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.
States don't have Constitutional rights nor is there a Constitutional right to sodomy, polygamy or incest, irrespective of the degrees of seperation.
This is a tenth amendment issue if ever there was one. The writers of the Constitution clearly endorsed laws outlawing sodomy.
If you want the Constitution to protect those things, you'll have to amend it. The 14th Amendment doesn't do it.
SCOTUS may once again follow the well worn path of Roe, overstep their bounds and the untintended consequences will surely follow. Homosexual marriage, polygamy, no degree of seperation incest, prostitution, these are all matters between consenting adults.
You and I may agree or disagree whether they are good, bad or indifferent but we will surely disagree on an overly strong central government finding rights in the Constitution that aren't, nor have ever been, in it.
And Santorum is both correct and courageous in addressing it now.
Source please.
True. Pointless, irrelevant, but true.
April 27, 2003
To the Editor
Seattle Times,
Leonard Pitts Jr. was shocked that Sen. Rick Santorum would compare homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery and bestiality. (‘The repugnant cynicism of Sen. Rick Santorum’ 4-27-03,Seattle Times)
I was too. While heterosexual bigamy, polygamy, and adultery are harmful and, I think, morally wrong, they are not sexual perversions. Homosexuality is. There is no comparison.
Mr. Pitts goes on to argue that just because Sen. Santorum may be an “all-right guy” or have friends and family who love him doesn’t mean that whatever he say’s or does is all right. I agree. Whether or not somebody is loved or whether or not they are “nice” should not be the litmus test for whether or not an action or a behavior they engage in is good, right or appropriate.
Yet, that’s exactly the line that homosexualists take in their efforts to normalize homosexual behavior. Don’t pay attention to the sexual act they engage in, even though, as Mr. Pitts rightfully states, to do so would be “to separate one’s identity from the behavior that defines it”, just pay attention to whether or not they are nice, a good employee or have someone who loves them.
This may come as a shock to you but pedophiles have people who love them too. Sexual perversions don’t become normal behavior just because the person who engages in it is nice or loved or witty. Just because they are someone’s mother, father, sister or brother.
Homosexualists have largely succeeded, primarily through bullying tactics, (Bigot! Homophobe! Hater!) at getting otherwise intelligent people to deny the obvious biology of heterosexuality, to suppress their natural revulsion to homosexual acts and to ignore the physical/mental harm caused by engaging in homosexual acts.
If a group of people had a desire to eat food by putting it in their ear instead of their mouth would they be able to convince Mr. Pitts that it was natural, normal and healthy? Probably.
From a quick Google search I found this:
The law was challenged after John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested Sept. 17, 1998, when police entered Lawrence's unlocked apartment and found the men engaging in consensual sex. They were charged with "deviant homosexual conduct."The officers entered the house after a third man falsely reported an armed intruder was inside. That man, Robert Royce Eubanks, who was Garner's roommate, was convicted of filing a false report and sentenced to 30 days in jail.
Robert Royce Eubanks, 40, has since been sentenced to 15 days for filing a false report with the police. He is said to know both of the men arrested. Speculation is that jealousy played a role in his placing the call to the police.At a hearing Nov. 20, John Geddes Lawrence, 55, and Tyrone Garner, 31, pleaded no contest to the sex charge, refused to pay the fine of $125 each, and will now challenge the law in a criminal trial.
Garner told the Associated Press that he felt his civil rights were violated, and Lawrence described the police raid as "sort of Gestapo." Lambda Legal Defense has entered the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. "We believe the law is an outrageous intrusion into the private liberties of lesbian and gay Texans," said Lambda´s Suzanne B. Goldberg. "It´s unconstitutional for this law to single out gays and criminalize their behavior."
Attorney Doyal had feared that there never would be another legal challenge that would get the Texas sodomy statute completely off the books.
If the homosexual lobbyists can speculate that he made the fraudlant call out of jealously, I can speculate that the 3 homosexual men who knew each other acted in concert to create the situtation they found themselves in. Houston isn't a safe city. I would not recommend leaving an apartment door unlocked; especially if you are in the bedroom having sex. But then again, who continues having sex after investigating officers have made their presence known? From the outset they made it clear that they planned to overturn the law.
Where was the third housemate when he made the call?
It's the same tired voices making the same tired arguments.
Since you forget the points that are established on these threads...
Age of consent laws are not uniform for homosexual and heterosexual conduct. Therefore in some states an act of homosexual sex (sodomy) between an adult (aged 18+) and a minor aged 16 years old could be "staturory rape" while the same activity with members of the opposite sex would not and would be quite legal, even if morally repugnant.
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.