Anthony Weiner should go now

By Richard K. Barry 

(Update: Apparently President Obama also thinks Weiner should go. And Weiner himself is apparently in "despair" and "on the fence" about resigning. -- MJWS)

I was away from my computer for a few days and am just now catching up on the latest news, which still seems to be dominated by Anthony Weiner stories leading me to what is, I think, an obvious conclusion.

Weiner should resign because he knew the rules of the game when he decided to run for office. We can talk about the morality of what he did in a context that has nothing to do with politics, which some people seem to think is the point. It isn't.

This is about politics. This is about winning elections and passing legislation and moving the yardsticks for your side as deliberately as you can. Thanks to Congressman Weiner, that is all marginally more difficult now for Democrats.

Maybe it's too bad the media pays way too much attention to this kind of thing. In fact, I am sure it's too bad. But Weiner has been, much of the time, a smart politician, and he knows that the risks he took would, if found out, hurt his party and hurt progressive causes.

He took a really stupid chance and got caught. End of story. 

Again, it doesn't matter if this kind of behaviour is or should in any way be okay outside of politics. That's not where it happened. There is no margin for error here. The other side will always make sure of that. 

Politics should be conducted differently, you say? Yeah, well, not this week.

When this thing broke, I had hoped that things would not develop as they have, but that was then.

He should go. 

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Yes you can, no you can't

By Capt. Fogg

Private morality does not seem to me to be the state’s business unless it compromises the public welfare.

-Bishop Shelby Spong-
_________

Yes you can, no you can't, yes you can, no you can't. It must be infuriating for California's same sex couples looking for stability and security in their lives. Gay marriage opponents have again succeeded in blocking further unions pending yet another appeal for reasons known only to themselves -- although most seem happy to tell you why they're against it.

Do the objections make sense or are they simply a reflection of a selective morality with perhaps a bit of personal anxiety adding a note of passion? The appeal that came quickly after the judicial decision to overturn the ban tells us that

"California, 44 other states, and the vast majority of countries throughout the world continue to draw the line at marriage because it continues to serve a vital societal interest."

And what would that social interest be? Why,

"to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation."

Astonishing, isn't it that the conservatives behind this can still make a living challenging the right of the State to serve social needs while advocating it so vociferously in this instance. Doesn't Social Security and Medicare and welfare and don't income taxes serve a societal interest? Is there any evidence anywhere of a negative effect on the public welfare of allowing gay marriage?

Sure, I could ask silly questions about why older couples past child producing age are allowed to marry or people who don't want to or are unable to have offspring are exempt from the Biblical mandate to go out there and get pregnant. I could ask why the State of California can find a right anywhere in its constitution or the Federal Constitution to promote Christianity and I could snicker at the fact that it really doesn't matter whether people are married -- they make babies anyway and I could point out as well that stable, married gay couples seem to do as well if not better at raising children, but we both know I wouldn't get a sensible answer because the position isn't about any of those things. It's about a personal repugnance concerning the private behaviour of other people with its origins in a religious tradition not recognized or supported by the government of the United States. Preventing a social contract between same sex couples serves no more legitimate a societal interest than outlawing interracial marriage, segregating public facilities, keeping Jews out of Palm Beach hotels or preventing women from voting. Yet that same rhetoric was used to defend those things and worse.

Pace the nauseous nattering of people like Sarah Palin and a large number of Republican hypocrites, there is no clause in the constitution saying "insert the Bible here." The objections are an excuse and nothing more and they are neither supported by facts or reason.

Another frequent argument is that the court which overturned the ban was " ignoring the will of the people" which of course is part of the job description of the legislative branch; that being another bulwark against the mob rule our founders were so rightly worried about. That is, or should be embarrassing to those who have made careers bloviating about "activist judges" since what they're calling for is a judge who rules on personal and political sentiment rather than a strict interpretation of the law. Is this hypocrisy or duplicity? Does it matter?

