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

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

[sinkspur]

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.

Well, I agree with Clarence Thomas. Unenforced laws are "silly" and should be repealed. They make a mockery of the legal system and there is no "right order" in a silly law.

[puroresu]

What I find so disturbing is that there's an attitude in our country, even among some so-called conservatives, that if you disagree with a law, then the courts should find some way to "get rid of that law". The left has had that attitude for years. Now we often see it among libertarians. "Gee, I don't like the law that bans sodomy, so I hope a federal judge interprets some imaginary provision hidden in the aura of the Bill of Rights as knocking it down". Yeah, that's really championing the conservative cause. It's like putting a wolf in the henhouse to protect the chickens from foxes.

[sinkspur]

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

Would you apply this to a heterosexual couple having anal sex in a public park?

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

Yep

A DA who spent precious taxpayer money prosecuting 5000 gay couples would be ridden out of town on a rail before he could do it.

[DannyTN]

"Would you apply this to a heterosexual couple having anal sex in a public park?"

Not under Texas law. But in a state where heterosexual anal sex is illegal I would. It's the state's right and the Fed's have no business overturning it.

"A DA who spent precious taxpayer money prosecuting 5000 gay couples would be ridden out of town on a rail before he could do it. "

Or he would be viewed as a hero for enforcing the law.

[sinkspur]

Or he would be viewed as a hero for enforcing the law.

No he wouldn't, not even in Texas.

[jde1953]

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

This was NOT such a case. The police were responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, which turned out to be a false report.

"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."

Except, of course, that Texas has no law banning bestiality in private. So I guess bestiality comports nicely with Natural Law.

[DannyTN]

"No he wouldn't, not even in Texas. "

The Texas I know he would. Louisiana and Tennessee too.

[sinkspur]

The Texas I know he would.

I live in Fort Worth. Tim Curry, Tarrant County DA, would never prosecute a gay for consensual sex. Under any circumstances.

I have two sons who are cops in Dallas. The department policy is to ignore calls against homosexuals, unless they are in a public place.

[DannyTN]

"I have two sons who are cops in Dallas. The department policy is to ignore calls against homosexuals, unless they are in a public place. "

Well, that's not an unreasonable policy. What are they going to do? Go get a search warrant and bang the door down 40 minutes later?

Or are they going to knock on the door? and see if they answer it while still performing the act?

At least they are going after the public acts.

[Travis McGee]

Great answer! Not.

Typical, run away from the question when you have no answer.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's not what could have happened, it happened that way.

There was no "phantom complaint". The men were arrested, charged, fined, and released.

[RealEstateEntrepreneur]

The number of states in which sodomy is legal was zero in 1960, 24 in 1986, and 37 in 2003--until today.

Why does the increase from 37 states to 50 states overturn 3,000 years of history?

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

So then, will you be lobbying for laws making fornication illegal?

How about adultery?

[DannyTN]

"So then, will you be lobbying for laws making fornication illegal? How about adultery? "

Adultery already has some pretty severe civil penalties when you think about it.

It's not that it's a bad idea. If you could stop adultery and fornication, it would mean and end to sexual diseases, out of wedlock pregnancies, and most abortions.

But I'm afraid just like Moses with divorce, that man's heart is too hard. I think the best we can do here is litigate around it, provide for divorce, provide for adoptions, and protect children and teenagers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let me find something and post it for you, read it and see what you think.

