Libertarians Join Liberals in Challenging Sodomy Law

NYTimes ^ | March 19, 2003 | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[HumanaeVitae]

The sodomy law will probably be struck down,

This would be the a dumb call for the SCOTUS. They don't seem to realize that the culture wars are about to come back, big time.

Why? Because the left-wing media dominance of the last 40 years is collapsing. They are increasingly less able to promote and enforce their pro-homosexual, pro-abortion dogma. There are now other outlets, and we are not going away.

This would be a stupid, stupid move to overturn that statute. It's not the '70s anymore, and my generation (Gen-X) has lived through the cultural minefield of the last 40 years. Many of us are not amused.

[Aquinasfan]

We have lost the idea that a country exists to enhance the good of the whole, not to guarantee the most radical vision of freedom to everyone.

That's it in a nutshell. Well said.

It's even in the Constitution.

[HumanaeVitae]

The law against sodomy, however, regulates private behavior between consenting adults in their own home.

Exactly. It's a prudential judgement, to be made by the people of Texas, not a robed elite confecting yet another "right" from the text of the Constitution. SCOTUS--stay out of it.

[Roscoe]

They can get married if they want to

But they can't have same sex marriages like the Founding Fathers intended --- er, uh, or something like that.

[george wythe]

The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, earlier upheld the state’s same-sex sodomy prohibition under the state and federal constitutions. The court’s majority disagreed with a decision by its three-judge panel, which had found that the law violated the rights of the two men arrested at home for private, consensual sex.

The three-judge panel had held that the “Homosexual Conduct” law violated the mens’ right to equal protection under the Texas Equal Rights Amendment by criminalizing conduct between same-sex partners but leaving the identical conduct legal for different-sex couples. On rehearing, the full court held that the law does not violate the right to equal treatment under the laws or to privacy from government prying into intimate adult conduct.

In a strong dissent from the en banc decision, Justice John Anderson said that the “Homosexual Conduct” law’s prohibition on sodomy for same-sex couples “cannot... be explained by anything but animus toward the persons it affects” - which is not a legitimate motive for government discrimination against one group of people.

I'm going to say it for the last time.

I do not see anything unconstitutional in banning sodomy across the board, at the state level or county level.

Nevertheless, banning sodomy between woman and woman, or man and man, wil not survive constitutional scrutiny.

My personal views on whether cunnilingus is a sin or unnatural or acceptable will have little to do with the Supreme Court's decision.

[Protagoras]

One cigarette never killed anyone. The same cannot be said for one act of homosexual sodomy.

Your concern for the health of homosexuals is touching.

Locking them up will prevent them from being violated.

[freeeee]

Prohibiting all actions that do not in themselves advance the public good is the ultimate in collectivism....Straw man

Ok, how about this:

Prohibiting actions that do not in themselves advance the public good is the ultimate in collectivism.

Think about it. "You want to do something? How does it help me? It doesn't? Well, then you can't do it."

This implies a slave type relationship between an individual and his nosy neighbor. That one cannot do something simply for himself reeks of socialism and communism.

[Hacksaw]

What I find funny is that the libertarians are in favor of the law being overturned by judicial fiat, with no legislative action. It seems as far as social issues go, the libertarians favor judicial activism as much as liberals do.

I would think a libertarian would rather do this legislatively, instead of having a judge do the heavy lifting for him.

Lots of name calling from the libertarians here - calling people Nazis, comparing people to the Taliban and Hillary.

No wonder nobody takes them seriously.

[HumanaeVitae]

Plus, it punishes the monogomous gay couple

I think you'll find Nessie in Loch Ness before you'll find one of those...

[steve-b]

Now you're pulling a clinton on me. All of your previous arguments in this thread clearly indicated that the government was to be bound purely by practical contraints of what edicts could be effectively enforced and the cost of the enforcement efforts. This has been your definition of "prudential considerations" in that context.

Again, the doctrine that government is constrained only by such considerations, and not by absolute principles which draw a bright line around personal liberties, is the essence of totalitarianism.

[Protagoras]

Which of the ten commandments do you advocate be legislated?

[Zack Nguyen]

It is interesting to see that no libertarian on this thread (at least through post 137) can bring themselves to say your McCannibal idea is an absolute evil. One person said he would find it personally wrong, but hastened to add that he would not want to enforce his own morality on anyone else. Despite the rampant disease, death, and social chaos that such a "restaurant" would bring about, the libertarians are too paralyzed by their own strange worldview to actually condemn it.

[steve-b]

Either you believe that there are standards of morality that apply to everyone, everywhere, or you are a moral relativist.

Yes -- there are those who believe that there are absolute moral standards which bind the powers of the State (libertarians) and those who take the moral relativist view that the State is bound only by prudential considerations (statists).

[jimt]

...because sodomy is forbidden in divine revelation (Sodom and Gomorrah, 1 Corinthians 6:9).

Not everything prescribed or proscribed in the Bible belongs in law.

Shall we execute adulterers?

What punishment sall be enacted for those who take the Lord's name in vain?

I know, let's send squads out with machine guns to shoot shoppers and storekeepers on Sundays !

You and I both have rights to our views about sodomy. There is absolutely no right to make them law. That violates the right to liberty and to pursuit of happiness. While I may agree that those who are pursuing happiness through homosexual sex are on the wrong path, we have no right to criminalize private, consensual sex between adults.

None.

[Liberal Classic]

Unforntunately, there's plenty of bickering from all parties concerned.

[HumanaeVitae]

George, you may be right. And that would be unfortunate.

But I see no problem whatsoever with ratifying male-female sex as the norm and discouraging homosexual sex as a threat to the social order.

Your racial/gender analogy fails because we do have laws that pertain only to one sex because of biological reality. Equal protection survives only as far as the male and female body are reasonably equal. There you have it. Two hundred and fifty posts and no one's layed a glove on me.

Probably because social conservatism is actually more logical than libertarianism, by far.

[steve-b]

Because the actions necessary to criminalize it are more evil.
That's right. That would represent a prudential decision, not a matter of "right," which is my point.

***BBBBZZZZTTT***! The reason censorship of speech is evil is precisely because it violates the rights of the speaker.

[HumanaeVitae]

I saw girls being licked "down there" by drunk guys, among the tamest scenes.

George, I'm sure we're on the same page regarding morality. This kind of sick, Bacchanalian debauchery in public should be punished...