Coming to your bedroom soon ...

At least if the zealots of the Christian Right have their way. And they hope John Roberts would help them get there as a Supreme Court Justice.

Cynthia Tucker has some useful thoughts on The United States' own Taliban WorkingforChange.com 07/25/05:

If you examine carefully the rantings of those on the extremist edge of the religious right, you'll see that they make an underlying argument even more troubling than their absolutist premise that abortion is murder: They argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy. If that antediluvian view holds sway, American women will find themselves living under something akin to Sharia, the Quranic law that restricts women's rights. And men, too, will find their private lives severely curtailed by government interference. If Americans have no right to privacy, the government can roam freely about your bedroom, telling you how and when to have sex and whether you can use a contraceptive.

Forty years ago, Connecticut prohibited the use of contraceptives, even by married couples. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Connecticut ban in 1965, ruling that it violated a right to privacy inherent in the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas said: "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse ... and intimate to the degree of being sacred."

If you think that's a bit of ancient history, as far removed from the here and now as fainting couches and Conestoga wagons, think again. The United States has its own version of the Taliban. Though mostly nonviolent - there are exceptions, certainly, such as Eric Robert Rudolph - they are no different from Islamic extremists who want to force others to live under their harsh and intrusive 10th-century rules. They don't care that 94 percent of Americans believe that contraceptive use is morally acceptable.

She goes on to describe some of the particulars. And she quotes this charming gentleman:

And then there's Southern Utah University professor Bryce Christensen, who often writes for an ultraconservative outfit called The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society. He has lasted women who work outside the home and denounced "intentional childlessness" as one of the causes of the decline of traditional marriage.

My only complaint with Tucker's column is that it may leave some readers with the impression that people aiming at such goals are only the fringe edge of American politics. Not so. Ideas like this are very common among the Christian Right, which is now the most influential segment of the Republican Party. Restricting women's rights in reproductive and sexual matters is a priority for these folks, certainly. But restricting women's freedom to work and legal position in family structures is on their agenda, as well.

Let's be clear on what we're talking about. They don't just want to convince people through preaching and teaching that they should choose to live their lives this way. They want to use law and other instruments of government to enforce those goals. And they want to create an atmosphere of stigma against gays and lesbians, women who work, women who don't have children. And that's just the beginning of the list.