Laws against sodomy, contraception, pornography (etc.)

[bbentrup]

In Question 96, Articles 2-3 of his Summa, St. Thomas writes that we should not proscribe against every vice in our human laws.

Assuming you believe sodomy, contraception, pornography (etc.) are bad, to what extent should we legislate against them? St. Thomas seems to indicate the general lines: promoting the common good, inspiring virtue, and eradicating vice. The question is how to apply his framework.

In an attempt to answer my own question: It seems like the state would act on the public level, not the private level. I think the law should probably ban out of safety concerns the sale of most forms of contraception while simultaneously not banning their use. It should ban pornography on the public airwaves, except by subscription, and limit the availability to public places of pornography without banning them. It should not recognize homosexual marriage while ignoring homosexual acts in the bedroom. It should jail and create civil liability for abortion doctors while not punishing abortion consumers.

Another separate but real problem arises in carefully drafting the definitions of each term so as to include no more and no less of the proscribed behavior, but that is another topic. This reality of course, may force us to allow some behavior that should normally be outlawed by the state.

Thoughts? Is this what human law from the government should look like? My question has a US jurisdictional bias, but I would like to hear from other parts of the world too.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I agree with your general approach of balancing concern for the public good with caution about the role of the government and law enforcement, but I’m uncertain about the details. If anything I would lean in the direction of greater suppression of these things.

What is your rational for continuing to allow the use of contraceptives and the sale of pornography to subscribers? Both of these my immediate instinct would be to ban entirely for the sake of the things you mentioned from St. Thomas: promoting the common good, inspiring virtue, and eradicating vice. But my second thought is that this may lead to a black market for these things, which may create new and worse evils in some cases.

Your solution for pornography seems like it could be a workable balance, getting free porn off the internet (if it can be reformed such that it can be effectively policed) and magazines off store shelves where kids can at least see the covers, while avoiding tempting most users to go to illegal sources.

With contraceptives though either I’m missing something or you are. Contraceptives aren’t like marijuana where you can grow a small amount for yourself and your close friends in places where you only face penalties if caught with a huge amount. Most people would need a source to buy their contraceptives from. If possession and use of them is legal but selling is not, that seems like a perfect recipe for a major black market, with buyers exempt from the law and smalltime dealers difficult to prosecute unless you catch them in the act of selling.

In the case of sodomy laws I’m conflicted. I sympathize with the feeling that the government should stay out of our private lives, but on the other hand sodomy laws send a message to society that this is not an acceptable form of behavior. And let’s not forget that this is one of the sins Catholics have traditionally considered one that cries out to heaven for vengeance, suggesting to me that it’s such an injustice that God demands practical steps in this temporal order in response to it- and may take them Himself if we don’t. Maybe a compromise would be to have sodomy laws on the books but don’t have police cameras peering through suspected people’s windows to investigate if it’s taking place or anything, just charge people with it who explicitly and publicly flaunt their behavior or are guilty of other, related crimes (for example, a man who commits sodomy with an underaged boy would face sodomy charges on top of his other charges relating to that crime).

 

[bearer]

I value our nation’s political system (a republic with democratic representation) because I think it’s the best that mankind has come up with. Having said that, I think licentiousness is overtaking liberty as our founding fathers understood it, and at the expense of the common good.

I am wholeheartedly against sodomy, contraception, and pornography. Some may argue that prohibition doesn’t work, but that isn’t any reason not to try. Failure is no excuse for moral cowardice.

It seems to me that even if the federal government wouldn’t prohibit these vices, the states could and should…although the Tenth Amendment is essentially a footnote in the history books nowadays.

 

[JohnAlexander]

I think you have to be very careful when trying to legislate morality. It often happens that what you have to do is far worse than the vices you are trying to control.

The totalitarianism which will be the result is far worse than the cuurent state of affairs.

God will be the judge of our actions.

 

[chipeto]

I once read an essay by G.K. Chesterton in Gilbert magazine, which argued persuasively for laws opposing indecency, but against laws opposing immorality. I wish I could find it, or remember more of it, but one of his points was that indecency is an assault, while immorality is not. I’m paraphrasing: “If you hit a man on the nose, he may or may not hit back. If you hit him under the knee, he must kick.”

 

[Leegal]

In Question 96, Articles 2-3 of his Summa, St. Thomas writes that we should not proscribe against every vice in our human laws.

