Young was more honest. "I think that different people have different sets of morals, and I think that as Americans, we should be able to accommodate those to the extent that nobody else is harmed ... There is a question about bigamy and polygamy that I don't want to get into. I personally am not wild about those ideas, but I'm not clear whether those really should be regulated either." Young stated that Santorum had a moral obligation to prevent religious beliefs from influencing policy. He also accused Santorum of cynicism and insincerity, telling me, "I don't believe he's sincere because I know the guy. ... I don't think he has a sincere bone in his body."
Heflin maintained that homosexuality couldn't be compared to bigamy/polygamy/incest/adultery, since "we're talking about sexual relationships between consenting adults on the one hand, and on the other hand, you're talking about situations where there's a general consensus that the government does have a right to regulate sexual relationships." His basis for the view that homosexuality was more moral than bigamy? "International law." After a few minutes, Heflin conceded that while "we don't take a position on bigamy, polygamy and incest ... I think these are going to be important debates."
This issue comes down to the conflict between Judeo-Christian morality and arbitrary morality. The gay-rights advocates I interviewed were forced to admit that their logic gives bigamists and polygamists the right to pursue their lifestyle legally. Their stated moral boundaries changed during the course of our conversations.
While there can be a reasoned debate about whether the state has business legislating sexual activity, there can be no doubt that any moral system condoning homosexuality must also let other, less widely accepted sexual practices through the door. If that fluid, careless amalgam of values based on feelings and personal logic ever takes precedence, America will suffer the fate of ancient Rome.