E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
The most interesting non-story of the week is that a major player in the Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz, has a girlfriend who is described without contestation as his "intimate companion." No one has asked for assurances that they plan to remain celibate before marriage. No one has asked what they have done when birth control has failed (or what they plan to do should birth control fail).
The best defense in the United States in the year 2007 of abortion and rights to sexual intimacy is that the above is normal behavior in our society. We do not expect single government officials (or, for that matter, our single colleagues) to be celibate and think inquiry into their birth control practices (including what happens should birth control fail) a gross violation of their privacy. Whether in some metaphysical sense this is a gross violation of privacy is a different question. We could easily imagine a different political university in which the present non-story about Wolfowitz was the major story. Indeed, to some degree, though not to the degree sometimes imagined, Americans once lived in that universe. The point is that we do not live in that universe now. Whether people have a right to abortion and sexual intimacy that transcends time, space, and politics is a question best left to a certain kind of moral philosopher. But the non-scandal aspects of the Wolfowitz scandal demonstrate an understanding that the right to privacy at present covers his relationship with his girl friend, and if Paul Wolfowitz has that right to privacy, so should all persons involved in similarly intimate heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Posted
8:48 AM
by Mark Graber [link]
Comments:
You seem to forget that Mitt Romney was ALREADY asked on 60 Minutes whether he and his wife were celibate before their marriage. I say it's open season for Hillary and Bill Clinton now.
I didn't see 60 Minutes. Was Romney asked whether he and his wife were celibate before marriage because Romney has been preaching celibacy before marriage? If so, then the question would be acceptable. If he had not been preaching that, then the question would be an exception to what Professor Graber notes, and would not disprove it. As for the Clintons, I suspect that the press and the politicians are sufficiently ashamed of themselves for the Monica business that they will not ask invasive questions now.
I believe the "justification" given in the question was that the Mormon religion condemns premarital sex, and since Romney is Mormon, did you have premarital sex? All bets are now off IMO.
There haven't been any bets on in the last 30 years. The idea that Nixon, Ford, or Reagan ever had sex, pre-marital or any other kind never crossed people's minds. Especially Nixon. Ewww.
After watching the readiness of the GOP to forgive Giuliani for not just pre-marital sex but outright infidelity, I cannot imagine that this would be an issue even for the most brain-dead Republican. Democratic voters -- especially all the younger ones driven into the Democrat count by the current administration -- would regard the sexual behavior of the fossils running for President (with the possible exception of Obama) as on a par, interest-wise, with the sexual behavior of the dinosaurs.
Just for the record: I used to post under the name "Charles" -- but I gave up my name rather than be confused with the other guy who started commenting here under that name.
There have been a couple of gay bloggers who have pointed out the hypocrasy of the Wolfowitz situation (taking care of the girlfriend), whist the religious right sits on their collective hands and remains silent.
As both Micheangelo Signorellie and John Avarios have pointed out, if Wolfowitz were a gay Dem, the wing-nuts would be screaming that "Wolfowitz is illicitly rewarding his sex-partner," since the couple is unmarried.
But since Wolfowitz is a loyal Bushie...what do we hear from the keepers of American morality?