Assuming you believe sodomy, contraception, pornography (etc.) are bad, to what extent should we legislate against them? St. Thomas seems to indicate the general lines: promoting the common good, inspiring virtue, and eradicating vice. The question is how to apply his framework.

In an attempt to answer my own question: It seems like the state would act on the public level, not the private level. I think the law should probably ban out of safety concerns the sale of most forms of contraception while simultaneously not banning their use. It should ban pornography on the public airwaves, except by subscription, and limit the availability to public places of pornography without banning them. It should not recognize homosexual marriage while ignoring homosexual acts in the bedroom. It should jail and create civil liability for abortion doctors while not punishing abortion consumers.

Another separate but real problem arises in carefully drafting the definitions of each term so as to include no more and no less of the proscribed behavior, but that is another topic. This reality of course, may force us to allow some behavior that should normally be outlawed by the state.

Thoughts? Is this what human law from the government should look like? My question has a US jurisdictional bias, but I would like to hear from other parts of the world too.

Well, it’s a bit late for some of this. Connecticut banned contraception from being sold to couples, even married ones, and that law was struck down a long time ago. I think the case was called Griswold v. Ct. (1965).

It’s too late now, but if sodomy laws are still on the books somewhere, they have long been ignored and not enforced. That might fall under privacy. (Not advocating – giving you the secular answer).

Your comment to ban the sale of condoms, while allowing the use of condoms makes no sense. This would be a contradiction. Such a law would be overturned as “overly broad” since the law is in itself contradictory. The individual would not know what is expected of them – a requirement for U.S. law. Use them? Not buy them?

Pornography. We already regulate pornography. Stores that sell such articles, and adult material, cannot be within a certain distance of a Church or School. They cannot sell to minors. We zoned them to limit their placement where children might frequent. On my cable station, the porn stations are pay stations and expensive. Further, there are parental controls in place that prevent the smart kid from purchasing. If you are referring to some of the disgusting commercials on TV, there I agree. Call the station and complain about the commercials because they are ever growing and cross a line of decency.

The same law that struck down the ban of contraception in Connecticut found a privacy right in the Constitution as it pertained to “in the bedroom.” That also means the government stays out of the bedroom, so it’s too late to prosecute for sodomy by many years (I would imagine, even if some stray laws still remain somewhere). And with gay marriage laws being passed in this, my, state and a few others – it’s too late and would create a contradiction. We pass gay marriage laws, and then secularly prohibit sex? Can you see the cart before the horse? Taking religion out of this, it’s simply not the way the laws work in this country. We have already moved down the slippery slope – in the secular sense.

And Roe v Wade (an illegal law IMO in the first place), prevents prosecution of abortion doctors. And you cannot pass an “ex post facto” and make past abortions the subject of prosecution. **We must oveturn this illegal law – that should be primary. **

Some of what you suggest on porn is already in place. Much of the rest, it’s way too late for or is contradictory. I would ask that you elaborate how it makes any sense to prohibit the sale, but not the use of condoms. It’s all or nothing. Please note, the Pope had something to say on condoms last year around this time. But your suggestion would create a black market forcing people to commit a further crime and/or be victimized. The Pope said a greater evil is done if we pass a life-threatening disease onto an unsuspecting person.

In an ideal world there would be no need for this. But there would also be no unemployment, no poverty, no homelessness, no hunger, no promiscuity, no divorce, no illiteracy either. Would that I could make every baby wanted, and those that are put up for adoption are immediately adopted and loved. Adoption in this country is abysmal.

I think you are focused on the impossible or things which have long been found, on a secular level, to be Unconstitutional.

It would be impossible for the state to act on the public level that would not impact the private level in matters of sex – that right of privacy that was “found” in the Constitution. Do not take this for advocating for promiscuity, sex before marriage, sodomy, porn and a disregard for the teachings of the Church. This is a secular answer.

I have a problem with the logic of your argument as to how this would work. And please do not take this to be my opinion on such topics as porn, promiscuity, homosexual sex contrary to my faith. It’s the secular logic that I disagree with.

 

[vera_dicere]

Short of a massive change of heart in society, I can’t see contraception being rejected mainstream any time soon, but I woudl support banning teh IUD, and any form that is known, no matter now small statistically, to disrupt human life once it has been conceived. I can’t see the logistics of banning sodomy working very well either. And are we talking about sodomy between man and woman or man and man.

However, Im all for the banning of porn. In all its forms. In all media. Of course, one must define porn very strictly and to be mindful we don’t compare nudity with porno and that we don’t destory the classics, we can’t have police bursting into museums putting fig leaves over the Venus or applying white out to some of the questionable images on Greek vases.

