Barton Brings His Lies to Michigan »« A ‘Concerned’ — and Abysmally Ignorant — Minnesotan Speaks

FRC: Single People Have No Right to Have Sex

A lot of people know about Griswold v Connecticut, which said states can’t ban the use of contraception by married couples. But a few years later, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the court extended that to non-married people. Pat Fagan, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, went on Tony Perkins’ radio show and said that this ruling was wrong and that any “functioning society” should ban all sex outside of marriage:

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have…

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

But remember, they want “smaller government.” They’re the ones working to protect freedom. What freedom? The freedom to impose their theocratic vision of society on everyone else.

Comments

  1. hunter says

    Do I need to point out that he’s full of the brown stinky? In fact, there have been any number of societies in which it was expected that a couple prove they could have children before marriage. I don’t think they were relying on storks or cabbage leaves.

  2. says

    People like this make me imagine widescreen TVs built into the walls of bedrooms displaying a live display of giant black and white eye with no “off” button. Small government, indeed.

  3. matty1 says

    FRC a few hundred years back.

    people have the right to [attend a church of their choice]. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, [] people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are [devout followers of a minority sect like the Baptists], but they always knew they were doing wrong.

    Do you think they’d recognise the argument?

  4. amyjane says

    This is exactly the view my RW Catholic sister has. We were raised by Lefty parents who didn’t agree with her even though their personal lives were very sedate and conservative.They were happily married to each other for 63 years. Mom gave money to Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the Democrats every year.

  5. raven says

    FRC: Single People Have No Right to Have Sex

    And just how are they going to stop single people from having sex?

    Are there going to be sex police everywhere?

    Is this what the GOP means by small government?

  6. says

    I always suspect that the real argument, that even these wankers aren’t stupid enough to put into words, is “I’m not getting any, so why should any one else!!”

  7. says

    Ah yes, the insistence on controlling women’s* sex lives want by conservative bathroom toe-tappers who think vulva is a brand of car and labia is a country in North Africa.

    And what others said about theocracy and small government.

    * It’s ALWAYS women they’re talking about, men can do what they want, even hire “luggage handlers” when they need their, um, luggage handled.

  8. Phillip IV says

    Pat Fagan, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council

    The ironic thing about that name is that Rev. Spooner would call him “fat pagan”.

  9. jonlynnharvey says

    he’s simply wrong in stating traditional societies don’t allow sex outside of marriage.

  10. D. C. Sessions says

    Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that

    Aren’t these the same people who tell us that rights don’t come from the Government?

  11. tbp1 says

    Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with history, literature (including mythology), and even song (folk, art, pop and—especially—opera) knows that at no point in time have people, especially young unmarried people, reserved sex for marriage, even though they sometimes pretend to.

  12. busterggi says

    To be fair Fagan and his ilk also believe that people in marriages who have sex with one another must not enjoy it. I’m sure his wife doesn’t.

  13. Sastra says

    It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever.

    I just wanted to point out that illegitimate little slide between what the law allows and what “society” approves of.

    There’s no law against trying to muster some social support. If Pat Fagan wants to go out there like Brother Jed and shame college students by shouting insults and abuse at them — go right ahead. Brother Jed is popular and makes Christianity look so appealing.

  14. jamessweet says

    Heh, even if we assume that this was a good idea, it’s sort of like saying “Every functioning society should have a manned mission to Jupiter annually”. Yeeeeeaaaahhhh, not really feasible. :p

  15. Synfandel says

    Well, of course you don’t have a right to have sex outside of marriage!
    A willing partner is required.

    To quote Alvy Singer from Annie Hall, “Hey, don’t knock masturbation. It’s sex with someone I love.”

  16. Benjamin Bennett says

    In the case of Mr Fagan I’m not sure that any partner is required (to have sex)

    Apparently not, because just by being a fucking wanker, Fagan succeeds twice all by himself.

  17. fastlane says

    Give Fagan some small amount of credit. He managed to speak that long and not mention the bible, or god, even a single time. (in the part quoted by Ed.)

  18. ohioobserver says

    Hey, something more for the Mafia to do — bootleg contraceptives! Just what we need — another thriving black market. This would work about as well as Prohibition.

    Excuse me, my telescreen in calling for my Two Minutes Hate.

  19. Ichthyic says

    Ban sex outside of marriage. Yeah. Right. That’s going to work.

    I wonder what the black market would look like for that one?

    during alcohol prohibition we had moonshine, stills in everyone’s yard, violent mobs controlling the flow of liquor…

    it would give a whole new meaning to the “untouchables”…

Leave a Reply