"SCALIA'S MORALITY OF PREJUDICE: Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence vs Texas is, as usual, interesting and not quite as chock-full of animus toward homosexual dignity as in the past. It comes down to two arguments: that an assertion of "morality" is justification enough for any law anywhere, regardless of its rationality; and that a law that covers only same-sex sodomy is not discriminatory toward homosexuals. Both ideas strike me as wrong. On the first count, surely the government does need to provide some kind of reasonable justification for a law expressing "morality," which doesn't just rely on what people have always believed or always assumed. One reason that this law was struck down is because its supporters couldn't come up with an argument that justified persecution of private sexual behavior, apart from the notion that stigmatizing gay sex was somehow good for families. Allowing sodomy for 97 percent of the population, while barring it for 3 percent cannot possibly be defended as a law designed to prevent or deter the immorality of sodomy. It was a law entirely constructed to stigmatize gay people. It had no other conceivable purpose. And when "morality" is simply a rubric under which to persecute a minority, then we don't really have the imposition of morality at all. We have the imposition of a prejudice. At least the Catholic Church makes no distinction between heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy. In fact, I know of no religious or moral tradition which makes the distinction that Texas law made until today. Scalia is not upholding any morality. He's upholding prejudice. As to his notion that the law doesn't single out gays because two straight guys getting it on would be criminalized as well, that's like saying that a law banning Jewish religious services is not anti-Jewish since goyim could not conduct such services either. It's the kind of sophistry you need to deny the obvious, hostile intent of the Texas law." --- Source.

[CobaltBlue]

A long time ago, shortly after Judge Bork was borked, he gave a speech at Tulane (my alma mater). After the speech, during the question-and-answer session, I asked him about Griswold vs. Connecticut, the original "penumbra" case, and whether he agreed, regardless of the "penumbra" language, that there was a constitutional right to privacy.

Either he wasn't ready for the question or he agreed that there was some sort of right to privacy, because at the time he did not think that Griswold was wrongly decided. At least, that's my recollection. Maybe because I reminded him of this:

>>The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.<<
Chatham's speech on General Warrants

In the case of McClurg vs. Brenton (123 Iowa, 368), the court, speaking of the right of an officer to enter a private house to search for stolen goods, said:
>>The right of the citizen to occupy and enjoy his home, however mean or humble, free from arbitrary invasion and search, has for centuries been protected with the most solicitous care by every court in the England-speaking world, from Magna Charta down to the present, and is embodied in every bill of rights defining the limits of governmental power in our republic.<<

Admittedly, the above cases have to do with warrantless searches, not contraception, which was the case in Griswold, but I think the principle is more general than that.

At any rate, I made Judge Bork think and he did not refute my argument.

[Labyrinthos]

Thanks for the info. I wish I had read it before dinner tonight. I could have used the additional ammunition.

[DannyTN]

"that an assertion of "morality" is justification enough for any law anywhere, regardless of its rationality"

In reading his dissent he said that the "majority concensus" had always been accepted as a basis for legislating sexual behavior. I would argue that it's really that concensus that is the basis of all our laws and notions of rights.

and that a law that covers only same-sex sodomy is not discriminatory toward homosexuals.

Here I would argue 1) So what if it's discriminatory against homosexuals? It is that behavior that the majority finds immoral. Same thing with pedophilia or incest or what have you. Homosexuals have never been a protected class and should not be. And 2) homosexual sodomy is different from heterosexual sodomy. In fact different states have defined "sodomy" differently. The fact is that the majority finds homosexual acts of sodomy more offensive more against nature, more immoral than they find heterosexual sodomy.

It was a law entirely constructed to stigmatize gay people. It had no other conceivable purpose.

I dissagree. The law was designed to stigmatize homosexual behavior. As such the law sought to prevent people turning into homosexuals in the first place. It may well have been designed as well to stigmatize homosexuals and drive them out of the community. It's no different treatment than we would give pedophiles.

"surely the government does need to provide some kind of reasonable justification for a law expressing "morality," which doesn't just rely on what people have always believed or always assumed"

No it doesn't. There is no other basis for any of our perceived rights and notions of fairness other than the majority consensus. Unless you are willing to recognize a work like the Bible as an authority. In ditching the majority consensus, the court imposed a minority viewpoint of morality with less justification than that with which the legislature had enacted.

[CobaltBlue]

Look, the case wasn't about the wisdom of sodomy, it was about whether it should be a felony, so that persons engaging in consensual sex acts should be liable to being imprisoned in the penitentiary.

Completely different things.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The law was designed to stigmatize homosexual behavior."

But not to stigmatize homosexuals...

Never mind.

Good night.