Marriage isn't about breeding, it's about property and responsibility and the right of one person to care for another without legal hindrance. The law isn't about bringing a Christian or Jewish or Muslim utopia to the world in preparation for it's destruction. I agree with bona fide Libertarians that the role of government in promoting some vision of public good needs to be limited and its ability to intrude into the most private and intimate parts of the human experience needs to be restricted to matters of the utmost need. There is no need or evidence of need here. There is no logical or factual consistency here and the allegedly conservative position isn't conservative. It's everything conservatives tell us they hate: an intrusion into life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by a self appointed group of moralizers. Morality is not the government's business. Sin is not the government's business: It's God's business. God can handle it.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Clear as mud

By Capt Fogg

Is there any concept murkier than Moral Clarity? When John McCain tells us Barack Obama lacks that sticky, opaque and thoroughly uncertain medium through which events must be seen, he's really telling us that what John sees as morally imperative is simply opinion that can't otherwise be defended.

What do we see when John asserts that Obama isn't being honest or possessed of good judgment for suggesting that the US should lead by example, by thinking twice before invading? When he asserts that

If he [Obama] really thinks that, by liberating Iraq from a dangerous tyrant, America somehow set a bad example that invited Russia to invade a small, peaceful and democratic nation, then he should state it outright,

he must be asserting that massive bombing, huge civilian casualties, the destruction of a country, its roads, its schools, it's institutions of learning and culture, its homes, its businesses, the exile of millions of families and the distribution of the spoils to friends of the president, is a morally clear way to remove one particular dictator while ignoring all the rest. I think Obama was saying it outright.

Such morality as McCain praises is best cloaked with the smoke of burning bodies, and of course it has been. Is it really necessary to point out the way McCain describes disputed territory as a "peaceful and democratic nation?" It should already be obvious that he's indulging in convenient fantasy. It should be obvious that when he insistsObama is morally unclear for suggesting that the US, riding alone on its moral high horse "won" the cold war, that his idea of clarity is about waving flags so you can't see the truth.

If I were one to write aphorisms, perhaps I could produce something cute about avoiding those who tell you that morality is clear, but those who won't accept that won't accept it because morality for them is simply a sleazy excuse for sacrificing others for your own gratification.

Perhaps if John McCain thinks that this war and its shock and awe was a good thing and has produced good things sufficient to justify more killing and destruction than did the man we removed from power, perhaps he should have the guts to say it. He should have the guts to admit the trumped up, fabricated, forged and ever shifting excuses Bush used to initiate it instead of justifying it with sleazy sophistry sold to war lovers. He should have the honesty to step away from the crepuscular casuistry he uses to insinuate that attacking Iraq had anything whatever to do with morality or anything to do with punishing al Qaeda.

To me, the fact that McCain lacks anything like the leadership qualities, the education or the intelligence to be the President we need is beginning to take a secondary place to the increasingly ineluctable conclusion that he's a flim-flam artist of little talent selling the moral, ethical and practical failures of his predecessors as salvation.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Sex and the shitty

By Carl

I think it's about time to weigh in on a topic that's troubled me all of my adult life, but has been crystalized this week with the scandal surrounding soon-to-be former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

The topic is morality.

I think we can all agree, left and right, that the fundamental struggle for humanity is the balance between individual rights versus society's betterment.

I think we can all agree, as well, that no one gets it right. Or wrong, for that matter.

We liberals are often accused of situational ethos: what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander, depending on the circumstances.

In other words, we strive to protect the individual against the "tyranny of the majority," to use Mill's phrase.

The right wing would claim that they uphold society's rule over the "tyranny of the minority".

Well, neither side has either a lock on morality or a lock on consistency, which is where the "details devil" lies.

For example, the right wing hasn't eaten its own when it comes to Senators David Vitter or Larry Craig, two men who also committed adultery and committed crimes in executing those adulteries (Craig's was not a felony, to be sure). Yet the right wing sure was quick to level calls for Spitzer's resignation.

