Anti-Spanking Silliness
by Bob Barr

For many years, California has been known as the "land of fruits and nuts," as much for the goofiness of its citizens as for the delicacies grown in its rich soil and moderate climate.

The state has given us "fragrance free zones," so those persons of super-sensitive nostrils would not be forced to undergo the torture of sensing a fellow traveler's perfume, cologne or scented deodorant. From California we also have pet cemeteries that rival the Gothic excesses of Victorian-era architecture. It is a state whose legislators constantly and intently scan the world around them for targets to regulate.

Their latest target is that horrid class of people known as "parents" who practice the barbaric act of "spanking" their children. California is considering legislation that would make it a criminal offense for an adult to spank a child younger than the age of 3. Leaving aside whether it makes sense to draw the line at spanking at 3 years old, as opposed to 3 years and a day, one has to wonder what these Golden State legislators are thinking.

While the legislation has not yet passed, California's he-man governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has indicated he might favor it. Schwarzenegger said that "any time we try to pass laws that say you've got to protect the kids, it's, in general, always good."

The sponsor of the measure, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, indicated she seized on the idea of criminalizing a swat on the rump when she realized she had never spanked her cat, "Snoop." In one of those transcendental leaps of logic so prevalent among Californians, Lieber then concluded that, "if you never hit a cat, you should never hit a child."

If California seems permanently trapped in a "silly season," there are growing signs the rest of the country is becoming subject to ever-lengthening seasons of a similar stripe.

Even as California mulls over its criminal spanking bill, here on the east coast, residents of Miami Beach are engaged in a battle over whether to outlaw parties in private residences to which guests bring more than $100 in "gifts, goods or services." Considering that a good bottle of wine you might bring as a gift to the host at a New Year's Eve party these days easily could account for the lion's share of that C-note, there wouldn't be many parties that would fail to pass the threshold.

The Florida ordinance really is under serious consideration. It is a perfect example of legislators with way too much time on their hands, too much power on their minds and too little understanding in their portfolio. Apparently, its proponents were targeting large, commercialized parties in residential neighborhoods, but drafted the proposal using language so vague and overly broad that virtually any party in any location would be prohibited.

Meanwhile, citizens in colder climes are harboring under disabilities of a silly season of their own. Thanks to a recent ruling by the Michigan appeals court, philanderers in that state might find themselves prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and face up to life imprisonment. This threat to sexual activity in the Great Lakes State is the result of a literal – bordering on asinine – interpretation of the state law defining "first-degree criminal sexual conduct" as sex involving the commission of any felony. Since "adultery" remains a felony offense, the Michigan jurists "reasoned," the act of having sex with a person other than your spouse necessarily involves sex involving a felony, and therefore constitutes "first-degree criminal sexual conduct," the penalty for which can be up to life in prison.

The same strain of logic that infects California legislators pushing for a blanket, criminal prohibition on spanking, apparently has surfaced in the Midwest.

Such legislative hyper-logic may be arriving in Georgia, where many legislators are pushing for a law that will put "registered sex offenders" back in jail for simply taking a photograph of any minor child (even their own, apparently). Just last year, the General Assembly passed a measure that prohibited "registered sex offenders" from living anywhere near an area where children congregate. Problems with that law already have resulted in court challenges, but state legislators pushing for the photo prohibition appear undaunted in their zeal.

There may be some hope on the horizon for curtailing these oft-recurring bouts of silliness exhibited by legislators and jurists across our fair land. Scientists reportedly have just isolated that portion of the human brain that causes people to behave in a kind manner. Discovering that part of the brain that causes silly behavior may not be far behind.

Former Congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: bobbarr.org