Santorum is Right, and You Should Be Supporting Him: An Explanation of Lawrence v. Texas

Serious Vanity | 4-26 | TOH

[The Old Hoosier]

With the recent publicity surrounding Sen. Rick Santorum's remarks on the issue of sodomy, almost everyone on FR must be familiar by now with the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas.

Petitioner Lawrence and his special friend are trying to overturn a Texas law against homosexual sodomy.

There are two issues in this case:

1) Is there a constitutional right for any two adults to engage in any kind of consensual sex, as long as it's behind closed doors? The petitioners say yes, there is, and are asking the court to agree.

2) Does it violate the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection to outlaw homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy, as the Texas law does? In other words, should sexual orientation become a specially protected category under the 14th amendment--along with race? Again, the petitioners say yes.

If you do not think that this affects you, you are wrong. Depending on the outcome of this law, gay marriage could become the law of the land, without any legislation or reference to any democratic process whatsoever. Also, if you run a daycare center, you could be sued for refusing to hire a homosexual. You could eventually be driven out of business because of your religious beliefs.

It could get even worse. A bad decision could go far enough to invalidate state laws against prostitution. Consensual incest and polygamy would also become a constitutionally protected activity, as Santorum recently pointed out, referencing the same argument in the last major Supreme Court case on sodomy, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).

Just as with abortion in the post-Roe period, there will be no political solution once the decision is made. Your vote will make no difference on this issue if the Supreme Court decides, by judicial fiat, to elevate sexual activity and/or sexual orientation to a special, protected class of activity.

You may even oppose sodomy laws and think they are antiquated and unevenly enforced. You may even be gay. Well, fine. If you want to repeal sodomy laws, go pass a law, do not let the Supreme Court take away the people's right to self-rule. Even if you are a homosexual libertarian from the Cato Institute, you should want us to arrive at libertarian policy decisions through democratic legislative proceses, not through dictatorial impositions from an unelected court.

That's why even you, whoever you are, should be pulling for Texas in this case. That's why you should write a letter to the White House asking President Bush why he did not file an amicus brief with the court in favor of Texas, as he did in the affirmative action case earlier this year.

Most likely, everything will hang on the decision of Justice Kennedy. If he votes to classify sexual orientation as a category protected by the 14th amendment, then immediately suits will pop up, citing this case, demanding homosexual "marriage" on the grounds that hetero-only marriage laws discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. It could happen right away or after a short time, but soon homosexual marriage will be imposed on all 50 states as a result of such a decision. The only way to stop it will be a constitutional amendment, which is not likely or easy to do.

If the court also rules that there is a right to all private, consensual sex, then there will also be no basis for state laws against consensual incest or polygamy, as Santorum pointed out--or even prostitution. The logical conclusion will also be to legalize drug cultivation and use within the home, not just marijuana but also methamphetamines. Not even the most hard-core drug-legalizer, if he is sane, would argue that the constitution actually guarantees a right to grow and use drugs in one's home.

The court might come up with some bogus justification for not striking down all of these laws right away, but that won't last long. Sooner or later, a future court will use this case to strike down all state laws against anything whatsoever that is done in private, regardless of the harm it does to society.

This case should be rather frightening for anyone who believes in the constitution and the rule of law.

Write your congressmen and senators, as well as the President, and tell them you want them to save the constitution. Tell them to refuse to accept a Supreme Court ruling that elevates disgusting acts of sodomy above real constitutional rights such as gun ownership and freedom of religion.

[The Old Hoosier]

More complete explanation bump.

[sinkspur]

I still say you're hysterical. There's a difference between consensual private acts between consenting adults and the very public institution of marriage.

[Theodore R.]

You are right, but I don't think the American people have enough intelligence to understand your sound argument from the legal, moral, and practical aspects. Too many years of "dumbed-down" schooling makes them unable to think.

[The Old Hoosier]

There's a difference between consensual private acts between consenting adults and the very public institution of marriage.

You're confusing the two issues in the case. Think about it again, considering them separately. You will see that I'm right.

