There is nothing wrong with belt AND suspenders when it comes to security. Your position assumes that the belt is near perfect, and that you've got nothing worth looking at if your pants fall down anyway. -- MasterSquid
That rumble I felt this morning wasn't caused by any kind of
geological seismic displacement. Rather, it was the ripping wave of
social change. In case you didn't feel it, or hear the resounding howl
from the Castro, Greenwich Village, and Key West, the Supreme Court
ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional per a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Overturning its own ruling eighteen years ago
in Bowers v. Hardwick, even dissenting justices were forced to admit
that such laws were "uncommonly silly" (Clarence Thomas).
Conservatives on the court reeled at the idea of such freedoms being
guaranteed by our beloved Bill of Rights, but hey-sometimes
Conservatives have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a future
that the Framers left open for us to realize.
Under the doctrine of Equal Protection, the decision applies to
both homosexual anti-sodomy laws and those designed for straight couples
who enjoy nasty butt sex along with their blowjobs and muff licking.
Given the overall grimness of out times, it's heartening to see the
Supreme Court use words like "liberty of the person both in its spatial
and more transcendent dimensions[.]" Now, I could be mistaken here, but
it sure does sound like Justice Kennedy might have experienced some kind
of transcendental moment on amyl nitrate while his Domme introduced him
to The Plug. Even that stalwart Sandra Day O'Connor revealed a little
of herself when she said that it was unfair to deny gays the pleasures
that straights so richly enjoyed in states where the ban was on homos
only. About twenty years ago, a severely inebriated fullback from the
Washington Redskins, John Riggins, not-so-subtly suggested to O'Connor
at a White House dinner, "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're too tight."
Judging by her concurring opinion, it looks like Sandy took the advice.
The decision is a tooth-buckling slap to Rep. Rick Santorum, who
opined a couple months ago that protection for sodomy would herald the
end of Western Civilization, since it would provide a precedent upon
which bigamists, child molesters, and polygamists would gain
legitimization. A favorite Republican tactic is to apply gross fear
when common reason fails. Common reason says that laws against
multiplicitous marriages and chicken hawking will never fall. They're
on the books in every state in the Union. Homosexual sodomy laws were
only on the books in four states, and a mere nine others banned sodomy
of any kind. Of those nine, seven were Bible Belt states (and another
was the Mormon stronghold of Utah). In Santorum's world, vocal
minorities should control everything. Thankfully, they don't. As
history has repeatedly shown, the Confederacy is the nadir of social
evolution. Rick Santorum would do well to remember that when preaching
Southern fears of buggery.
Does the right to sodomy make us a better nation? Sure it does.
Like the pre-Riggins Sandy O'Connor, we're all wound way to fucking
tight in America -- especially now. Despite Sarah Jessica Parker's
successful series, Good Vibrations' annual sales, and Viagra's
popularity, most Americans have some serious sexual issues. Girls are
told that it's wrong for them to enjoy themselves, lest they become
sluts and/or whores. Men are discouraged from exploring their bisexual
sides because doing so reputedly makes them un-manly. Anyone going to
church every weekend feels compelled to beg forgiveness for so much as
masturbating or having a prurient thought. Do orgasms bring us closer
to God? Is that radiant light we all see when getting our bungs boffed
the same one all mystics tell us to go towards? The Lord works in
mysterious ways, so the answer to both questions could be a resounding
"YES!" When intimacy is expanded and loving relationships are
reinforced by some delicious naughtiness, I can't imagine God being all
that pissed off over simple mechanics.
Most of all, the court's decision is a victory for the Framers
of our Constitution. Within the Bill of Rights are a number of personal
freedoms. They were left open to infinity so that they could change
with the times, as our founders knew times would change us. The
document itself was meant to change, too, and has several times to
reflect social progress. Slaves were freed and given human rights.
Women could vote. So could eighteen-year-olds who were being drafted to
die in a place they'd never heard of before being shipped there. Every
time we step forward as a nation and expand our definitions of "freedom"
and "privacy," we realize the promise upon which America was founded.
Wanna show your patriotism this coming Independence Day? Why not
stretch out the Supreme Court's latest ruling and roil in the delight
that no police agency can kick in your door or incarcerate you for
shooting the moon or having it shot for you?