Apparently, there has been an attack on anti-bestiality laws, with the claim being made that such statutes are unconstitutional. (Why am I not surprised?) I haven’t read it, but my friend Seth Cooper, a brilliant lawyer who once worked for the Discovery Institute, has. He weighs in at the American Thinker.
One argument against bestiality laws is that they are prohibited by the reasoning behind Lawrence v Texas (the Supreme Court case that prohibits laws banning homosexual sex), which found that such laws are constitutionally unacceptable “morals legislation.” Cooper disagrees with this analysis: “Arguably, certain language in the majority and concurring opinions in Lawrence v. Texas casting doubt upon laws based purely upon traditional notions of sexual morality—if taken in its most literal and absolute sense—may thereby cast some doubt upon an important basis for anti-bestiality laws. But it’s not unusual for jurists to resort to overgeneralizations and hyperbole in order to bolster their rulings in cases deciding highly specific matters...Only a seismic shift or complete collapse of traditional state police powers could exonerate bestiality.”
That sounds right to me. I have never read Lawrence, but at least to some degree it seems to me to be a culmination of decades worth of political/legal advocacy by a constituency that has significant political power in this culture. I doubt that “Zoos” will ever achieve that level of acceptance.
On another note: For years I have been steamed about the use of the term “nonhuman animal,” because it seems intended to focus on humans as animals toward the end of knocking us off our pedestal of exceptionalism. Cooper has the proper remedy. He calls our furry friends, “sub human animals.” Very good. Notice given: I intend to steal the term and use it whenever confronted with the “nonhuman animal” assertion.
Cooper also throws in some good human exceptionalism advocacy. Way to go, Seth!
Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.
