Posted on 04/26/2003 12:28:27 PM PDT by 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.
False.
§ 21.06. Homosexual Conduct. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.(1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means: (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person;
Read it again, it condones "deviate sexual behavior" as long as it involves a woman.
No, that was my first thought also.. But the law covers woman on woman sodomy as well.
It's gender neutral in that respect and applies to everyone who engages in this behavior equally.
"Deviant sexual intercourse" is defined by this law as being "...(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person...", yet, Texas law also says that sodomy between a man and a woman is perfectly OK, that means that a woman whose mouth or anus comes in contact with a man's genitals is not committing an act of "deviate sexual intercourse".
How would you explain that, other than by saying that under this law, women are not considered to be persons?
Just a point of clarification.
No, it does not. How can it, when two persons can engage in sodomy under the full protection of the law, while another two persons can't.
And the only difference between the two situations being the gender of the person attached to the receiving rectum?
But it does so regardless of gender. Any and all homosexual acts of sodomy are covered by this law.
"§ 21.06. Homosexual Conduct. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
How can a law be gender neutral when it specifically uses the word "he"?
No, that's just your self-serving misinterpretation of the statute.http://pub.bna.com/cl/1499.htm"Therefore, in 1973, the Texas Legislature created two standards, demarcated by the sex of the actors: oral and anal intercourse when performed by a man and a woman would henceforth be legal, but oral and anal intercourse performed by two men or two women would remain illegal."
Kevin, who I take at his word by virtue of tenure and experience, says there is case law to support his claim that the "he" is actually gender neutral.
If it were only male sodomites and not females (who can obviously engage in this behavior, by their own definition) then it would be a different matter entirely.
Call me any names imaginable but Santorum is right in his statement, both legally and morally. The demokrats have no morals left, of their complete and utter leftness.
Funny how this delusion exists almost entirely outside of California. Those of us who live in California wonder how much longer it will take California to officially join Mexico. Not much longer if current GOP policies continue.
My foot!!If Americans knew one half the actual costs of just the health care delivered to homosexuals they would be stunned and enraged. It might shake them into recognizing that the cost of this sham virtue called "tolerance" is freedom. The "money transfer" that occurs, significantly limits the majority of Americans' unalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As they look at that perhaps they would also be dumbfounded to learn that there is an army of paid advocates,who work as lobbyists,program administrators,grants writers,counsellors,lawyers,health care givers,educators and researchers. Most of whose salaries come from the public,citizens,who are too busy trying to provide for their own and their families' needs to realize this army is being paid with money confiscated from them.
Yes,few realize that this corps of "social engineers" is dependent on the majority of Americans hard earned (in many cases) money to fund the implementation and establishment of policies,programs,rules and regulations that in the end will destroy the way of life Americans are trying to preserve.
No. See post 281 for the text of the law in question & the definitions that follow.
And under the Texas statute both men and women are under the same restriction.
That Texas statute may not be PC, it may not even be good policy, but the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to create a Constitutionally protected right to commit sodomy in violation of state law.
Are we a federal hegemony?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.