A job for the sex copsIt may not be worth spending any money on this. I don't have much confidence that reminding teenagers that they are breaking the law is going to do any good. (I can remember being a teenager--the combination of hormone-deranged and the belief that one is immortal is very dangerous!) I am also skeptical that vigorous enforcement of the adultery laws is going to do much good, either--although I would like to see consequences of some sort for adultery, even if just means providing some benefit to the cheated-upon spouse when the marriage falls apart. But if Richert doesn't like these laws, perhaps he should be asking the Idaho Legislature why they haven't repealed them?
I can think of a lot of good points to raise when discussing the consequences of adolescent sex. The risk of pregnancy? Check. The danger of STDs? Yes. A little moral suasion on the pitfalls of casual sex? Sure.
But a stern warning that the cops may be peering into the back seat? Sounds like a nonstarter.
Yet Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, wants to see the book thrown at hormonally challenged teens. Fischer opines that if the state's schools did a better job of teaching kids about the state's seldom-enforced laws against extramarital sex, they'd be less likely to have sex. Of course, the teachers need some backup from the cops.
"Perhaps classroom education and consistent and visible enforcement of existing Idaho law would have a wonderfully salutary effect on sexual mores and sexual conduct in the Gem State," Fischer wrote.
"Consistent and visible enforcement" targeting adolescent sex? Better phone dispatch for additional units.
Meanwhile, hang onto your wallets.
This sure sounds like a big-bucks, big-government solution to a private matter. Does anyone really want to pay additional property taxes to hire cops and deputies to work the sex beat and pay the county prosecutors to take these cases through the courts? Does anyone really want to pay to build the jail and prison cells needed to carry out the maximum sentences Fischer extols on his blog — a six-month term for "fornication," or a three-year hitch for adultery.
And lastly, does anyone really think Bryan Fischer is a conservative?
I know that in liberal circles, the idea that adultery is wrong is considered a sign of being a primitive. A few years back, there was a woman in California whose husband was seduced by another woman, and it eventually broke up their marriage. She was circulating an initiative petition to get adultery made into a misdemeanor again. And how the liberals laughed and laughed at her! Regarding adultery as a faux pas--not a real bad thing, but a sign that you aren't terribly clever because you got caught at it--is something of a sign of how sophisticated one is, if you are a liberal.
The idea that Fischer isn't a conservative because he thinks that the existing laws about sexual morality should be enforced is not just laughable, but an indication that Richert isn't terribly knowledgeable about political systems of thought. One of the core principles that distinguishes conservatives from libertarians in the American context is the belief that Christian values about morality (not just sex, but also lying and cheating) should be enforced by the government. This was the case from the earliest Colonial laws, which you can see when you read the 1650 Connecticut capital crimes. Into the 1960s, the idea that adultery was a crime that should be illegal (even if it wasn't often enforced) remained completely mainstream--not even particularly conservative.
Argue if you want that this is a bad idea. I will agree that in a pluralistic society where Christian values are no longer the consensus, laws that were enforceable in 1950 may not fit today. But to argue that Fischer isn't a conservative because he supports a core conservative value--governmental enforcement of laws about morality--just shows that Richert doesn't know what he is talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment