It was bound to happen.

I wonder why it took this long.

With the seeming epidemic of teacher-student sex cases, I’m surprised we haven’t heard this argument used earlier.

Matthew Glasser, 29, a former music teacher at Northwest Catholic High School in Hartford, Conn., is facing sexual assault charges after his arrest on suspicion of preying on a 16-year-old student. (I guess it needs to be stated right here, these days: In this case, it was a girl.)

Though Glasser has neither admitted having sex with the girl nor denied it, his lawyers have filed a motion in Superior Court contending the statute criminalizing such conduct infringes on his constitutional right to privacy.

Ahhhhh, that slippery, all-encompassing right to privacy, again.

“We believe that the statute infringes on a fundamental right to sexual privacy and therefore does not hold up under constitutional scrutiny,” explained Jeremy Donnelly, one of Glasser’s lawyers.

Yes, I’m sure this is just what the Founders had in mind when they crafted that imaginary right to privacy found nowhere in the Constitution. It was to ensure that adult teachers could have sex with their students and then make sure they could get those students abortions afterwards. Do I have this right, so far?

According to court records, Glasser relentlessly pursued the girl beginning in early 2005. By April, she began spending the night at his apartment. The student told police she had sex with Glasser at least eight times before reporting the relationship to authorities in May of last year. She provided police with details about Glasser’s bedroom, which were later confirmed by investigators.

Glasser is facing eight counts of second-degree sexual assault, a felony with a minimum mandatory sentence of nine months. Laws like this were drafted with one thought in mind – protecting students from being preyed upon by teachers who have so much influence over them in their positions of authority.

But Glasser’s lawyers say the statute is inconsistent with years of legal precedent upholding the illusory constitutional right to privacy – the very same “right” used in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court to justify its Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

The sad part is his lawyers are probably on to something here.

They’re right that such laws are not consistent with the bad court rulings of the last quarter century. And, therefore, this case could well result in even more bad law, even lower standards of behavior, even more upside-down thinking.

By the way, there’s at least one other similar case pending in the state of Connecticut right now.

Former New Haven high-school teacher Van McKenzie-Adams is challenging his conviction on sexual assault charges after two former students complained they had consensual sex with him on several occasions. Richard Emanuel, his attorney, says the state’s sexual assault law prevents teachers from taking part in sexual relationships that would be legal for other people.

Imagine that!

Other adults can prey upon teenage boys and girls, but teachers are prohibited!

It is inconsistent, isn’t it?

Therefore, I have a solution. Let’s bring back the old-fashioned idea of banning any kind of sexual exploitation of young people by rethinking our lowered age-of-consent laws.

If we don’t, the rash of teacher-student sex cases is sure to rise. We now have a generation of teachers who consider it their constitutional right to prey sexually upon their charges.

Amazing. Stunning. Who would have thunk it?

One more slide down the slippery slope of moral relativism and the bizarre world where right is wrong, black is white, up is down and left is right.

Related special offer:

“PREDATORS: What’s really behind today’s epidemic of teacher-student sex?”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.