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.
Something about "emptiest barrels" and "most noise" could be appropos here.
Yup, from Moses right thru the current day, it's been a "straight" unwavering line of documentation against sodomy!
All I'm saying is that you just quoted this thing passing it off as if it were some binding, or at least significant opinion.
I have never 'passed it off' as anything but Harlan's opinion, and granted, its a wise & significant dissent, imo.
In fact it was a lone dissent--that is to say that Harlan was the only one who agreed with this.
Exactly, - thus your point about "these three justices--O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souder--" is just more nonsense.
Check the above post. With no justification (he wanted to see the context before he weighed in) he declared that Thomas Jefferson was really just pandering to voters and knew that such laws were unconstitutional. I'll disregard his future posts since he demands easily searchable documents and then provides no facts to support his own assertions.
Homosexual sexual contact is what has been made illegal in Texas. It just is a matter of physics that homosexuals only possess the equipment for sodomy.
Homosexuals are not a constitutionally defined classification of people and there is no right to commit homosexual sodomy in the constitution.
Round and round. This scenery is looking awful familiar.
Keep trollin' lurky, last out the week and you'll have been here a month.
Ah, the threat of banishment from FR. The ultimate last gasp of a faltering argument. *shrug*
I've done no such thing.
Sorry, wrong again.
They did not ban the behavior for all, did they?
That's what the Amendment says.
If the FF had intended to create an Amendment that simply safeguarded our rights to own firearms, they would have just writen "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
But they did not, instead, they created the only Amendment with a preamble.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
the Amendment preambles itself with the fact that in order to safeguard our nation, a well-armed militia is needed, and for that reason, our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
"The right of the people". Individual people luis..
That's what the Amendment says. If the FF had intended to create an Amendment that simply safeguarded our rights to own firearms, they would have just writen "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
They did. The rationalizing phrase in front does not alter or modify "the right of the people".
But they did not, instead, they created the only Amendment with a preamble.
Odd word choice, 'preamble'. It implies a conditional preface.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes, -- I can see it now. -- -- The Luis Gonzalez 2nd, as amended.....
"The right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, as long as a well-regulated Militia is decreed necessary to the security of a free State.
Why Luis? -- Why do you advocate modifying our RKBA's?
How does this agenda advance liberty in a free republic?
Freedom of speech and political association have been recognized as fundamental American rights both nationally and in the individual states throughout our nation's history, in contrast to the "right" to engage in sexual perversions.
When it comes to drawing a meritless PC equivalence, your argument should win an award.
Your ignorance is as predictable as the tides.
Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791: Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
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.