[narses]

Define them. Defend them against the 14th Amendment and the soi-disant "right to privacy" you embrace. Go ahead. Then, if you can, reconcile your position with the teachings of the Church you and I belong to. I look forward to watching this.

[sinkspur]

Then, if you can, reconcile your position with the teachings of the Church you and I belong to. I look forward to watching this.

This is not about the teachings of the Church. Should we enshrine mandatory weekly church attendance in law?

[bart99]

It's not a question of being hysterical. It's a question of the law........ and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal. That's the subtle, but overriding concern about this case.

Even the Supreme Court, when they initially passed the "no sodomy" law (in private homes) in the 50s..... the majority included in their opinion that we (the court) were on a slippery slope. They knew this could escalate out of control and open up the "in private" agruement for anything.

[narses]

Sure it is, if you had paid attention you would understand that. But since you decline to defend your position from a Catholic viewpoint, go ahead and make your non-Catholic, secular argument.

[bart99]

I'm not sure I understood your post (the 14th ammendment ref)...... but I too am looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.

What IS your position? That privacy trumps any activity in the privacy of your own home? Hmmmm...... not sure ALL activity should be legal. Or is this just a ruling on sexual activity in the privacy of your own home? Hmmmm..... not sure all of that would be legal either.

This'll be interesting.

[sinkspur]

and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal.

Do you support the Patriot Act?

I'm amazed at the number of people on this site who rant and rave at the government's invasion of the privacy of potential terrorists but have no problem with the government peeping into bedroom windows.

[narses]

... that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal.

Precisely! There was a recent case where an amatuer surgeon denutted another consenting adult, and ended up in jail for illegal surgery. How would that fit into sinky's world? How about "Doctor" Jack Kevorkian and his anti-Catholic death machine? Let's not forget abortion either, drug laws, prostitution or even (horros, no!) the unlicensed practice of accounting! All legal in sinkys Brave New World of Privacy and Consenting Adults.

[narses]

Do you support the Patriot Act?

Do you get a volume discount on all the Red Herrings you have sinky? How about dealing with THIS case and THIS law?

[bart99]

I support the Patriot Act fully.

But I do have a problem with the government peeping into my bedroom window (although I wish there would be something for them to see *L*)

That's why this case is interesting. And why it was a difficult case back in the 50s.

[dwswager]

It's not a question of being hysterical. It's a question of the law........ and the potential acceptance under law that anything you do within the confines of your home is legal. That's the subtle, but overriding concern about this case. Even the Supreme Court, when they initially passed the "no sodomy" law (in private homes) in the 50s..... the majority included in their opinion that we (the court) were on a slippery slope. They knew this could escalate out of control and open up the "in private" agruement for anything.

The Privacy issue is my primary concern. The whole problem with the invented right of privacy is that as a "constitutional right" it supercedes other laws. Hence it leads to the legality of any action taken in private. Think drug use, euthenasia, etc. Otherwise you end up with 9 justices picking and choosing. Even when 2 constitutional rights colide, you still have judges making these determinations.

[narses]

I support the constitutional forms as they stand now in this regards. Frankly, while the liberals are crowing that the court took this intending to strike down the law, I see the potential for a reverse strike against Roe -v- Wade and Doe -v- Bolton. Their is NO intrinsic "right to privacy" in the original BOR, the 14th Amendment folks keep arguing that it redefined the BOR, perhaps the SCOTUS will now correct that misunderstanding.

[narses]

Bingo. The other issue is the use of the 14th Amendment to "federalize" almost every state issue.

[bart99]

I agree with you there.

This goes a bit far..... and makes all those things the good congressman said at issue. HE should not be blamed for gay-bashing when he was just trying to explain the complexity of this law..... and it's issues. And he was just dealing with the sexuality of "in your own home privacy" issues.

The reporter misreported and trapped him into a controversy not of his making.

[firewalk]

bttt

[narses]

The reporter has done him a favor. The dufii at the DNC keep embracing their own radical fringe. Senator Santorum is being given the chance to strengthen his already powerful backbone while exposing the RINO's. If it doesn't kill him, it will make him much stronger. I suspect President Santorum will be the third Catholic President of the United States.