 

[bearer]

Pornography. We already regulate pornography. Stores that sell such articles, and adult material, cannot be within a certain distance of a Church or School. They cannot sell to minors. We zoned them to limit their placement where children might frequent. On my cable station, the porn stations are pay stations and expensive. Further, there are parental controls in place that prevent the smart kid from purchasing. If you are referring to some of the disgusting commercials on TV, there I agree. Call the station and complain about the commercials because they are ever growing and cross a line of decency.

Anyone, whether adult or minor, has thousands, if not millions of pornographic photos and videos at his or her fingertips all over the Web. Please don’t try to verify this for yourself.

 

[Leegal]

Anyone, whether adult or minor, has thousands, if not millions of pornographic photos and videos at his or her fingertips all over the Web. Please don’t try to verify this for yourself.

Point taken – I could not cover every possibility. I will take your word. But the USSC already covered porn or “obscenity” in a case called Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Thus far the governmet has not found a way to regulate the internet – or is not inclined. Free expression, for the most part (with some limitations).

 

[Dan_Daly]

I think you have to be very careful when trying to legislate morality. It often happens that what you have to do is far worse than the vices you are trying to control.

The totalitarianism which will be the result is far worse than the cuurent state of affairs.

God will be the judge of our actions.

All legislation legislates a morality. The only question is what morality? The current state of affairs is that we are on a rapid path to totalitarianism. This is a bipartisan movement. Republicans and Democrats are both moving towards totalitarianism, even if they disagree in some details about exactly what type of totalitarian state we should have.

Pax Christi

 

[Nate13]

Assuming you believe sodomy, contraception, pornography (etc.) are bad, to what extent should we legislate against them? St. Thomas seems to indicate the general lines: promoting the common good, inspiring virtue, and eradicating vice. The question is how to apply his framework.

I like the frame work but we not only already fail miserably on step 1: promoting the common good, we actually in many cases do the exact opposite. I think a great first step would be if we could at least stop promoting the common bad? Is that too much to ask?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional already because they were exceptionally inequitably applied, nearly all prosecutions were of homosexuals when heterosexuals can and do commit sodomy, anal and oral intercourse are always sodomy regardless of the sexes of the two people

 

[bbentrup]

C’mon Leegal, show some optimism here. Is your recommendation in the legal sphere to just give up entirely? I was merely asking what an ideal law would look like. Who knows - a new lunar society a hundred years from now may dig up this thread!

To add some further context, I’m a 2L law student who has studied Constitution Law, and am well aware of the current state of the law regarding these vices.

As to some of the points, you take a cheap shot at me for wishing to regulate the sale, but not the use, of contraceptive devices. How can you assert that makes no sense? One is public and easily regulated, the other is private and would have evidentiary problems all day long. Plus, I said “most forms of contraception,” not “all,” and I never mentioned condoms. Condoms are probably the one means I think the law should leave intact (but perhaps not), as they are not abortifacients (killing innocent unborn members of society) and most others involve hormones which are generally tied to such diseases as breast cancer. Please don’t put words in my mouth!

As to my take on pornography, I meant both, yes. Reduce/eliminate what shows up on the broad access channels, and keep up existing restrictions.

As to sodomy, laws prohibiting the practice were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). So, it is legal throughout the U.S. Was that case prudently decided or no? If you had a chance to make that lunar colony and start from scratch, should you ban it? As I indicated earlier, I think not, but have an open mind. It might be worthwhile to ban it, but not enforce it - that way, people have another pressure, even if imagined, to avoid immoral behavior.

Roe v. Wade is certainly up for grabs, one would think, at some point in the next generation. The most likely outcome, if overturned, is that abortion would become a state-by-state calculus. Assuming your state doesn’t have a more restrictive law on the books that is just waiting for Roe to be overturned, how would you want your state to treat abortion? I say go after the doctors, not the consumers. Again, what’s your take?

 

[Leegal]

C’mon Leegal, show some optimism here. Is your recommendation in the legal sphere to just give up entirely? I was merely asking what an ideal law would look like. Who knows - a new lunar society a hundred years from now may dig up this thread!

To add some further context, I’m a 2L law student who has studied Constitution Law, and am well aware of the current state of the law regarding these vices.

