Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dansangel
It is constitutionally consistent to say there's no fundamental constitutional right to sodomy under another part of the constitution (say the equal protection clause) and to also say that it's violative of due process to prosecute for private sex practices.

That said, I must add: I think this is a matter for the legislature, not the courts. I don't think there's anything in the constitution on this subject (or on abortion). It's for the people to decide through their elected representatives, not for the highly undemocratic institution of the courts to resolve.
112 posted on 06/26/2003 1:27:25 PM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: FreeTheHostages; All
What will the Supreme Court's decision mean for the military?

Today, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects the liberty of homosexual persons to engage in "intimate conduct" in accordance with their personal preferences. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy effectively demolished the Court's precedent from Bowers v. Hardwick, expressly overruling it and its holding that states could regulate the conduct of homosexual persons.

What does this mean for the current law banning gays in the military?

That ban exists as a matter of federal law -- 10 U.S.C. 654 -- and presumably can be overruled by a decision of the Supreme Court. I think that one of the first effects of Lawrence will be to trigger a challenge in U.S. District Court to the current policy banning gays in the military. That challenge will essentially cite Lawrence for the proposition that homosexual conduct is a fundamental right that the state cannot burden without some compelling interest -- and that the restrictions must be narrowly tailored to that compelling interest. The plaintiffs will argue that this policy (the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy) burdens the right of gay soldiers to engage in the conduct they want to, and that such a burden on a fundamental right is unconstitutional. Given the Court's holding today in Lawrence, I think that a lower court would almost certainly side with the plaintiffs.

The only possible savior for the military's ban will be the "national security" deference sometimes given to the Executive Branch and the military by the courts. In recent cases, such as challenges to President Bush's war on Iraq, the courts have expressly deferred to executive judgment on military matters, and left such issues to be decided by the political branches. Such "national security" deference was also invoked by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, where the Court upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

However, I don't think such deference will save the ban on gays in the ranks. The Court has held in religious freedom cases that the military can curtail certain personal freedoms, such as the right of Jews to wear certain religious garb. However, this is different. This ban places much more of a burden on the rights of gays than the military's uniform policies do, and this ban has a much more drastic effect (automatic discharge). After reading the Court's opinion in Lawrence, I think it's likely that this ban will be struck down as unconstitutional.

posted by Phillip at 8:21 AM

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_philcarter_archive.html#105664089655662077

114 posted on 06/26/2003 1:48:28 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson