From The Economist's Democracy in America blog:
"SOME times" tweeted Rick Santorum, not at all credibly, "I hate it when what I predict comes true." Mr Santorum, a once and doubtless future presidential candidate from the social-conservative wing of the Republican Party, was referring to the ruling by a federal judge that found part of Utah's law prohibiting polygamy unconstitutional. ...
So is Mr Santorum correct—did legalising gay marriage lead to legalising polygamy? There are two answers to that question.
The first, on the legal merits, is a clear no. The court's ruling cites neither Hollingsworth v Perry nor United States v Windsor, the two gay-marriage cases the Supreme Court decided in June. It does not mention gay or same-sex marriage anywhere. To the extent that a slippery slope exists at all, it was Lawrence v Texas, which struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law in 2003, not either of the more recent cases, that first shoved marriage down the hill. Before then, the ruling explains, "'[T]he good order and morals of society' served as an acceptable basis for a legislature, it was believed, to identify 'fundamental values' through a religious or other perceived ethical or moral consensus, enact criminal laws to force compliance with these values, and enforce those laws against a targeted group."Lawrence shattered that belief: what consenting adults do in the bedroom is their own business, provided it harms nobody else. ...
Okay. But why is the Constitution so solicitous of sex and so uncaring about, say, economic activity? If a farmer wants to sell me a gallon of raw milk, why shouldn't I be allowed to buy it? If the government can't prevent us from having unprotected sex, why does it get to prevent unprotected eating?
