The last Boortz column you will ever read ... or maybe not

If I don't miss my guess, this may be the last Boortz column you read. No, I'm not going to stop writing them anytime soon, but this one is certain to chase a good number of you off. The problem, you see, is that you think I'm a garden-variety conservative Republican. You're wrong. I'm a libertarian. This means that I don't just pay lip service to the idea of limited government as so many righteous conservatives do.

I've voted for the Libertarian candidate for president in four out of the last five elections, including 2000. In light of Bush's growth of the federal government, I suspect, depending on the candidate, that I'll be voting Libertarian again in 2004. On occasion, a somewhat demented listener will call my radio show to suggest that maybe I should be that Libertarian candidate.

Rest easy, it's not going to happen.

So, let me just get on with the infuriation process.

Last week our Supreme Court, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, had the audacity to rule that what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom is not the business of government.

The case involved a neighbor with a grudge who had telephoned the police to report a disturbance in an apartment. When the police entered the apartment they found two men engaged in a sexual act – a sexual act forbidden by law in Texas and about 13 other states. They were arrested and jailed. A lower court upheld their conviction; the Supreme Court did not. And across the country you could hear so-called conservatives bleating like a feedlot full of hungry sheep. You would have thought the end of civilization had finally arrived.

There has been much discussion since this ruling as to whether or not the ruling was justified, either on privacy or on equal-protection grounds. Can someone please explain to me why Americans – Americans who are supposed to be tuned in to the idea of personal liberty and freedom – why these Americans feel the need to expend so much energy trying to come up with a justification to keep the government out of our bedrooms?

As a libertarian, I believe that no action should be a crime unless that action deprives another person of their life, their liberty or their property through the use of either force or fraud. I don't believe a person should be jailed for clipping someone else's fingernails without government permission, and I don't think a jail cell should await two people who are engaging in a consensual sex act that just might be offensive to a third completely uninvolved party.

I may have a somewhat unique perspective from which to write this column. Almost everything else you have read about this decision has dealt with the basis of the decision itself, or what the decision may portend for laws relating to same-sex marriages. (For the record, I'm against.)

Forget the legal basis, and forget the questions on same-sex marriages. Let me tell you of the incredible outpouring of blind, red-hot hatred that I've seen in e-mails from listeners since the court's ruling. These people couldn't care less about legalities. They are driven only about their hatred and pathological fear of 'gays' and lesbians. In short, they want them jailed – and in many cases they want them dead. Amazingly enough, some of these letter writers have even expressed their ardent dreams of my imminent death because I actually agree with the ruling! In almost every case, these correspondents find some place in their letter to tell me what wonderful devout Christians they are.

Those who are filled with such hatred and fear simply cannot bring themselves to accept that the homosexual lifestyle might not be a matter of choice. I ask you, then, if you can remember the day that you chose to be a heterosexual, or does that just seem to be the way things worked out for you? Why, then, are you so certain that a homosexual would intentionally chose a sexual lifestyle that will inevitably subject them to hatred, ostracism, societal exile or worse?

What frightens me is that so many of you are so anxious for the government to enter all of our bedrooms to monitor closely the sexual adventures of all Americans if only you can bring yourself to believe that level of intrusion will result in stopping just one "gay" or lesbian couple from having sex.

OK, so I'm generally happy with the court's ruling, and I have no problem with what two adults – homo or heterosexual – do to or with one another in private. I will also tell you that if you make a conscious effort to shut out all people with sexual tastes you do not share from your life, you will miss a lot of interesting and rewarding friendships.

This will undoubtedly mean that many of you will sit down and pen your own "I'm never going to listen to your show again, and I'll never read your column again either" letter. Fine. Don't forget to affix proper postage. I've heard all of that before and I don't believe you for a second.

But, before you finish reading, one quote from the Irish Writer St. John Ervine for you to consider: "Every man ... should periodically be compelled to listen to opinions which are infuriating to him. To hear nothing but what is pleasing to one is to make a pillow of the mind."

Editor's note: The upcoming August issue of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine will be on America's out-of-control judicial system, focusing in particular on the United States Supreme Court, whose recent rulings have validated reverse discrimination, opened the door for legalized polygamy, incest and bestiality, and freed hundreds of sex abusers. The current issue (July), titled "THE CONSTITUTION: America's ultimate battleground," explores whether the Constitution is still America's "supreme law of the land."

Subscribe to Whistleblower, starting with "THE CONSTITUTION: America's ultimate battleground."