Similarly, rather than admit that the campaign Hillary Clinton has run is a winning strategy, liberals have painted her as a "Republican lite," as if there was some moral good to come out of running a clean campaign in the primaries, and then gearing up for the general election in a defensive shell.

Myriad other examples abound, of course, and I'll probably include them as this piece goes on, but let me jump ahead a bit.

The fundamental flaw in American society is this: the economic system and the "morality" system are nearly diametrically opposed.

America was created in a Judeo-Christian form, where fair play and compassion for one's neighbors was tantamount.

The American economy was founded in a morally disinterested theory that the individual, striving for his self-betterment, would contribute to society's overall welfare. Yesterday, I wrote how that evolved into a society where government had to step in to fix deeply entrenched social problems, despite the supposed counterbalance of America's moral code.

See, the thing is, money talks. It is objective, easy to measure, has great utility for everyone, thus makes the perfect vehicle for measuring the progress of a nation.

We talk often about the Gross Domestic Product.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about the Gross Moral Product of the country?

It is against this backdrop that morality plays out: my morality and your morality and the right wing morality all must compete head-to-head in an environment where winners are easily found.

You know the bumper sticker: "He who dies with the most toys, wins."

In truth, whatever moral code we have is pretty arbitrary, despite the facade that it is strict, Christian, and widely enforced by society.

It's an extension of the dichotomy you raised in Sunday School: Thou shalt not kill, but people fight wars in God's name, or kill abortion doctors, or bomb Federal offices in Oklahoma City.

There's always a loophole.

This "loopholic morality" becomes magnified the closer you come to real power: it's moral for George Bush to lie us into war, some would say, but not moral for Eliot Spitzer to pay to get laid.

(I'm disregarding the legal aspect of the case: a bad, immoral law should not be obeyed anyway.)

I've even heard liberals make the claim that it was OK for Bill Clinton to have a mistress but for Eliot Spitzer to pay for sex was wrong.

Actually, I thought of a rationale for Spitzer that made pretty good sense to me: by not getting involved with "that (generic) woman," Spitzer avoided dragging another person into his sordid psyche, but also he could portray this as a business decision to have sex for relaxation or release or because he was kinky and his wife wouldn't do whatever it was he needed, like, say diapering.

Getting caught with either a mistress or a hooker would be a bombshell, true, but there's an implied contract, I think, in hiring a hooker. It may not be enforceable like attorney-client privilege, but a hooker who blabs about her (or his) clients will soon find he has no clients at all.

All this leads to the point of this post: sexual mores.

If Bill Clinton made the rest of the world, particularly Europe, embarassed for us, what do you think the reaction is about this story in, say, England, which 50 years ago had it's own "showgirl" scandal, complete with Soviet espionage thrown in as a bonus?

Not surprisingly, they focus on Sptizer's hypocrisy, being known as a straight-arrow, no nonsense prosecutor. There is something to be said about applying one standard of behavior for yourself and then a different one for others. It's not about sex, it's about standards.

Trouble is, those standards, in this instance, wouldn't exist if it wasn't about the sex. There's the rub.

America has a pretty repressed attitude about nearly all things sexual. Most people find something someone else does abhorrent, deviant, and therefore immoral behavior.

Me, I'm pretty tolerant. I don't care if you're an athletic handsome Lothario who travels the country on business getting laid in every town by frustrated housewives, or a fat ugly bisexual domme wannabe who swaps partners like I'd swap baseball cards, that's OK.

I'd like to think that's the way most people are, but I have a sneaking suspicion, based on how sex gets manipulated and perverted by people for other advantages, that I'm in a minority.

Take the woman who gets pregnant, marries the father, then a few years later kicks him out and demands alimony and child support. Sex was a weapon.

Take the guy who demeans his rival by saying to a potential date that he's a womanizer because he has a lot of female friends who find him attractive. "Fear of sex" as a weapon: "Look at all those chicks around him! Look at how he flirts with them!"

