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.
It criminalizes same sex activity by men or women. You just keep returning to the same spin-doctored falsehood.
Statutory rape laws do not say (in spite of the age difference between legal consent age in some States) that it's only statutory rape when it couples people of the same sex, and not people of different sexes.
And such laws might criminalize acts committed by an adult but not by a minor.
Texas does not have a sodomy law, they have an anti-homosexual law.
Another PC talking point. The law targets activity, not orientation.
Imagine that the State of Texas creates a law that labels the act of burning the American flag "treason against the United States", but only if the flag is burnt by a registered Republican, but it's not a crime if you are a registered Democrat.
Committing same sex acts of sexual perversion are equivalent to fredom of speech and freedom of association? Which Amendment is that?
Think you'll get a straight answer?
Nor is there a blanket right to "breathe" or any such thing. [sarcastic? You bet.]
Check out the 9th for the necessity to enumerate rights. - And reflect that your denial of a right to privacy for yourself is just fine with me. Join some commune, - whatever.. Live as you please.. And let me & mine be.
413 -tpaine-
You completely ignore our entire legal tradition. The Ninth Amendment cannot be used to create new Constitutional rights that our 500-year-old body of legal history has NEVER recognized.
They were first recognised in our constitution, then reiterated in the 14th. You ignore them, not I.
The founding fathers did not see any problem with the sodomy laws enacted in nearly every state. Sodomy laws were not even remotely controversial, and did not--unlike slavery, for example--contrast with anything contained in the Constitution, Declaration or other founding documents, or the writings and conversations of the Founding Fathers.
See the BOR's. Rights to a private life, liberty, & private property are protected.
If you want to live in a libertarian society, go somewhere else. We have a constitution, rule of law and legal tradition in this country. We're not supposed to be ruled by just whatever any judge can pull out of his a$$.
You are trying to shove your views on a 'moral society' up ours dispite our constitution, rule of law and legal tradition. Get real, or get lost.
Sodomy wasn't recognized as a right by the people who ratified the Constitution or the 14th Amendment, your piteous question begging notwithstanding.
Nothing about a Constitutional right to commit sodomy there. Always begging the question, never a source.
Let's see the text. I read it, and I don't see any such right. And why was the right to any private sexual behavior never recognized before by the federal government or any state government?
If 2 men could have sodomy but a man and a woman couldn't or 2 women couldn't then there would be unequal protection. It doesn't matter how many times you try to spin the argument another way (cowboys and frogs, mormons and baptists, hedgehodges and foxes...) this is the crux.
Homosexual is not a "classification" of person anymore than horsemeat eating is. You believe that crime is somehow sacred and protected by the constitution.
Homosexuals are entitled to think homosexual thoughts and write homosexual books but when words turn to deeds the law is violated.
Murder and cannibalism is also illegal but the Hannibal Lector books became best sellers.
Yes they do.
Statutory rape laws are consistent in the fact that it punishes all people who engage in a sexual act with a minor regardless of the sex of the individual's involved.
How can you say it is consistant when the age of consent for heterosexual activity is 16 (and thus an adult male who has sex with a 16 year old girl is NOT guilty of statutory rape) while the age of consent for homosexual activity is set at 18 years old (an adult male who has sex with a 16 year old boy IS guilty of statutory rape).
Another poster who defends the "right" to homosexual sodomy (under "equal protection") agreed on this point.
See this chart to see what I mean:
As with all things like this on the internet, some are poorly researched, while others become outdated.
Look at states like Nevada and New Hampshire on this chart though.
Texas does not have a sodomy law, they have an anti-homosexual law.
No, they have an anti-homosexual sodomy law. Homosexual thoughts and literature (and porno videos, I assume) are legal. Beastiality and statutory rape are illegal and while nothing can be done to outlaw the thoughts, possession of obscene pornography is considered a crime (certainly video stores won't touch it).
Homosexuals are not "outlawed" in Texas. You need to reread the law.
That's the argument in a nutshell.. For all the complaining over this, it boils down to homosexuals wanting the Federal Government to give them "special" right's because of their sexual behavior.
Texas has said no, Vermont has said yes.. Rather than try to presuade the people to Texas through the democratic process, they want the SC to create a one size fits all law and then impose it on everyone, everywhere by force.
That's not Constitutional and it's not proper.
How can you say it is consistant when the age of consent for heterosexual activity is 16 (and thus an adult male who has sex with a 16 year old girl is NOT guilty of statutory rape) while the age of consent for homosexual activity is set at 18 years old (an adult male who has sex with a 16 year old boy IS guilty of statutory rape)."
First and foremost, I don't believe that the law states that there is a age of consent for homosexual sex in Texas, that would be inconsistent with the law being discussed here which makes all homosexual sex illegal. No one in Texas can consent to homosexual sex at any age. The law you are talking about simply sets the age of consent for boys at a different age than it does for girls.
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.