Flip-Flopping on Free Association

The Washington Post ^ | June 17, 2003 | Clint Bolick

[Luis Gonzalez]

Before this month is out, the Supreme Court will likely issue its second major decision in three years limiting government's power to infringe freedom of association. Both cases should be applauded by all who believe our Constitution is a charter of liberty.

But despite the fact that at their core both cases embrace the same constitutional values, most of those who cheered the first decision will revile the second, and vice versa. That is because the first decision upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude homosexuals as assistant scoutmasters, while the second likely will strike down a Texas law that prohibits homosexuals from engaging in voluntary sexual acts.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The underlying similarity between the two claims can be seen in the way the Boy Scouts framed their constitutional claim. In words that echoed the gay couple's claim in Texas, the Boy Scouts contended that the New Jersey anti-discrimination law violated their constitutional right "to enter into and maintain . . . intimate or private relationships."

[RAT Patrol]

Nice try liberal WP. But the Texas case is not about free association. If it were, the arrests would have been made at gay bars or gay polical meetings. Nope. They can do all the associating they want. It's their behavior that is regulated. Much the same way as the sexual behavior of relatives or adult/child relationships. (Some behavior is so perverse and harmful to society that it transcends privacy issues.) All can associate freely, none can have sexual relations. But then Santorum already made that argument.

They are free to argue the morality of the law in Texas, but it simply isn't a right in the U.S. Constitution, no matter how much the Washington Post wants it to be.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...the Boy Scouts contended that the New Jersey anti-discrimination law violated their constitutional right "to enter into and maintain . . . intimate or private relationships."

So then, you don't agree that the Boy Scouts should have their right to enter into and maintain intimate or private relationships?

I saw the initial Clintonian attack on the messenger...nice.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Nice try liberal WP.

Actually, Clint Bolick is a libertarian.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I guess you would be described in the paragraph below:

"Conservatives who agitate for "states' rights" strongly defend the authority of Texas to criminalize homosexual conduct. Yet they also support action by federal judges against the state of New Jersey when it seeks to prohibit discrimination aimed at avowedly gay scoutmasters. Liberals who champion the right of homosexuals to freely choose their partners on the basis of sexual orientation would deny to Boy Scouts the freedom to choose their own leaders on the same basis."

[Cyber Liberty]

Institute for Justice. His group's saving a friend's brake shop in Mesa, AZ.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"All can associate freely, none can have sexual relations."

Texas laws allow for sodomy between heterosexual couples, thus basing the criminality of the act on the gender of the individuals engaged in it.

Laws are supposed to apply to ALL citizens...equally.

The gender of the participant does not matter in the case of pedophiles, it is wrong for an adult to have sex with a minor regardless of the sex of the people involved, it is wrong for certain relatives to marry, regardless of the sex of the couple.

Laws that draw a distinction on the criminality of the act based on the sex of the individual involved are clearly wrong.

We are all just citizens in the eyes of the law.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Please explain.

[RAT Patrol]

Yet they also support action by federal judges against the state of New Jersey when it seeks to prohibit discrimination aimed at avowedly gay scoutmasters.

Clearly different. The wording is manipulated. What NJ calls "discrimination" is really free association. Is it discrimination to not allow persons with a criminal record? How about pornographers or strippers or something? Surely they can "discriminated" against avowed adulters.

Sodomy is not free association any more than incest or pedophilia etc... You can associate with whomever you wish. You cannot do whatever you want. Apples and oranges.

[RAT Patrol]

I saw the initial Clintonian attack on the messenger...nice.

What? Because I called them liberal? LOL!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Sodomy is not free association any more than incest or pedophilia etc... You can associate with whomever you wish. You cannot do whatever you want."

So why then, is sodomy NOT a criminal act for heterosexuals in Texas...it seems that THEY (heterosexuals in Texas) can do whatever they want to do.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And because you were wrong...the author is not a liberal.

[narby]

Laws that draw a distinction on the criminality of the act based on the sex of the individual involved are clearly wrong.

So, it should be perfectly legal for same sex marrage?

[TLBSHOW]

thanks for the ping my friend.

[RAT Patrol]

Heterosexuals can't do anything they want to do. They are restricted too. The main problem I have with your question is the presumption that there is a class of heterosexuals and a class of homoseuxals. I don't buy that. Across the board, no one can sodomize a member of the same sex in Texas. Now, you can think Texans right or wrong, but that's not unequal. No one can do it. That means everyone equally can't do it.

Don't forget that these laws against sodomy have existed pretty much in every state since our nation was founded. Conservatives are not forcing anything; they are defending the moral foundation that has existed in this country from the start. All you have to do is read the news to see that this issue does not stay in a persons bedroom. It's flaunted in workplaces, paraded down streets, pushed in schools, promoted on television, supported with tax dollars (AIDS research, sex-ed, etc...), forced on vulnerable foster and adoptive children, etc... When moral lines are not clear, judgements in other areas are thrown off.

[Cyber Liberty]

Clint Bolick, if he's the same Cliff I've known, heads up Institute for Justice, a conservative legal group.

They got involved with an eminent domain taking of my friend's brake shop in Mesa, AZ. Seems the city wants to give Randy Bailey's land to a local Tru-Value Hardware guy.

If it hasn't run already, this is due on 60 Minutes soon...they had the camera crews out a couple of weeks ago.

[RAT Patrol]

I disagree. Marriage is wrong for same-sex couples and not opposite-sex couples. Same with adoption (possibly). Once you classify people by their behaviors and claim every law must equate the divisions, you argue yourself into a box and basically eliminate all reason for any laws whatsoever. "Because I want to and so do they" doesn't qualify a group for minority status.