I thought I was having a problem with being a social personal conservative when, last week, I was defending Roe v. Wade, pointing out that IFF someone holds that the beginning of life is Not at conception, then...blah blah blah I'll get to it later.
But then I just read this and am not bothered by it at all.
"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.
The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.
I didn't see anything saying that the ACLU was filing a brief to say that sex in a bathroom was okay, just that if you're gonna do it, you're unlikely to be planning to put on a show--there's nothing else that goes on in a stall that other people are gonna watch, so why is this any different?
It seems that a less "journalistic" title for the article would be "Restroom Stalls Are Private" or something...but whatever.
UPPO-DATO: realize that I never linked to the article, which I'm not gonna scrounge around for so too bad, and used the wrong adjective.
I'm not a conservative "socially." Or even "liberally," just personally. As in, I don't think laws should be around to regulate one's personal life, but not because I think the things that usually get regulated are awesome things.
|