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.
we'll never to be able to fully get his view on this as he has been dead now for several years.
Date: October 17, 2000
Subject: Incident at 3942 FaulknerA man assaulted in the 3900 block of Faulkner on October 10 has died from his injuries.
Robert Royce Eubanks, 42, suffered severe head wounds and was pronounced dead last Saturday (Oct. 14) at Memorial Hermann Hospital.
Eubanks had left a residence on Faulkner, where he had been visiting a friend, and was seen walking in the 3900 block of Faulkner. Someone from the residence on Faulkner contacted 911 and Eubanks was transported to the hospital.
There is no known motive or suspect in this case at this time.
Anyone with information in this incident is urged to contact the Houston Police Homicide Division at 713-308-3600 or Crime Stoppers at 713-222-TIPS.
The case was assigned to Officer L.D. Garretson of the HPD Homicide Division.
Age of consent is below 18 in some states.
Which one is guilty of rape?
He was convicted and sentenced to jail as punishment. One article claimed that police have said that the 2 men had a history of making false police calls against each other.
And in Texas, it's only criminal sodomy when someone of one sex has sex with someone of the same sex.
Are statutory rape laws unconstitutional?
After all, someone has to step in to enforce this law that says in Maryland an adult can legally have sex with a 16 year old where as another state says that minor has to be 17.
Keep the legislature out of the bedrooms < /sarcasm >
Um...I predict that this strategy will not work. In fact, it could very well backfire like you wouldn't believe.
Yeah, and it's always the same people making absolute concrete sound sense and giving rational debate a good name. (You know who are, bravo.)
States don't have Constitutional rights
Tell it to roscoe.
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.
Bull.. Not in the constitution, they didn't.
If you want the Constitution to protect those things, you'll have to amend it. The 14th Amendment doesn't do it.
Yes, it did do it.
Prohibitive 'sin' type laws violate due process.
It is not a sin to possess automatic weapons, drink booze or close your bedroom door. - And clowns that think it is are flat out weird.
If you wanted to challenge it under "freedom of association" you might stand more of a chance, but not over "equal protection". And as it is discussed on this and other threads, some states which permit homosexual sodomy still make a distinction over the the age of consent for adults and minors to have sex.
Some states permit heterosexuals to engage in intercourse, sodomy, what have you at say age 16 (and that includes a partner of age 18+) while holding homosexuals in violation of statutory rape laws for engaging in homosexual sodomy below the age of 18. A "back door" way to throw out the disparity in the age of consent laws, eh?
He endlessly, sourcelessly, plaintively begged.
Pesky facts.
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.