U.S. Supreme Court rewrites Constitution and 3,000 years of history

Alliance Defense Fund | 6/26/03 | Richard K. Jefferson

[Polycarp]

U.S. Supreme Court rewrites

Constitution and 3,000 years of history

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today rewrote the U.S. Constitution and 3,000 years of legal history by striking down the Texas sodomy law in a 6-3 decision.

The court overrode the Constitution, the history of American law, and its own precedent by declaring in Lawrence v. Texas that there is a right to privacy to protect private, adult consensual sexual activity. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, and only Justices Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rhenquist dissented. The majority reasoned, unbelievably, that because of the trend in state legislatures to repeal sodomy laws, these laws have become unconstitutional.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, said the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined an interpretation finding in the Constitution a right to engage in the act of sodomy.

“We are disappointed but we’re not giving up hope and we’re not going away,” said Jordan Lorence, a senior litigator with the Alliance Defense Fund. “This ruling provides us with new opportunities. We have already prevailed in other key cases, and we must persevere.” The Alliance Defense Fund supported the prevailing parties in Hurley v. Irish-American Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

In its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, the court upheld laws against sodomy. Then Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in his concurring opinion “… in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.” Burger continued: “Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards…[Sir William] Blackstone described ‘the infamous crime against nature’ as an offense of ‘deeper malignity’ than rape, a heinous act ‘the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature’ and ‘a crime not fit to be named.’ To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

“It would have been a better day if the court had taken Burger’s words to heart, and followed its own holding in Bowers, and 3,000 years of history and precedent,” Lorence said.

The Alliance Defense Fund serves people of faith; it provides strategy, training, and funding in the legal battle for religious liberty, sanctity of life, and traditional family values.

Richard K. Jefferson Senior Director National Media Relations Alliance Defense Fund rjefferson@alliancedefensefund.org (480) 444-0020 15333 North Pima Road, Suite 165 Scottsdale, AZ 85260

[Polycarp]

Its no longer a slippery slope. Its a free fall.

[cincinnati65]

So much for the "compelling interest" argument, eh?

[AntiGuv]

The Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, said the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined an interpretation finding in the Constitution a right to engage in the act of sodomy.

The framers of the Constitution didn't include the 14th Amendment into the document (obviously enough) upon which this case revolved; however, their inclusion of a clause permitting future amendments implies that they could have imagined that anything may at some point get added to the Constitution...

[maryz]

The majority reasoned, unbelievably, that because of the trend in state legislatures to repeal sodomy laws

Refresh my memory -- wasn't there another Supreme Court case in the last few months in which the "reasoning" was similar -- that the decision was justified because of a trend in changes to local laws? I think it was O'Connor who wrote that one, but I could be wrong.

[RJCogburn]

The Court was quite correct on this.

Far more damage to our country was done by Justice O'Connor and friends on the Michigan Law School ruling.

[John Beresford Tipton]

I think it was juvenile death penalty case, but not sure.

[maryz]

Thanks, now that you mention it, I think was death penalty, but it may have been mentally deficient -- I mean the accused, not the Court . . . oh, wait . . .

[jlogajan]

“We are disappointed but we’re not giving up hope and we’re not going away,” said Jordan Lorence, a senior litigator with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Forget it, it's over. It isn't coming back, just like slavery isn't coming back. Yeah, prohibiting slavery overturned 4000 years of history and Biblical approval of same, also. To bad.

[AntiGuv]

That ruling was Atkins v Virginia issued last year, which established that it's 'cruel & unusual' for the severely mentally handicapped to get the death penalty.

[Labyrinthos]

The Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, said the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined an interpretation finding in the Constitution a right to engage in the act of sodomy.

Nor could they have imagined automatic and semi-automatic firearms, which must mean that we're not allowed to possess them under the Second Amendment, right?

To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

Although I have not read the court's decision yet, I doubt the court elevated homosodomy to a fundemental right, but rather, reaffirmed the fundemental right to privacy and equal protection under the laws.

[ewing]

O'Connor must retire soon..

[JudgemAll]

The Supreme court simply declared itself out of usefulness, giving up its job to the legislature and mobs and medias, PC etc...

[metacognative]

In the privacy of your home..anything goes

[liberalnot]

if the supremes had used the koran they would have come up with a decision acceptable to many on this forum.

[.45MAN]

It looks like this is the beginning of the end of the Constitution of the U.S and the end of the laws of humanity as we know them..

[Paul C. Jesup]

You don't know much Roman history do you.

[CobaltBlue]

>>In the privacy of your home..anything goes<<

Errrr, not at all. You can't use illegal drugs, you can't have sex with children, the list goes on and on.

On the other hand, it's no longer illegal to engage in oral sex with your spouse.

[HatSteel]

Face facts. The homosexuals have won the culture. There is no turning back UNTIL the culture either pays a terrible price or meets its demise.

It seems that Sodom and Gomorrah got to the point where those inhabitants felt it was their RIGHT to FORCE their sexual advances on others. (Impossible, you say? Then you've not been listening to the radical gays and to Nambla.)

When we get to that point, when good people look the other way, then we can rightly say, "If God doesn't respond here, then he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah."

[Radix]

I thought that you had to overturned in order to have sodomy!