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.
The APA and MLA writing styles are relatively new kids on the linguistic bloc. If you will bother yourself to read some of the diverse writing styles employed during the colonial period, you will notice that comma usage varies from writer to writer, as does their spelling and verbiage. This is not an indication that the founders were illiterate, so much as the fact that linguistic differences existed, and further evolved, between the populated areas of the colonies, and subsequently the states .
You can see some comparisons of constitutional wording at: The Commonplace Second Amendment
I grew up in North Carolina under the tutilage of ear-twisting biddies who seemed old enough to have fought in the Revolution, and who thought we should likewise be enamoured with the history and documents of the era. There was no question then (early 1960's) that the main theme of the second amendment was, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," irrespective of the commas.
It is a sad statement of our societal condition, that today, the eloquence of the writing and oratory delivered by those early patriots, those who sacrificed so much to build this country, has been trampled into the mud beneath the insolent heels of sophistry and treachery.
The APA writing style, currently favored among leftist indoctrinists, demands ambiguity, most simply by outlawing the use of commas where a verbal pause would, and should, occur, were their documents fit to be read aloud.
I like your writing, Luis. It would lose much of its meaning if you were to strictly follow current formal style. Two hundred years from now, I believe someone could read your stories and understand most of what you are trying to convey. Would you be more happy knowing that they might be more obsessed with dissecting your sentences and criticizing your usage of commas, than understanding the theme of the stories?
The founding fathers had style, and in variety. Yet the ideas they discussed were of paramount importance, and they put together a plan that has lasted two hundred years. Are we going to trade that for a comma, or a space?
I have to disagree with you there, Khep. We actually DO have a constitutional right not to have the government looking in without a warrant or consent. I don't want the goverment looking into my house.
That does NOT mean, however, that I have some kind of right to just do whatever in my home, that no private activity whatsoever between consenting adults can be regulated by a state government. The question of whether the government is entitled to look inside your home is totally unrelated to the question of whether any private activity in your home can ever be considered illegal.
If you don't like laws against private activities, then don't pass them, or repeal them. That's why we have legislatures in this country.
Exactly.
The anti-sodomy law in TX did not differentiate between a male/female couple and a male/male 'couple'.
The law was generally not enforced. It seems that it was in this case because the cops had broken in and needed to find some reason to justify their action (since they didn't find anything else). But I challenge you to cite instances where this law was enforced purely for its own sake.
The Supreme Court has held that certain long recognized and fundamental rights of American citizens, such as freedom of speech and political association, have been incorporated against state violations by 14th Amendment incorporation.
And you're right back to using disingenuous euphemisms to make your absurd PC equivalence between same sex sodomy and the right of free speech and political association.
For example:
I'll play along and point out to you that the right to privacy has been a fundamental right of all mankind since time began.
Let's compare that euphemistic falsehood with historical facts:
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).
Apparently you are calling this part, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," a "preamble". By today's standards, it is a dependent clause with an unnecessary comma.
This is the independent clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is independent because it can stand alone as a statement, with or without the previous clarifying clause.
I have no way of knowing "what you can plainly read". I simply pointed out some of what you obviously have not read, and that information is freely available at most libraries and on the internet.
Your arguments are identical to those of liberals who want to debate topics they refuse to learn anything about. Their frame of reference is only what they allow inside their myopic tunnel vision.
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them." -- Mark Twain
Yes, I agree. You're not paying much attention on this thread, are you? Did you even read the post you just replied to?
Why don't you go back and read some of my posts, beginning with the article at the top of the thread, written by me.
I think you and I completely agree on the sodomy issue--I'm just arguing that there are protections based on the fourth amendment that should be respected, that's all. We should be concerned about government snooping, that's all.
The right to self-defense is not enumerated in the Constitution, but it is as old as the ten commandments--it is a part of the universally recognized moral law that is older than the ten comandments, going back to Hammurabi and probably before. That is the reason we have it today, not based on some bogus modern legal theory, such as the absolute right to privacy.
Every civilized society in the history of man--the only exception I know of being contemporary Sweden, where you can actually be charged for resisting criminals with your bare hands--recognizes this right, even if they do not all let you have guns to exercise it with.
As you can see, our legal system and its concepts are obviously shaped most by our Constitution, but also by several thousands of years of tradition. And none of that tradition, not one bit, has ever given rise to your idea that no private act between adults within a home is ever an illegal act. Before Brennan et al took their wrecking ball to the constitution, no one had even suggested that sodomy and other private acts are by nature constitutionally protected and therefore cannot under any circumstances be regulated.
The issue of whether the government can spy on you is not the same issue as the so-called right to privacy, which holds that everything done in private is legal.
That is a separate issue from the question of whether any activity whatsoever, if done privately, is legal. That is the principle at the heart of this case, not the 4th amendment.
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.