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

Serious Vanity | 4-26 | TOH

[Kevin Curry]

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.

A straightforward statement of the law. I believe it would be even more clear if the loaded and unnecessary term "homosexual" were simply dropped out or replaced as follows: "If [a man] does not wish to have oral or anal sex with a woman, it is not the court's fault. [A man] is free to have sex with [a woman] and not be prosecuted. Thus the man is not facing unequal protection of the law. [Male-male and female-female deviate sexual] acts are prohibited; [male-female deviate sexual] acts are not. This is the distinction of the law."

Under the law the terms "gay," "lesbian," and "homosexual" mean absolutely nothing. It is certain specified acts of male-male or female-female sexual behavior associated in the popuar mind with those terms that have meaning. But until and unless such an act is committed, there is no offense. Any man or woman who calls him or herself a "gay" or "lesbian" is at best merely serving public notice that he or she is or may be inclined to ignore or disobey that law.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes, homosexuals are discriminated against by law The State of Texas itself is creating a subclass of citizen they call "homosexual", and creating laws to control their actions.

They base that division on what they term as "deviant sexual intercourse". The "deviant sexual intercourse" is further defined as contact between a person's mouth or rectum with another person's genitalia, but only if those person's are same sex, persons of opposite sex engaging in the very same anal/oral/genital contact are permitted to engage in "deviant sexual intercourse".

Like other States in the Union, the Texas law will fall as it seeks to establish some sort of separate but equal class distinction based on sexual orientation, it sets apart that subclass of citizen with a definotion of a sexual activity that is permissible to some, but not to others.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If [a man] does not wish to have oral or anal sex with a woman, it is not the court's fault. [A man] is free to have sex with [a woman] and not be prosecuted. Thus the man is not facing unequal protection of the law. [Male-male and female-female deviate sexual] acts are prohibited; [male-female deviate sexual] acts are not. This is the distinction of the law."

But what is the reason for the law?

[Kevin Curry]

Yes, homosexuals . . .

You brain is in a deep, weary rut. Pull it out.

The law addresses men and women--ALL men and ALL women. It does not define and carve out a separate class called a "homosexual." You are doing that--not the Texas legislature. You are creating a suspect class whole-cloth so you can claim it is being discriminated against. You are employing a classic strawman argument but with a twist.

Again, Texas law makes it unlawful for any man to have deviate sexual contact with any other man; and for any woman to have deviate sexual contact with any other woman. There are no exceptions. Every man and every woman is being treated EXACTLY the same.

Now, I expect you to fall back into your gay strawman argument again. You have so far shown insufficient mental horsepower to think the law through logically as written (i.e., without adding your own private legislative definitions and amendments to it).

[Luis Gonzalez]

The law specifically defines homosexuals, it does not address all men and all women, it in fact allows some men and some women to engage in "deviant sexual intercourse".

Your brain is weary because you are forcing it to come up with one after another logical fallacy, such as making it conform itself to the idea that a law addresses all men and all women but not if they are homosexuals, and not if they are heterosexuals.

You then come back and try to get your tired, old brain to believe that "gay", "homosexual", or "lesbian" means nothing in the eyes of the law, but force it to think that the same sexual act, sodomy, between heterosexuals is somehow not "deviant sexual intercourse", but is in the case of "homosexuals", "lesbians", or "gay" pairings.

[Kevin Curry]

But what is the reason for the law?

You would have to study the legislative history behind the law, but typically these laws were written because such deviate sexual acts were considered to have destructive effects on public morals, order, and decency, leading to assaults and physical injuries, deterioration of neighborhoods and city areas requiring increased policing costs, the spread of STDs and other disease. Whether you agree with such rationale is not the point. The point is, they are fairly debatable and the place for fair debate on such points is in the state legislature--not in the SCOTUS.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...because such deviate sexual acts were considered to have destructive effects on public morals, order, and decency, leading to assaults and physical injuries, deterioration of neighborhoods and city areas requiring increased policing costs, the spread of STDs and other disease."

So, Texas is saying that all these issues are exclusive to same-sex sodomy?

In oter words, these effects are not present in heterosexual sodomy?

The reason for the law is a bias against a subclass of citizen created by a definition that holds heterosexuals blameless for the very act that it criminalizes for homosexuals.

Either sodomy is illegal for all, or for none.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm about to change my mind on this issue simply based on the fact that we seem to agree.

(grin)

[Trace21230]

"obviously you have never taken college psychology classes. In the prison population otherwise herterosexual prisoners will engage in homosexual conduct to relieve the absence of women. So no your argument is useless."

