4 ms·

Tim Cook faces 2 years in jail in Singapore if he has activity even in a private room. Three days ago, the Court of Appeal has just judged the law was conform

• cookiecaper 12y ago
  Performing a sexual act is a conscious behavior, wilfully chosen by the participants (except in cases of rape, which is not relevant to this discussion). Law is meant to regulate behaviors. It's valid to make sexual acts illegal. It doesn't violate non-discrimination rights because wilful participation by any person is just as illegal as participation by any other person. Laws that say "this is legal for people with this involuntary attribute but illegal for people with a different involuntary attribute" are discriminatory. If they say "sexual activity with a person of the same sex is illegal", it's equally illegal for everyone, regardless of that person's unchangeable, involuntarily physical attributes. Saying some people can do something (like "only white people can engage in sexual activity with a person of the same sex") while others can't is discriminatory. Making something illegal for everyone is not. It's just normal lawmaking. We may disagree with Singapore and think that most sexual acts shouldn't be illegal. But how can we go around saying law can't regulate behavior? This is one of my big problems with the gay "rights" lobby of today -- they're trying to make it illegal to legislate basically anything. If you disagree with the law, change the law, don't codify sweeping generalizations that set a precedent of "I was born this way and I can't control it" as an excuse for any illegal behavior. Only the most basic principles are protected by things like the American Bill of Rights, and the specific behavior must be tested by the courts to see if it conforms to the principles enshrined as fundamental rights.
  • aragot 12y ago
    You see, I'm upset when someone uses some law to forbid what seems normal to me, but this would be subjective. And I agree with you for the major trait of your discourse: To each country, their customs and laws, provided it was legally decided by the People. So it's quite on purpose that I kept my comment strictly apolitical... however clearly opinionated: I didn't say the Singaporean law is stupid or retarded. I'm underlining the huge leap. It's up to the reader really to forge an opinion. Let's not forget that Singapore is a very developed country, has major exchanges with our other countries of the western world, include trade, research, patents, high-educated migrants both ways and we have influence both ways. And yet, they don't guarantee some citizenship rights (aka: immediate arrestation and 2 years jail time) on the basis of what you would do in a private room between two consenting adults. Up to the reader to make an opinion.
  • matthewmcg 12y ago
    I think the proponents of same sex marriage would respond that what they are trying to do is not prevent the government from regulating behavior (which, as you say, is the essence of lawmaking), but prevent the government from treating persons in same sex relationships differently from persons in opposite sex relationships. The key question is whether the government can discriminate based on sexual orientation. In the U.S., the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." This would appear to forbid discrimination based on any characteristic at all. Of course, governments make distinctions based on people's characteristics all the time. These range from the mundane (persons with poor vision can be required to wear corrective lenses while driving) to the highly consequential (American citizens of Japanese ancestry can be interred during a war against Japan). The history of the Equal Protection Clause, then, is a long and messy process of sorting out what kinds of discrimination are permissible and what aren't. And there has been a lot of movement, especially during last few decades. Consider that during the lifetime of George Takei, the EPC was interpreted to permit the internment of his family (Korematsu v. United States, 1944) and giving him the right (in California) to marry his husband of the same sex (Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013). The current standard is that that you can discriminate on a basis other than certain "suspect" classifications if the discrimination is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. In the recent Windsor case, the Supreme Court concluded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act failed to meet even that minimal standard. Many lower courts have invalidated state same sex marriage bans on the same basis. You can argue that it is the place of the legislature to decide what classifications it can use in lawmaking, but that raises two problems. First, the clause is part of the Constitution and it must impose some limit on the power of state legislatures, and there needs to be a process for interpreting what that limit is. Second, history has shown that the political process doesn't always protect unpopular minorities (though there are also good arguments that courts are not that much better).