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.
Because the FF weren't that stupid?
But they did pass laws that made sodomy a crime. They must not have thought that sodomy was an unenumerated right, don't you think? Or do you?
The Supreme Court doesn't determine what goes against Texas' state constitution, it determines on the national level. Please try to keep up.
To hear the gun grabbers on the left spin the 2nd ammendment being about hunting and a "regulated" mitilia; then no.
So then, political party affiliation is a constitutional right in your book?
Keep in mind that the First Amendment restricts the Federal government from creating laws, not the State government.
There must be a lot of perverts in the USA
If a guy is looking in your window while you and the wife are having sex, can he be arrested?
Or just a bunch of guys who don't like looking at sausage and hairy asses.
The Supreme Court doesn't determine what goes against Texas' state constitution, it determines on the national level.The US Constitution allows the US Supreme Court to rule on a state constitutions if there is a federal issue involved.
For instance, if a law does not follow the 14th Amendment, even if it is OKed by the state Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court can overrule it.
Look at what happened in Florida 2000.
You're the one with the statistics.
That's the way it tnds to go on these threads.
This is a national case now as it's ruling would also affect other states that have laws that discriminate against a hetetofore never recognized class of people defined as "homosexuals" (people who define their persona on a sex act).
Does Luis think that the Nevada or New Hampshire discrepencies in age of consent would be able to stand after the Supreme Court rules that a sexual activity cannot be legal for heterosexuals but illegal for "homosexuals"?
Can a state supreme court determine that a law violates the US Constitution? Or are they limited to test it against their state's constitution?
I argue that the state legislature can make homosexual sodomy (or horsemeat eating) legal or illegal. There is no US Constitutional protection for either even if enforcement may be difficult.
If you grow pot in your basement and only smoke it in your home you may not get caught for your illegal drug use either. It doesn't suddenly make it legal or prove a Constitutional Right to it.
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.