As to some of the points, you take a cheap shot at me for wishing to regulate the sale, but not the use, of contraceptive devices. How can you assert that makes no sense? One is public and easily regulated, the other is private and would have evidentiary problems all day long. Plus, I said “most forms of contraception,” not “all,” and I never mentioned condoms. Condoms are probably the one means I think the law should leave intact (but perhaps not), as they are not abortifacients (killing innocent unborn members of society) and most others involve hormones which are generally tied to such diseases as breast cancer. Please don’t put words in my mouth!

As to my take on pornography, I meant both, yes. Reduce/eliminate what shows up on the broad access channels, and keep up existing restrictions.

As to sodomy, laws prohibiting the practice were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). So, it is legal throughout the U.S. Was that case prudently decided or no? If you had a chance to make that lunar colony and start from scratch, should you ban it? As I indicated earlier, I think not, but have an open mind. It might be worthwhile to ban it, but not enforce it - that way, people have another pressure, even if imagined, to avoid immoral behavior.

Roe v. Wade is certainly up for grabs, one would think, at some point in the next generation. The most likely outcome, if overturned, is that abortion would become a state-by-state calculus. Assuming your state doesn’t have a more restrictive law on the books that is just waiting for Roe to be overturned, how would you want your state to treat abortion? I say go after the doctors, not the consumers. Again, what’s your take?

I apologize if I have offended. It’s not easy for me to forsee a future society and come to these conclusions. But I did not intend to offend.

However, I think the prohibition against sale while allowing for the use of condoms in legally problematic. It places people in a position of not knowing what the law is. If you prohibit sale, by extension you prohibit use – not your intention. That makes the law “overbroad” and subject to reversal. Again, it would lead to people commiting crimes through black market purchase of condoms. How does banning sale of contraceptives (public) solve the private issue of usage?

Now, I’ve thought of something else. The use of what I will call “gray market” or “black market” contraception could lead to serious harm to the individual. You won’t have government regulation because the items are banned, but you will have people privately seeking out potential harmful drugs or devices – harmful to them that may be made under unsafe, unclean and are dangerously made. I do agree that IUD’s and oral contraceptive can and do lead to other problems later down the road.

Again, I am sorry if I misread condoms but that’s what I saw. I can go back later and reread.

No, I don’t think we can ban sodomy – again. It’s private. They had previous bans on the books and largely was not enforced. Which I think is a good thing. While it’s a sin, I don’t think this one is in the government’s domain. And as was pointed out, it was only then used against homosexuals so application of the law by sexual orientation would be, in itself, discriminatory. Nope – too much government in bedrooms.

Agree. Roe is Unconstitutional and has been since it was passed. It was or should be a state issue from the secular sense. Texas and NC passed wonderful laws, right now under injunction, that require that the woman view the sonogram. No abortion can be “same day” and the woman must return 24 hours later. 80% of women who view the sonogram change their mind. Unfortunately, the rights people and the ACLU have managed to get injunctions against these valid laws from going into effect. That’s how I would start.

At the very least, keep pressing for more and more states to pass laws requiring that PP and abortion providers MUST show the sonogram. They already do one; they just don’t show them to the woman because they do not want her to see the growing baby. We can go after the doctors in this sense, but not by prosecuting for abortions.

We cannot go after the doctors at present; there’s actually another thread here on that very question. Art. 1, Section 9 prohibits prosecution under 'ex post facto" laws. So, should we ever be able to overturn Roe in it’s entirety, it would apply to abortions from that date foward; past abortions would be outside of prosecution.

Should those laws be upheld and doctors will be required to show the sonogram, they can be then held accountable if they fail to follow. They are resistant to this showing of the sonogram. The point is every and all states should be looking to overturn Roe by asserting their states’ rights by starting with this one step.

Again, I apologize. It’s hard for me to take these topics out of context of present day law and society. If I can, I will go back and reread the original post to see where I was putting words in your mouth. I will end by saying I agree that, other than condoms, other forms of contraception do raise concerns for future issues of health of the woman and can harm her ability to conceive in the future, permanently.

 

[Leegal]

You are correct; you said most forms of contraception. It was late when I read and answered here; I saw condoms. Frankly, I did not think of IUD’s and birth control pills when I was writing.

At various times, IUD’s have been banned for the health problems they have created, only to reappear in a few years under some new guise or form. This should probably be one that would be easy to ban in all cases and for the future. They have banned them before.

Aside from the other health issues that they raise, their usage can lead to rendering the woman infertile, ultimately. I don’t think the health care professionals are honest about that.