"Somehow, I don't think people are just waiting for a cue from the SC to dump their spouses so they can sleep with their children."
(grin...)
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.
I would look at it the other way: it won't upset anyone who doesn't already hate Santorum. Another thing to note: Hispanics. If the GOP has the balls to make this an issue, the Democratic party of Texas could cease to exist, permanently. It could even make the GOP competitive in California.
Just as an aside, I wonder where PETA stands on this case?
I completely agree. That was my hope when I started the thread. I know there are a lot of FReepers out there who don't want to demonize homosexuals, and want to come off as reasonable people. But they don't understand just how UN-reasonble the other side of this case is.
But don't twist the 9th and 14th amendments into signifying something no-one imagined until they conjured up the penumbras they needed for Griswold.
F.R. needs to have a higher frequency of posts like yours.
F.R. should develop a 100 question bank (similar to Founders' Quiz, with substantive vs trivial questions) on the Declaration, Constitution, Fed and anti-Fed Papers, and Notes on the Convention and require answering one of those questions correctly prior to making a post.
After several hundred posts, even an illegal alien would know 100 of the most important concepts within those documents.
If he doesn't, then he needs to explain himself.
If he does, then he will suffer the political fallout and hurt the Republican party in general.
Not true.
I've always liked Santorum..have considered him a rising star in the Republican party.
I actually prefered Santorum over Frist for the post of Senate ML.
But this controversy has really made me wonder about his political judgement.
I don't begrudge him his personal religious beliefs when it comes to the issue of sexual morality, in fact I share them.
But he should know that the majority of Americans don't want a govt that attempts to regulate the private sexual behavior of consenting adults when it comes homosexuality and adultery.
As a result, I now think Santorum has made himself look stupid and intemperate and the fact that he hasn't been able to gracefully diffuse the controversy makes me serious question his leadership abilities.
The government isn't "peeping into bedroom windows" with such legalislation. Has the government peeped into your bedroom windows lately? Do you really fear that it will unless such legislation is struck down by a majority of SCOTUS justices acting as an unelected super-legislature?
There doesn't need to be a right to sodomy, and that's not what this case is about anyway, but I'll take your argument.
The Constitution isn't a document that details or lists our rights, the constitution is a document that places restrictions on the government where our rights are concerned. It also specifically details how the different branches work, interact, what the limitations of service are for elected officials, how they are elected, etc.
To think that the constitution details our rights is ridiculous.
Having said that, this case is about the right to privacy, and equal protection under the law as I see it.
The plaintiffs will win.
Fine. Then let them act like responsible citizens and elect legislatures that will repeal such laws. This isn't a question about the wisdom of such laws, but where the responsibility lies to pass or repeal them.
Then you approve of a panel of nine justices acting as a super-legislature.
"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."
You have this backwards. To say that homosexuals do not have the same right as heterosexuals in fact removes the right to equal protection under the law for a targeted category of citizens.
Santorum simply needs to tell us whether or not he believes police should be able to barge into the bedrooms of consenting adults and arrest them for homosexuality and adultery.
Why? The state can (and does) bust into your bedroom if your dealing crack cocaine there. An adverse ruling in this case will make that as illegal as the bust you posit. Further, very few of us live in fear of the "sex police" but wouldn't want sodomy, adultery, et al. sanctioned as legal activities. Why? Because we know (thanks to San Francisco) that once they are legal they will become "in your face" and then sanctioned as "protected" in some weird way so that cross dressing queers get a BETTER shot at a job than the rest of us.
"Somehow, I don't think people are just waiting for a cue from the SC to dump their spouses so they can sleep with their children."
(grin...)
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.