Or just look at the gay marriage struggle. Or the abortion fight. Or the persecution of any politician who has even the slightest hint of impropriety in his demeanor.

In this atmosphere, does it surprise anyone that there are women and men, mostly women, who make a pretty good living by indulging sexual fantasies? We're terrified to ask for anything in a relationship that doesn't involve a man, a woman, and a horizontal space.

And does it surprise anyone that, in a society where normal sexual urges are repressed, channeled, and put into boxes like "marriage", "commitment", "romance", and "fidelity", that people will not only stray, but having strayed and found it exciting and good, stray even further? To the point of self-destruction in "polite" society?

I wonder when America is going to grow up?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Hypocrisy and moralism: The fall of Eliot Spitzer and the rise of the double standard

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(See my earlier post here. The updated NYT article is here. ABC looks at the FBI/IRS investigation here.)

Greenwald asks: "Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?" -- "[A]re there actually many people left who care if an adult who isn't their spouse hires prostitutes? Are there really people left who think that doing so should be a crime, that adults who hire other consenting adults for sex should be convicted and go to prison?"

Well, yes, I suspect there are many people who care. America's retrograde views on sex and sexuality are still quite prevalent, after all.

Now, whether such views should or should not be prevalent is another matter, and Glenn is right to question those views. As I mention in my previous post, I think prostitution laws should generally be relaxed -- or, let's be blunt about it, overturned (with restrictions, of course, and highly regulated).

I certainly agree with Glenn that sex with a prostitute (consensual sex for money generally) does not warrant prosecution and imprisonment, and, legally, Spitzer should be treated like anyone else. But I do not agree that, non-legally, he should be treated like anyone else. He is the governor of New York, after all, a prominent politician, a democratic leader. Like it or not, we do need to hold our leaders to higher standards than we do most private citizens. We must be able to trust our leaders -- and is not one of our key criticisms of Bush and those around him? And we certainly do not want our leaders hiring prostitutes.

As liberal as I am on sexual matters -- and I am extremely liberal, I suppose -- I think Spitzer was right when he said he broke his obligations, including his public ones.

Now, does this warrant resignation? No, maybe not. I'd like to know more about what happened before answering that question. My initial reaction is: probably not. (And the same goes for Republicans like Craig and Vitter.)

Is Spitzer a hypocrite? Yes. That much is clear. But, as I wrote in a comment to my post linked above, what bothers me is that he is being treated differently than Republicans (and conservatives generally) who find themselves in similar situations. What they do is deny, then un-deny, then find God and repent (sincerely or not), and express contrition (genuine or not), then blitz the media seeking forgiveness, looking and sounding pathetic and forlorn, then go on with their careers, all forgiven, all forgotten. And what about someone like Gingrich? While Bill Clinton was being persecuted by Republicans, Gingrich among them, he was engaging in rather inappropriate behaviour, at least from the perspective of the moralists. And did Gingrich suffer for it? Hardly. And he is not alone.

This is not to excuse Spitzer, just to note that the hypocrisy is political as well as personal. Republicans, including (or especially) the rabid moralists among them, seem to be able to get away with it, hiding behind their God and lashing out at the "liberal" media when their "sins" are exposed, while Democrats like Spitzer (or Gary Hart, or Bill Clinton, etc.) are treated to the moralistic wrath and partisan hypocrisy of the right and the blatant double standards of the media -- and the hand-wringing of some on the left.

Let us await more details before judging Spitzer, but let us not accept how he is being treated, and how he will continue to be treated, by the moralists and hypocrites on the right and in the media.

Well it's hard to imagine it's the times that have changed...

By jeffaclitus

Many of you may have seen this elsewhere, but I urge you to click here to send a fax to the Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles calling on them to commute the sentence of Troy Davis. From the Amnesty page:

Troy Davis was sentenced to death for the murder of Police Officer Mark Allen McPhail in Georgia. The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state's nine non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted their testimony. Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.

