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.
Actually the full court affirmed their convictions and the law.
"Here, the State of Texas employs a comparable argument, namely, Section 21.06 does not discriminate on the basis of gender because it applies equally to men and women. Appellants' contend the argument was discredited by Loving and should not be followed here. But while the purpose of Virginia's miscegenation statute was to segregate the races and perpetuate the notion that blacks are inferior to whites, no such sinister motive can be ascribed to the criminalization of homosexual conduct. In other words we find nothing in the history of Section 21.06 to suggest it was intended to promote any hostility between the sexes, preserve any unequal treatment as between men and women, or perpetuate any societal or cultural bias with regard to gender. Thus, we find appellants' reliance on Loving unpersuasive."
In short, even the petitioners in Lawrence v. Texas did not pretend that the law applies only to men. They knew better than to make Luis's argument. Instead, they tried to discredit it by making a "separate but equal" Loving attack, which--of course--was rejected by the court out of hand.
"Nevertheless, appellants contend that Texas should join several of our sister states who have legalized homosexual conduct. Certainly, the modern national trend has been to decriminalize many forms of consensual sexual conduct even when such behavior is widely perceived to be destructive and immoral, e.g., seduction, fornication, adultery, bestiality, etc. Our concern, however, cannot be with cultural trends and political movements because these can have no place in our decision without usurping the role of the Legislature. While the Legislature is not infallible in its moral and ethical judgments, it alone is constitutionally empowered to decide which evils it will restrain when enacting laws for the public good."
The case was a set up. A gay lover of one of the men called the cops. The door was left unlocked. They kept having anal sex even after the police entered the bedroom.
They could no more refuse to book them for the crime then they could if the men had been smoking crack.
This is a job for the legislature to decide, not the courts. The men wanted a test case to raise up with challenges.
The 2 men having sex were given a $200 fine. The man who made the false phone call was sentenced to 30 days.
Believe in a boogeyman looking in bedrooms if it makes you feel more confident in your position. You are being played by these homosexual activists (within a week of their arrest they discussed challenging the very nature of this law).
Age of consent laws also "discriminate" against homosexuals. No one tried using that as the test case (wouldn't have put such a pretty picture on it, no one wants to step forward and say that adult homosexuals should be able to have sex with 16 year olds just like heterosexual adults).
I was unaware that any states had decriminalized beastiality. Certainly there have been articles that discussed some recent sick events and noted that the state/community did not have a law against beastiality but laws were drafted to fix this issue.
I believe that Texas' sodomy law still prohibits beastiality. I do not think that there is a politician alive who would go on record legalizing beastiality.
But then again, some on this forum might. After all, who would talk and spill the beans on this crime? It happens in a bedroom (or maybe a garage or barn). Can't have those prying eyes of government to enforce this law, better not have the law altogether, eh?
Peter Singer is working hard to make bestiality trendy and acceptable. He'll give the "progressives" cover to launch an assault on bestiality laws.
They try to control the argument by saying that a man and a woman can put this here and that there but that 2 men cannot. The reason is because the law prohibits 2 men from putting it anywhere together (or 2 women from arousing each other). The law must spell out the sexual acts (to be specific). This is why the activists focus on the sex acts and not the pairing.
You mean like the states that set age of consent for heterosexuals below 18 but the age of consent for homosexual to be over 18? They never tried to use one of those adult-minor sex cases to overturn this law (although certainly there must have been some homosexuals prosecuted under the law).
It's not OK for whites to murder someone but not for blacks, is it?
Homosexuals are NOT discriminated against by this law.
Homosexuals are permitted to engage in acts of heterosexual sodomy if they wish. It is homosexual acts of sodomy that are prohibited. The only sex acts that homosexuals may engage in with one another are by their very definition sodomy (since there is no complimentary genitalia for copulation).
If the homosexual man does not wish to have oral or anal sex with a woman (homosexual or heterosexual) it is not the court's fault. That homosexual man is free to have sex with that woman and not be prosecuted. Thus the man is not facing unequal protection of the law. Homosexual acts of sodomy are prohibited; homosexuals performing acts of heterosexual sodomy are not. This is the distinction of the law.
Not brave enough to sling your favorite feeble insult, "statist," at the founding fathers, tpaine?
You might have been jailed for any of a variety of offenses in 1790 America that you now claim as "inalienable" rights.
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.