Adding more letters to lgbt

Next Up: Bestiality

from Stand Firm by David Fischler

And so American culture continues its steady slouch toward Gomorrah, as Robert Bork might have put it. FromSalon:

The prosecution of a Florida man accused of having sexual contact with a miniature donkey is unconstitutional, according to his lawyers.

In a court motion, the defense claims that the state law against bestiality deprives 32-year-old Carlos Romero of his “personal liberty and autonomy when it comes to private intimate activities.”
But it’s actually not quite as crazy a move as it might seem. The lawyers aren’t arguing that Romero necessarily has a right to sex with donkeys, or any other farm animals for that matter.

They’re specifically targeting the language of Florida’s anti-bestiality law, which does not require proof that an animal has been harmed or “of the sexual activity being non-consensual,” or even of penetrative sexual contact.

The attorneys write, “Therefore, the only possible rational basis for the statute is a moral objection to sexual acts considered deviant or downright ‘disgusting.’” And that, they argue, is unconstitutional: “The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties.”

If, however, “the statute were to require sexual conduct with animals to be nonconsensual or to cause injury in order to be a crime, then perhaps the State would have a rational basis and legitimate state interest in enforcement,” they write.

How exactly does an animal “consent” to sex with a human being? If Florida were to put that in their law, it would be challenged as unenforceable, if not nonsensical. Oh, and the state would be a laughingstock, even more than it already is for its voting problems.

It may be an opportunistic defense, sure, but it also brings up some interesting, if squirm-worthy, questions: Why should bestiality be illegal? Is it because it’s socially unacceptable or because it causes harm to animals? If it’s the latter, is it OK for people to have sexual contact with animals in cases where the animal isn’t harmed?

How about, “because it is contrary to nature, to virtually any known moral code, and to the legal norms of pretty much any culture that has ever existed”? Would that be satisfactory? Or is strict utilitarianism–under which doctrine it is basically impossible for society to ban or even stigmatize anything that does not result in immediate physical harm to someone or something (except abortion, naturally)–now the unquestionable philosophical basis for American law?
That’s a rhetorical question, of course.
(Via Hot Air.)