This will cost you nothing. The clemency board has until 3 pm tomorrow, four hours before Davis's scheduled execution, to commute the sentence. Please send the fax.

The irony of doctor/terrorists

By Carol Gee

(illustration: cover of book by Mary Habeck)

What makes terrorists tick? Hearing Dr. Mary Habeck talk of her research about terrorists caused a number of people to look more deeply at what is behind their motivations. Tim Rutten's 2006 book review in the Houston Chronicle is a very illuminating look at Habeck's theses, about which I wrote last year at South by Southwest. I thought of her work again today as I looked for clues for what on earth would cause a doctor to become a terrorist.

Medical ethics are centered in saving human lives. It seems that, in the case of the recent terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, this tenet has been turned on its head.

The information was sparce at first. For example, from London's Financial Times (7/1/07), came this short paragraph:

Various British media organisations reported that the two arrested on the M6 were doctors, one of them who worked at North Staffordshire Hospital, but there was no official confirmation of this.

There is always lot of luck involved in whether terrorists succeed. The "Hamburg cell" plotters of the 9/11 attacks in the United States had to have a lot of luck to succeed. That these current plotters were much less successful is only due to their own ineptitude, a measure of bad luck, and the alertness of citizens, common people. What a shame that these two doctors had been radicalized towards death and destruction, rather than saving lives and healing. Two doctors and five others are now under arrest. One of them, clearly suicidal, is now at risk of death. The others are in custody, and we do not know how many are still at large.

By today there was a terrifying irony in the following headline from CNN.com (7/2/07): "Doctors detained in UK terror probes." The first doctor, now in critical condition, is being treated in his own hospital near Glasgow. Quoting from the story,

One of the suspects, who is in critical condition at Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow, is a doctor at the hospital where he is being treated for severe burns, according to the woman who owns his rental house.

How many suspects are actually doctors? Others may be "medical workers." The image of the second doctor, a terrorist "leaving for work" with a stethoscope around his neck, is enough to spin one's head. It just does not compute. But it may, indeed be true. The officials with the information are not confirming these details, according to the story in USA Today (7/2/07), headlined, "Two more arrested in Glasgow attack." To quote,

Police said Monday they had arrested two more men as suspects in the car bomb attack on Glasgow airport as details emerged that authorities had been close on the trail of the suspects, one of whom may have been a local doctor.

. . . He said the man was seen leaving the house wearing a stethoscope and was thought to be a doctor at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley on the outskirts of Glasgow. A controlled explosion was carried out Sunday on a car left at the hospital. Police said it was linked to the airport attack.

Residents of homes that were raided by police in central England and Liverpool have claimed suspects arrested were doctors or medical students. Britain's Sky News and several British newspapers also reported that two men arrested over the attacks were doctors working in British hospitals. But police in London and Glasgow have refused to comment on the claims.

It is unclear which terrorist group is behind this. Many of the news reports point to clues based on the method of operation used in the attacks. Others look to the county of origin of the arrested suspects. The following story carried information about both theories. It is from the New York Times (of 7/2/07). The headline concludes that British authorities suspect al Qaeda: "In Hunt for Bomb Plotters, Britain Sees a Qaeda Link." But other information hints at a connection to a radical Kurdish group in Iran. To quote,

. . . One of the detainees was a medical doctor of Iranian-Kurdish descent, according to two people with knowledge of the police inquiry. One of those people, and a BBC report, identified him as Mohammed Asha, 26, and a newspaper, The Sun, said he worked at North Staffordshire hospital near the Midlands town of Newcastle-under-Lyme, where the police searched a house on Sunday.

. . . Despite the British government’s assertions of a link to Al Qaeda, it presented no evidence of connections to Al Qaeda operatives or those who derive inspiration from the group. British intelligence agencies had warned the government last April that terrorist attacks might be initiated by Iranian Kurds to coincide with the end of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s term of office, according to a person who saw the warning. Mr. Blair handed power to Gordon Brown last Wednesday.