Prison is a specialized situation that hardly applies to the usual situation involving a decision to engage in male-to-male sodomy.

Most heterosexual males are not interested in homosexual sodomy. No, my argument isn't "useless," but exactly correct and your lame responses doesn't change that.

Trace

[MHGinTN]

What right should the Texas (or any state for that matter) legislature have? The right to legislate limits on behaviors when the behaviors harms the general population due to increased costs in the healthcare venue, increased disease that 'bleeds over' into the general population, and pernicious corrosion to the stabilizing institutions of the society. A drunkard may drink himself to a near stupor in the privacy of his home, but when he impacts the safety of the community by getting in his privately owned car and drives down the road, he is a menace to others. Homosexuals may commit their chosen behaviors in the privacy of a home, but when their diseases are presented to the healthcare system for state funded treatment or their diseases are leeched out to the general population, the behavior done in private impact the public and are a menace to society at large. Adulterers may commit their acts in privacy, but when their acts destroy families and bring an increased expense to the legal system, they impact the public from their private behaviors. If the Texas legislature is forbidden to regulate private behaviors that have public impact, the society is placed at greater risk in enormous ways.

[Jhoffa_]

I don't think a cost/benefit analysis is necessary.

The right to legislate is laid out in the Tenth Amendment and it places no such restrictions on the people and elected officials of Texas to establish community standards based on any number of criteria.

Your point is well taken however.

[The Old Hoosier]

Texas Hispanics are much more conservative.

[The Old Hoosier]

But what is the reason for the law?

Perhaps they reasoned that homosexual sodomy would spread STDs more quickly, I have no idea.

The point is, if it's bad policy, you can change it politically, not through judicial activism and the creation of rights/privileges that do not exist. If you agree to take the latter road, you will bring our nation to ruin before you know it.

[longtermmemmory]

Most people are not interested in a lot of illegal things. Drugs, speeding, shoplifiting, street racing.

It does not matter that prison is a specialized situation. There are two consenting heterosexual males and preventing their behavior is the example that proves the rule. The law only requires the showing of A state interest.

[tpaine]

Not brave enough to sling your favorite feeble insult, "statist," at the founding fathers, tpaine?

I only 'fling it' at true statists like you curry. The FF wrote our greatest non-statist document, one which you cannot abide.

You might have been jailed for any of a variety of offenses in 1790 America that you now claim as "inalienable" rights.

They were rights then, just as they are now. -- And they were violated then, just as they are now. Small minded curry type bluenoses will always be with us, pandering their sociaist statist schemes to willing fools.

[sinkspur]

They could no more refuse to book them for the crime then they could if the men had been smoking crack.

Certainly they could have. The Dallas police WILL NOT arrest homosexuals for sodomy, even in flagrante, in a private residence, even if the officers witness it. It is a policy of the department and the Dallas DA has signed off on it.

Only public lewdness, heterosexual and homosexual, will result in arrest.

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).

I'm being "played" by no one. I don't believe in selective law enforcement, and I don't believe in non-enforced laws on the books, kept there only because legislators fear the wrath of interest groups if they were to repeal them.

[tpaine]

I'm about to change my mind on this issue simply based on the fact that we seem to agree.
(grin)
388 -lg-


It is funny Luis, - you forget that when you first came to FR, we agreed on quite a lot of issues.

You then discovered that, like with this issue, the politically correct side is not always the constitutional side.
Stick with the constitution. Human rights are more important than political popularity.

[tpaine]

The Texas legislature is forbidden to regulate private behaviors that, --- while they ~may indeed~ have public impact, -- would also violate our BOR's.
Other methods must be found to control such problems. We cannot subvert our constitution because of "public impacts".

[tpaine]

The point is, if it's bad policy, you can change it politically, not through judicial activism and the creation of rights/privileges that do not exist. If you agree to take the latter road, you will bring our nation to ruin before you know it.
393 -OH-


Nope, that's backwards.

The point is, these laws violate our BOR's. We can only change our constitution by amendment, not through judicial activism and the creation of "states rights" & powers for government that do not exist.

Indeed, if we agree to take the latter road, we will bring our nation to ruin before you know it.

[Jhoffa_]

I don't see sodomy, bestiality, polygamy, incest, etc, as an infringement of the ninth.

Remember, these laws have been on the books, have been upheld and are only now being called into question.

As Kevin said, many of the things now being claimed as a "right" would not have been tolerated by the framers.