due to the severity of the sex laws, which are like those in Arizona. It's hard to integrate the routine commission of felonies into one's system of morality without becoming a cynic.
<<Tucson, Arizona Wednesday, 9 May 2001
Hull OKs repeal of 'archaic' sex laws
The laws being repealed
Unenforced bans on sodomy, cohabitation gone in 90 days
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
PHOENIX - Gov. Jane Hull on Tuesday repealed laws on who can have sex with whom, and how. Some of the laws were passed in territorial days.
Hull said that it was not the government's concern whether people were living in "open and notorious cohabitation," one of the laws that is going away. Nor did she find a compelling reason to keep statutes on the books which ban not only sodomy but any sexual act not designed to create a baby.
"People should not interpret my signature on this bill as a signal that I condone all the conduct that this bill makes lawful," Hull said.
"I don't," she continued, "but I choose not to judge the conduct of others, even when I know others will judge me for signing this bill."
The laws will come off the books 90 days after the official end of the legislative session - scheduled for Thursday.
Hull's office has been inundated with calls and e-mail messages since the legislation went to Hull last week.
Initially the foes of repeal vastly outnumbered supporters. But the tide turned in the last two days.
Francie Noyes, the governor's press aide, said there were about 1,000 messages on Monday, with three-fourths favoring repeal. By Tuesday the figure hit 1,200, with 90 percent urging her to sign the repealer.
Hull said she listened to various points of view.
"At the end of the day, I returned to one of my most basic beliefs about government - it does not belong in our private lives," Hull said.
Rep. Randy Graf, R-Green Valley, one of the foes of repeal, acknowledged the laws are not enforced and may even be unenforceable. Still, he argued, repealing the statutes is a mistake.
"Quite frankly, this country was founded on moral principles," he said. "It was as much the message as anything."
Hull didn't buy that contention.
"Keeping archaic laws on the books does not promote high moral standards," she said. "Instead it teaches the lesson that laws are made to be broken."
Beyond that, Hull continued, moral standards are set by families and religious and community leaders, not the state.
"We learn much more from watching their behavior than from any written laws or rules," she said.
A subtext of the debate was the question of cost.
The Internal Revenue Service allows an individual to claim someone else with whom he or she lives as a deduction if the taxpayer provides more than half of the support. But the IRS rules - which the state follows - preclude that option if the couple is living in violation of state laws.
Based on that, legislative budget staffers concluded the state would lose about $500,000 in income taxes. There also were fears voiced by the state Department of Administration that changing the law would force the state to begin providing insurance benefits to the domestic partners of its unmarried workers, further driving up costs at a cost in excess of $1 million.
Rep. Steve May, R-Phoenix, sponsor of the bill, said the first argument is bogus because it presumes that these couples are not already taking that deduction.
As to the second, May said last week that repealing the laws is a separate issue from domestic partner benefits. But he said that if the Department of Administration wants to stand behind that argument, "that's fine by me."
Noyes said Hull, who has vetoed smaller spending bills, is concerned about potential cost issues. She noted, though, the governor has signed other bills with a fiscal impact, such as $2.7 million for treatment of breast and cervical cancer, and decides on each measure on its merits.
Cathi Herrod, lobbyist for the Center for Arizona Policy, said the governor ignored the will of the people. Herrod, whose group describes itself as "pro family," said Hull's action shows "the media campaign of misinformation was successful."
Graf was one of only two Southern Arizona lawmakers who opposed repeal. The other was Sen. Tim Bee, R-Tucson.
ARS 13-1409: A person who lives in a state of open and notorious cohabitation or adultery is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Cohabitation ban dates to 1901; adultery, which is not affected by this legislation, was added in 1913.)
ARS 13-1411: A person who knowingly and without force commits the infamous crime against nature with an adult is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. (Statute adopted in 1901.)
ARS 13-1412: A person who knowingly and without force commits, in any unnatural manner, any lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body or any part or member thereof of a male or female adult, with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust, passion or sexual desires of either of such persons, is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. (Statute adopted in 1917.)
A class 3 misdemeanor is punishable by a jail term of up to 30 days and a $500 fine. >>
azstarnet.com |
