BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Thursday, July 31, 2003
"We are all sinners."
President Bush tried to walk a moderate path in his news conference
yesterday when he was asked about same-sex marriage. "I
am mindful that we're all sinners,"
he said, sending a clear message that he sees hatemongering toward
gays and lesbians to be as "sinful" as having non-biblical
sex.
Thanks a lot, Mr.
President.
The big issue on the table right
now, other than same-sex marriage, is sodomy, a concept that has
become nebulous and slippery as cultural mores have
changed.
Recently, of course, the US Supreme
Court threw out Texas's anti-sodomy law, which some predict will pave
the way, eventually, for legal recognition of gay marriage. Bush
opposes such evolution, much as Darwin's version continues to be
opposed by many of Bush's supporters. In the end, opposition to
either type of evolution is likely to be equally futile.
What's interesting here, though, is
that Bush appears to regard sodomy as a sin, yet he does not
explicitly define sodomy. He appears to define it as sex between two
men or two women. But is that right?
Sodomy laws traditionally banned
anal or oral sex between men and women, even if they were married.
Over time, anti-sodomy laws came to be used almost exclusively as a
way to persecute -- and occasionally prosecute -- gay men and
lesbians for what they do in private.
A far better definition of sodomy
was offered in March by Andrew
Sullivan (sub.
req.). Writing in the New Republic, he
asserted:
It's worth noting, then,
that from the very beginning sodomy and homosexuality were two
categorically separate things. The correct definition of sodomy --
then and now -- is simply non-procreative sex, whether practiced
by heterosexuals or homosexuals. It includes oral sex,
masturbation, mutual masturbation, contraceptive sex, coitus
interruptus, and anal sex -- any sex in which semen does not find
its way into a uterus.
I realize this reads like a Ken
Starr legal brief; my apologies for such dirty talk this early in the
day. But this is important stuff, because Sullivan is absolutely
right. If George and Laura get it on in ways guaranteed not to
produce any more little Bushes -- and, given the First Couple's ages,
it's safe to assume that they do take some precautions, or
perhaps no longer need to -- then they are committing sodomy just as
surely as those two guys rousted by the Texas cops.
Yes, indeed. We are all sinners.
So, Mr. President, why won't you allow homosexual sinners the same
rights that heterosexual sinners such as you and the First Lady
presumably enjoy?
Note to the irony-impaired: Media
Log does not actually consider any consensual, nonadulterous
sex between two adults to be a sin.
posted at 9:13 AM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
