I feel a need -- a pressing need -- to expand a bit on Kaili Joy Gray's front-page story on the Pledge that Republican candidates are being asked to sign in order to be eligible for the endorsement of "The Family Leader," which Mother Jones describes as "one of Iowa's most influential social conservative organizations." I am disturbed by what appears to be the intentional omission of one activity that one would have been expected to find within the Pledge Not To Do: masturbation.
"Now Seneca," you may say, "that sounds like a cheap shot." No, actually, it isn't. The omission of reference to masturbation, given their source material for that part of the pledge, actually stands out like a sore thumb. (And yes, I'm sorry for not choosing a better phrase there.) It all leads back to the Lawrence decision and the dissent by Justice Scalia -- which they cite in large part, but not totally .
Some of you may want to read The Family Leader (actually "THE FAMiLY LEADER," the small "i" might represent a child, or a penis, I don't know, I don't want to know) Pledge by yourself, so -- don't click it right away -- here it is.
Before you click, two words of warning. First, this is a PDF, 8 pages, although page 2 is blank, perhaps to allow candidates to demonstrate their self-control by not doodling nasty pictures or verses from the Koran there. Second, this is distilled GOP crazy, denser than plutonium, and you should not read it unless you have low blood pressure or the ability to laugh at them.
OK, you may now be wondering why am I concerned that this pledge does not mention masturbation? (If you're the sort of person who also wonders that about cereal boxes, this diary may be too subtle for you.) It's simple: in the preamble to a pledge that slams:
"adultery; quickie divorce; physical and verbal spousal abuse; non-committal cohabitation; exemplary infidelity and 'unwed cheating'"
and a long section on homosexuality that I just don't have the stomach to retype, mention of masturbation stands out in its absence.
This is all the more stark because the Pledge requires candidates to vow
- "Personal fidelity to my spouse" (to which footnote 9* adds "As applicable if married now, wed in the future, or whenever interacting with another's spouse, a person of the opposite sex, or of personal attraction. No signer herein claims to be without past wrongdoing, including that of adultery. Yet going forward, each hereby vows fidelity to his or her marital vows, to his or her spouse, to all strictures and commandments against adultery, and to resist the lure of pornography destructive to marital intimacy.")
*(Note: for this reason, I refer to this as a "Newtnote," as in "you're clear to sign this, Mr. Gingrich, if you want to, haw-haw." The more interesting thing, to me, is that I believe that the first boldfaced sentence literally means that each candidate who signs -- so far, that's only Michele Bachmann -- is admitting to "past wrongdoing including ... adultery." That or they're saying that their sexual history should be private. I wonder which THE FAMiLY LEADER would consider worse?)
- Respect for the marital bonds of others.
- Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage ... blah, blah, blah ... bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc. (Get it, Mitt?)
- Defending DOMA
- "Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment"
and it goes on, oh Lord, how it goes on.
But: it doesn't mention masturbation. It mentions "pornography and prostitution," but not masturbation. (Memo to Republicans: some people masturbate without porn. Really!)
Why is this noteworthy, you ask? Because of Newtnote Footnote 12 of the Pledge -- the one that covers the burning "bigamy, polygamy" issue.
Footnote 12 cites Scalia's scathing dissent in Lawrence, which defends the regime of Bowers. The footnote states, misusing the legal term "holds," that Scalia's dissent "holds that laws against such things as bigamy/polygamy, prostitution, bestiality, adult incest -- customs historically rejected within the United States -- may become Constitutionally-inevitable [sic] under U.S. Supreme Court logic which could be used to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act" etc.
Yeah, but that's not all that Justice Scalia says, dearies! Here's the exact quote:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution,
masturbation,
adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
Now, I put the word "masturbation" in headline type not so much to emphasize it as to portray how large it probably loomed in the eyes of the person who was reading the opinion to see what to put in the footnote. Look at that comparison again:
"bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution ..." versus the footnote saying "bigamy/polygamy, prostitution, bestiality, adult incest ..."
It's as if the writer ran into the word "masturbation," freaked out, and ran away from the text, grabbing the word "bestiality" on the way out, and later dropping "same-sex marriage" because they had already pounded that one into the ground above.
So, "THE FAMiLY LEADER": you were citing a selection from Scalia's dissent that talked about what, in his opinion, the law would allow the state to render illegal and you left out masturbation. Scalia understands that this is the power that Bowers would allow the majority to ban masturbation. He says so right there! (Note: Bowers could also be used to ban oral sex* and for that matter certain sexual positions, especially ones that make one think of dancing -- well, among other ones especially as well.)
*Did you know that the Lawrence decision was the one that effectively rendered laws against heterosexual fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal sex unconstitutional? That's how "equal protection" works, boys and girls!
So, given that you railed against pretty much everything else in Scalia's sentence, this raises a pertinent question: why did you leave "masturbation" out of the Candidate Pledge? Please explain! Pretty much any explanation you could give -- like "well, that's private business" or "asking candidates to pledge that wouldn't do any good; did you notice that Gingrich is running?" or "we think masturbation is just peachy, so long as precautions are taken to prevent anything that would lead to Faceplam" would advance the debate.
Regardless of why you stumbled -- of why you failed to follow the lead of Justice Scalia -- this cannot stand. I, for one, demand that "THE FAMiLY LEADER" add to its pledge a demand that candidates do not engage in masturbation -- or explain why they won't. (One of you reading this may have the pleasure of starting the appropriate Facebook page. I've got enough going on.)
I can think of one argument that "THE FAMiLY LEADER" might use: and that is that they believe that masturbation would already fall into violating the categories of "fidelity to my spouse" or "faithful monogamy" or some such. That's OK -- in that case, say so. If Republican candidates candidates are pledging not to masturbate, they let them say so out loud. Let them run on that! NO ORGASMS AT ALL unless approved by "THE FAMiLY LEADER"!
(By the way, I hope that Democratic candidates will take a pledge to look at anyone who asks them to take such a pledge like they are morons and say "that's none of the public's business; I'm taking about creating jobs. Stop giggling, I mean actual jobs.")
Scalia's dissent says what it says -- and "THE FAMiLY LEADER" sidestepped its plain language. So I want to know: are Republicans now "soft on masturbation"? Hey, it's not like I care, but -- they're the ones who brought up the topic area. All I want is a specific answer: why isn't this in their pledge?