The government has not confirmed that report, and it is unclear precisely why Iranian Kurds would be aggrieved. But a radical Kurdish group, Ansar al-Islam, was largely driven out of northern Iraq four years ago when American and British forces overthrew Saddam Hussein, and it has since found a haven in Iran, security officials have said.

The plot thickens - The multiple "bombing with cars" attempts coincided with the changing of the guard between Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Does this relate to the above NYT story? In the case of the North Staffordshire Hospital doctor, he is an Iranian of Kurdish descent (out of Lebanon?), according to an LA Times (7/2/07) story headlined,"British anti-terror forces in high gear."

Second doctor from Lebanon or Iran or both? It is risky to speculate, but what if, like many of the 9/11 terrorists, these plotters are middle class "stateless" terrorists, driven for whatever reason from their homelands, feeling aggrieved, rootless except for connection to a radicalized ideology. A Reuters story of (7/2/07) was headlined, "Seven suspects detained over British bomb plot." It identified the second doctor in question as Iranian.

Terrorists succeed when we become terrified as a result of their actions. In this case officials all over the world are deciding at what level of terror alertness under which they should operate. Wisely, they are generally not over-reacting. But that is only because of the lack of success of the doctors and their cohorts. That is indeed sad, ironic and scary, but not terrifying.

(Cross-posted in longer form at South by Southwest.)

So what do you think about incest?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

That's a serious question, and I ask it in all seriousness. Indeed, I think everyone who cares about liberal democracy needs to take it seriously. And why is that? Because it concerns individual liberty and the restrictions the state may legitimately place on individual liberty.

In 1967, when he was still justice minister, future Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau famously said that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". He was answering reporters' questions about legislative revisions to the Criminal Code, and he was specifically addressing homosexuality. It is his famous line that is remembered, and often misquoted, but he also said that the legislation was meant to bring Canadian laws up to the standards of "contemporary society". And his basic argument was that "what's done in private between adults... doesn't concern the Criminal Code". It is only when behaviour is public that it is "a different matter".

But what does this mean? Is there no place for the state in the bedroom of the nation? Surely not. The state -- the liberal state, one with a rule of law that protects individual liberty -- may intervene, for example, where sexual activity is not consensual. The state may enact laws against rape, for example. The problem with Trudeau's assertion is that it implies that all private sexual acts are consensual, that is, entered into freely by both, or all, parties. That is clearly not the case. Rape and other forms of sexual abuse (although I recognize that rape is usually more about power than about sex) are the clearest cases, but what about, say, sado-masochism, or domination and submission? Can we assume that everyone who enters into such activity -- and into such relationships -- have freely consented? Surely not.

So what does this have to do with incest? As Jeff Jacoby wrote in yesterday's Boston Globe -- and I recommend that you read the entire piece -- adult incest (that is, presumably, incest between consenting adults) may soon be legal in the United States as well as in other liberal democracies -- if, to an extent, it is not already.

Legal proscriptions against incest may go back thousands of years, but this particular debate begins with the Supreme Court's ruling in a prominent case regarding sexual activity, Lawrence v. Texas. In that 2003 ruling, the Court held that laws prohibiting sodomy were unconstitutional. It was a 6-3 ruling. Writing for the minority, Justice Scalia said this: "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are... called into question by today's decision." I rarely agree with Scalia, but he was right, in a way, about this: The Lawrence ruling was the thin end of the wedge. If sodomy is permissible -- that is, if the state has no right to prohibit it -- what else must be permissible?

Go through Scalia's list. What do you think?

