James Dobson and kitten sweaters

From a New York Times article about the upcoming filibuster battle, from the mouth of Rick Santorum:

"Now we are forced to do something that societies often do when people can't control their desires. We have to pass laws to stop their desires."

Is that right? Do we as a society pass laws to stop people's desires? And if so, who decides which desires are acceptable? Clearly to Ricky, going nuclear in the Senate is a desire, and there are clearly rules in place that are supposed to prevent that from happening. He had a desire to illegally enroll his kids in a cyberschool when he lived outside the district costing taxpayers close to $100,000, too. Clearly the law has little effect on Ricky's desires.

Of course, the answer is, Rick Santorum thinks he should decide which desires are acceptable and which aren't. Which is a shocking admission on his part. Rule of law is not in place to curb desires, but rather to ensure that society functions properly. It punishes those who act out on the wrong desires, to be sure, but the function of passing laws is not to "stop desires," but rather to make sure there is recourse for those who are effected by others negative desires.

Now, shortly after I read Ricky's quote, I came across this quote from James Dobson:

"The federal judiciary more and more is making the great moral decisions of our time," Dobson said during a 75-minute interview with The Associated Press. He ticked off rulings involving abortion, the Pledge of Allegiance and the definition of marriage.

"This Supreme Court has co-opted for itself many of the issues that the American people ought to be making through their elected representatives," he said. "The decisions that are coming down from the Supreme Court have profound implications for the family and for conservative concepts of morality."

But of course, courts aren't in place to rule on the morality of our actions, but the legality of them. If it is against the law to deny a woman an abortion, then laws that prevent women from having abortions are illegal, regardless of what you think morally about that. Further, the court is there not to impose it's will on the people, but to make sure the people don't impose their will on each other illegally.

Maybe this is the problem with Republicans as a whole. They want to pass laws to curb desires and impose morality on the public, and that simply isn't going to work.

Look, if I have a desire to view pornography, I'll probably find a way to do it. Some goes for crocheting sweaters for kittens or crocheting a sweater made from them. Making those things illegal won't curb that desire. If you make kitten sweaters criminal, than only criminals will own kitten sweaters.