During the debate over Texas’ anti-Gay Marriage Amendment on the floor of the Texas State Senate late last month, Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) proposed a radical amendment to the resolution Republicans were sponsoring in order to get their proposed Constitutional Amendment protecting Traditional Marriage before Texas voters. Senator Van de Putte’s radical proposal was, that if the State Senate truly was concerned about protecting the institution of marriage, the proposed Constitutional Amendment should be amended to require that all couples in a heterosexual marriage be required to have at least “Some Sex” in order to strengthen the institution of Marriage. Now this is truly a radical proposal. Unfortunately it was met with dismay if not astonishment by the Republican majority, and the brave Senator was required to beat a hasty retreat back to her Alamo.
More below the fold.
The relevance of Senator Van de Putte’s proposal is highlighted by the United States Supreme Court’s opinion earlier this week in Gonzales v. Raich, the Medical Marijuana case, which affirmed Congress’ broad power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activity which might appear to the lay person only to involve intrastate rather than interstate commerce, such as the growing of marijuana from domestic seeds for personal medical use on one’s own property. Congress now manifestly has the power under the Commerce Clause to require “Some Sex” in marriages in order correlatively to diminish commercial sex such as prostitution.
Among other things, Raich made clear that such moral stalwarts as Congressman Tom DeLay (R-Tex) and Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex) have the power to use the mandate given Congress under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution to use the clause’s broad powers in their effort to, on Mr. DeLay’s part, enforce Congress’ own version of morality upon otherwise private decision making, or on Senator Cornyn’s part, protect America’s Box Turtles from assault by Gay Men through regulating on a federal level the Institution of Marriage by restricting unions to those between one man and one woman. What better way to protect and to enhance the Institution of Marriage than by requiring couples to have “Some Sex” in their marriages. Imagine the impact on commercial sex if sex between married persons become more widespread with Congress’ encouragement. Even the Gay Male Escort trade might be impacted, if, as DeLay and Cornyn’s High Priest James Dobson would surely argue, fewer men chose sex outside of marriage with other men if more natural and fulfilling sex were available inside their marriages.
With Senator Van de Putte’s failure to persuade the Texas Senate to act on this important matter, clearly it is time for Congressman DeLay and Senator Cornyn to seize the initiative and force Congress to act. Strong, moral Leadership is required, and they are just the men to provide it.
Of course, since Massachusetts has yet to be expelled from the Union, any Federal legislation would have equally to promote sex between gay and lesbian couples married legally in Massachusetts, (otherwise any such Federal legislation would surely fail on Equal Protection grounds under the Fourteenth Amendment) but this should be a small price to pay to protect the Institution of Marriage.
An interesting article in Salon today notes that Federal adoption of Senator Van de Putte’s “Some Sex” approach to Protecting Traditional Marriage was anticipated by Raich’s Counsel at oral argument before the Supreme Court on the Medical Marijuana case:
Last November, during oral arguments in Raich, Barnett, the plaintiffs’ lead counsel, momentarily silenced the stodgy courtroom. Think about prostitution and marital sex, Barnett said, not having to ask twice. In that case, he went on, the same act is regulated under some circumstances but not under others, even though the two influence each other. The less marital sex someone has, Barnett argued, the more times someone will seek out a prostitute. So by regulating that married couples have more sex, the state could reasonably expect to reduce the occurrence of prostitution. But surely the federal government can’t regulate the number of times a couple must have sex in a week, Barnett concluded.
Monday, I asked him if Congress could now regulate marital sex. “Yes,” he said, “under the reasoning of the majority opinion.”
Surely Congressman DeLay and Senator Cornyn will act immediately to fill this important void in Federal Regulation, and do everything in their now secure Commerce Clause Power to protect the Institution of Marriage.