I realize I'm venturing out onto thin ice here, but I want to stress that I am addressing this matter legally and philosophically, not personally. If I think that something should be legal, it does not necessarily follow that I do or approve of that something. So: I do think that sodomy should be permissible. (After all, sodomy was just a stand-in for homosexuality. (Legalizing it meant legalizing homosexuality, although, of course, the legality applies to heterosexual activity as well.) And "permissible" isn't even the right word for it. In my understanding of individual liberty, sodomy is a right, which is to say, people (and by that I mean, of course, consenting adults) have a right to perform sodomy. I am also a staunch advocate of same-sex marriage (not just "civil unions"). I can make a case for the legalization of prostitution. And I certainly do not see any good reason for the state to ban masturbation, adultery, and fornication. Obscenity is a more complicated matter because it is public as well as private. Indeed, there are good and justifiable reasons to prohibit obscene speech in public, for example, or the showing of obscene images on the public airwaves. It all depends, however, on the meaning of "obscene," and this is, needless to say, a source of contention. For me, the bigamy, adult incest, and bestiality are far more troubling. Bestiality ought to be prohibited because it is impossible for an animal to consent to a sexual act with a human being. But what about bigamy (or polygamy) and adult incest? What if those engaging in it have consented to it? Does the state have any right to intervene? And what does it mean to "consent"? Put another way, what does it mean to be "free"?

This issue is well beyond the scope of this post, of course, and is not about to be resolved easily. Again, what I recommend is that you read Jacoby's piece, which looks at how the issue of adult incest is playing out both in the U.S. and in Europe. There are currently legal challenges to prohibitions on incest in both the U.S. and Germany -- in the U.S. the basis for the challenge is Lawrence. I cannot confirm this, but Jacoby mentions that "incest is no longer a criminal offense in Belgium, Holland, and France" and that "Sweden already permits half-siblings to marry". Also, Eugene Volokh notes that incest is already legal in some instances in the U.S. -- for example, in Rhode Island marriages "of kindred" are allowed "among the Jewish people".

See also Ed Morrissey, who responds to Jacoby's piece with a thoughtful argument for "law [that] can validly reflect a moral consensus of the community without violating an emanation of a penumbra of the Constitution". I suspect that in this area (as in most others) I am much more liberal -- and by that I mean more tolerant of "alternative" behaviour and more willing to expand the realm of individual liberty -- than Ed, but I, too, acknowledge that the law -- even in a liberal democracy -- must address the moral requirements of the community. There is a certain historicism to this view -- that the law reflect the "moral consensus" of the time -- but even universal principles need to be applied to a particular context. In other words, we may agree that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property) are universal rights even as we disagree about what they mean in a particular place at a particular time.

At some point even a free society has to say no. As this debate shows, however, the line between what is permissible and what is not is fluid. Incest is one of the more prominent taboos in our society, and it seems not just tawdry but repugnant (and, yes, immoral) even to discuss its possible legalization. But what are the arguments against it? That it leads to genetically defective offspring? Yes, but what if no procreation is involved? That it involves coercion? Yes, but this is consensual adult incest, not incest with a minor. (And, besides, a lot of other activity, and not just sexual activity, involves coercion to some degree. Should the state prohibit any activity where there is no clear consent?) That it is socially unacceptable, that there is a moral consensus against it? Yes, but public opinion of what is acceptable and unacceptable changes over time. It wasn't so long ago, after all, that there were prohibitions against interracial marriage in the U.S. And the struggle to extend marriage rights to homosexuals, needless to say, goes on. Okay, those examples involve marriage, not sexual activity. Then go back a few years to Lawrence. It wasn't so long ago that homosexual activity was criminal.

Does this all mean that I support the legalization of adult incest. No. (Please, let me be clear about that.) This post is not about advocating for one side or the other of that particular debate but about addressing the much larger debate regarding individual liberty and the limits thereof in a liberal democratic society. Given that the realm of liberty seems to be expanding, despite high-profile efforts to constrain it, which is to say, given that we are increasingly free to do and say and see and hear more and more things, what are the appropriate limits that may be imposed -- or, rather, that we may impose -- on our freedom?