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

[weegee]

Had the men been caught in the bedroom and all sodomy outlawed, they still would have tried to overturn the law. "Discrimination" was a phoney argument in pursuing the case. There was some talk from their legal team in the years leading up to this; talk of "privacy" but "discrimination" was the primary issue they said that they would challenge. Any reason to believe that they wouldn't have been arrested or wouldn't have challenged the law?

[weegee]

Are Irish protected? Norse? etc.

Red hair is a heriditary trait. Or do you think that it is a lifestyle?

[weegee]

Minors are capable of consent, that is why some states have age of consent at 16.

[DannyTN]

Then we ban all sex? "

Heterosexual sex kept within the confines of marriage does not spread disease.

Homosexual sex is clearly the most prolific disease spreader. Texas was right. It should be banned.

[weegee]

Texas at any time could have changed the law, it chose not to, instead it chose to defend it.

Texas is the state. Texas courts could have challenged the law (or defend it) but I wanted to see the legislature address the issue. They did by not advancing a bill to strike down the law.

Blame the homosexual lobby for not being active enough in their efforts to get a bill passed.

[Hila]

If the supremes had used the Scriptures, they would have truly served this country well. What the heck do you want with the koran??????

[puroresu]

###If your argument were correct, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments would be meaningless###


You're wrong. Both of those amendments are designed to keep the federal government out of state matters. They are the last two amendments in the Bill of Rights, which was designed to restrain federal power and assure that sovereignty remained with the states.

Having listed several rights (free speech, etc.) that the federal government could not restrict in the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, there was some fear that it might be argued that the federal government could restrict rights not mentioned. So the ninth & tenth amendments were added to insure that couldn't happen. The ninth amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights (e.g., the right to peaceably assemble) does not deny or diparage the existence of rights not enumerated. Note that it's totally negative in its phrasing. The federal government (which is the entity the Bill of Rights applied to, not the states) may not DENY the existence of additional rights not mentioned in the Constitution. It does not empower them to grant those rights, or to require states to recognize them. It leaves states free to make the decision, by and with, of course, the consent of the voters.

That's why it took constitutional amendments to abolish slavery, give women the vote, etc. The feds couldn't just announce that under the ninth amendment they had found a right not to be enslaved, or a right of women to vote. There are NO federally enforeable rights in the ninth amendment. It is purely negative, designed to keep all branches of the federal government, including the courts, out of issues such as abortion, sodomy, and (prior to the 13th & 19th amendments) slavery and female suffrage.

To say that the ninth amendment is a blank grant of authority to the federal courts to "recognize" rights not found in the Constitution is totally absurd. The whole purpose of the entire Bill of Rights was that the feds had zero authority in such areas.

The ninth amendment would contradict the tenth amendment if your interpretation were correct. The tenth amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution to the states. You're saying the ninth amendment grants federal sovereignty on matters not mentioned in the Constitution and empowers federal courts to dictate state law on such matters.

In fact, the ninth amendment complements the tenth. The tenth says that when the Constitution addresses an issue, it is reserved to the states unless otherwise specified. The ninth says that when the Constitution doesn't address an issue, it's reserved to the states, period.

[sinkspur]

Homosexual sex is clearly the most prolific disease spreader. Texas was right. It should be banned.

How do you propose enforcing a ban against homosexual sex?

And, if you don't intend to enforce it, why have the law in the first place?

Even Justice Thomas said the law was "silly."

[ninenot]

When I was younger, I was dumber--as you seem to be.

Maybe you'll get older. Happened to me when my first daughter was around 5 and I started thinking about the ways in which I would utilize weapons technology on those young men who would be, ah, injudicious.

[ninenot]

What has changed is that it is easier to achieve political victories through the Supreme bozos than through the vote.

Texans still know what's right and wrong--it took the Supremes to impose their imbecility on Texas.

BTW--Texas could choose to ignore the Supremes and continue enforcing the law, and if Bush had any cojones, it would be a lot of fun to watch.

[DannyTN]

How do you propose enforcing a ban against homosexual sex? And, if you don't intend to enforce it, why have the law in the first place? Even Justice Thomas said the law was "silly."

Well admittedly it's hard to enforce. The stumbling across evidence like this case presented is very unusual, because of the real constitutional right against unreasonable searches.

It's simple. You prosecute whenever you have sufficient evidence. But you need to make medical records insufficient.

Therefore if someone publicly announces they had gay sex. You prosecute. If somebody films it. You prosecute. If the police catch them in the park, or any other public place. You prosecute.

[puroresu]

Typo alert: "enforeable" in my third paragraph in my post should be "enforceable".

[ninenot]

We differ. The law would have reached SCOTUS through ANY device that the Left could have dreamed up. Remember that Roe was before SCOTUS on what was really a 'phantom' complaint, too.

[ninenot]

The queer lobby knew full well that Texas would NEVER repeal that law. That's why they went to SCOTUS.

[liberalnot]

it was sarcasm. both the bible and the koran agree on this issue.

i don't understand why homo's gain so much bandwidth on this forum. who cares what they do? as long as they leave me alone.

i'm with bill o'reilly on this one.

[sinkspur]

But you need to make medical records insufficient.

I don't understand this.

Therefore if someone publicly announces they had gay sex. You prosecute.

What if 5,000 gay couples announce they had sex. You gonna prosecute 'em all?

If somebody films it. You prosecute.

Who films it? You gonna stick law enforcement cameras in people's bedrooms?

Your methods of enforcement are, simply, not workable, and that's why the law against consensual sex in bedrooms is "silly."

If the police catch them in the park, or any other public place. You prosecute.

Like heterosexuals. Public lewdness by anybody ought to be prosecuted.

[ninenot]

One enforces the law just as Texas did--occasionally, on legitimate complaint.

There are a lot of laws which are not enforced 100% of the time to the letter--speeding comes to mind, Sinky.

But the virtues promoted (or vices prohibited) by laws which comport with Natural Law are important and the State should, in fact, have such laws, regardless of the State's capability to enforce same.

[sinkspur]

BTW--Texas could choose to ignore the Supremes and continue enforcing the law,

Texas doesn't enforce the law, and didn't enforce, but that one ill-fated time.

This Supreme Court decision will have no effect on police departments in Texas.

[ninenot]

That's Texas' problem.

[DannyTN]

For reasons of public health, you don't want them refusing to be tested and contacting others that may have been exposed. Therefore you should exempt medical records.

What if 5,000 gay couples announce they had sex. You gonna prosecute 'em all?"

Yep.

Who films it? You gonna stick law enforcement cameras in people's bedrooms?

Nope, But somebody finds a picture on the internet with a texas landmark in the window. You prosecute.

Like heterosexuals. Public lewdness by anybody ought to be prosecuted.

Yep, except they would be hit with sodomy as well as lewdness charges.