The Observer, February 25, 2005
Volume XXXVII, Issue 19
Government should not control America's sex life
Sometimes in politics, common sense is the key answer to tough social problems; this is especially true for such issues as contraception, gay marriage, and abortion. Not coincidentally, these controversial, socio-political topics currently at hand all have to do with sex. Isn't that strange? Sex is personal, not political. When did the government decide to make these private matters top priority on the domestic front?
Common sense says that sex has no place in the political realm and policies that fight to regulate sex in any form or aim to obstruct/diminish the sexual rights and freedoms of Americans are both unnecessary and uncalled for.
In other words, doesn't governmental interference into the private lives of its citizens seem ironic, coming from this conservative Republican administration. Isn't legislation like the Patriot Act (or any other attempt to creep into the daily lives of Americans) against the "small government" philosophy that the Republican party prides itself on? Why is this administration so adamant about voicing its unjust opposition to personal matters like birth control, gay marriage, and abortion?
If the notion of same-sex marriages and terminating pregnancies are upsetting to our president, then the answer is simple: mind your own business! Sex, marriage, and pregnancy have no place in politics; how shocking that the Bush presidency is more concerned with the gossipy "who's marrying whom" and "what woman does what with her body" than properly finishing the war in Iraq or helping the economy?
Under the guise of national security, Americans are slowly being stripped of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. While Bush fights to install a ready-made democracy in Iraq, he is recalling civil liberties that this nation was founded on. The frightening truth is the Republican effort to amend the Constitution intends to "clarify and regulate" who we can and cannot marry in order "to protect the sanctity of marriage."
Guess what? Fifty percent of American marriages end in divorce. However inappropriate, if the government feels as though it must "save the institution of marriage" why not fight the divorce epidemic first? Deeming that only heterosexual couples may marry seems like a precursor to legislation dictating what woman can marry what man. Perhaps this is extreme, but where will we draw the line?
Speaking of ridiculous instances where politics butts into the sex lives of Americans, the fact that this President is pushing abstinence-only sex education sounds about as un-American as an act to outlaw voting. The government should have no say in whether or not contraception of any kind is available to high school and college students, or anybody for that matter. Is it really the government's business to outlaw safe sex and hope that people will "wait for marriage," assuming that everyone is heterosexual and can actually get married?
In regards to abortion, more than anything, Roe v. Wade declared that abortion was an issue of privacy. This administration continues to ardently fight for the repeal of Roe v. Wade; here, the government is dangerously overstepping its boundaries. The decision to abort a pregnancy lies solely with the woman and the condemnatory nature of the Republican administration is undeserved. Politicians need not make demons of people that lead lifestyles different from their own; not every American is an upper-middle class, educated, married-with-children, white man. If this U.S. administration hopes to make good on its inaugural promise to bring the now politically polar nation together, it must first re-establish its role as government. The government was never intended to serve as a social nanny. Right now, the Republican party faces a golden opportunity to erase and to undo the division in this country; it is necessary to reorganize its domestic policy priorities and nose out of our sex lives.
