Sodomy ruling damages freedom (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people)

townhall ^ | June 28, 2003 | David Limbaugh

[Camber-G]

... When our constitutional freedoms are planted in the unstable footings of moral relativism, they are but a step away from extinction. This is what Christians mean (and what Adams meant) in saying that no matter how brilliantly crafted our Constitution, it will not survive as a liberty-preserving instrument without moral underpinnings. Indeed our liberties are insured by limitations on government rooted in moral absolutes ...

This is a great article, focusing on the main problem with the SCOTUS ruling, as compared to the case application (homosexual act privacy) which has garnered the great majority of comments. The excerpt I copied above really stood out for me.

Thanks for posting.

[Jorge]

I'm a faithful Rush fan, but it seems his dooms day alarmism has spread to his brother.

The idea that this is some watershed decision that marks a turning point for morality in America is just silly.

We're talking about the America which is infamous around the world as a leader in pornography...where people like Howard Stern are elevated to mega star status and made rich. The idea that because police can't peep into peoples bedrooms and bust them for homosexual acts is the end of anything significant in this country is a joke.

Most state repealed sodomy laws years ago.

Where have these two been?

[Luis Gonzalez]

What I don't understand is the fact that everyone is carrying on about how bad sodomy is, and how it is a sin in the eyes of God, but not a single one of them condemn Texas' decision to legalize it for 97% of their citizens.

Maybe, just maybe, if the citizens of Texas had not decided that they didn't want legal trouble if caught being sodomized by, or sodomizing their wives or sweethearts, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[MHGinTN]

Will this ruling remove from a harmed spouse the right to sue for divorce based on adultery the 'other' commits 'with a consenting adult, in private'? Yes ... and that is but one of the 'watersheds' (read destructive erosions) this ruling from the black robed philospher kings will cause.

[jlogajan]

Will this ruling remove from a harmed spouse the right to sue for divorce based on adultery

Umm, huh? You can divorce for any reason these days.

[jlogajan]

What I don't understand is the fact that everyone is carrying on about how bad sodomy is, and how it is a sin in the eyes of God, but not a single one of them condemn Texas' decision to legalize it for 97% of their citizens.

That's because it is typical "laws for thee but not for me" religious hypocrisy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Marvin, when you enter into a marriage, you enter into it with an agreement to not committ adultery.

Adultery is not illegal anywhere as far as I know, but this decision would not impact the right of a spouse to divorce on the grounds of adultery.

[MHGinTN]

That there are laws proscribing adultery will be called into question since the behavior is between 'consenting adults, in private' ... the laws proscribing adultery are now void for anyone wishing to challenge them, thus the protection a spouse had, derived from the legal proscription on adultery, is now void also.

[Jorge]

Maybe, just maybe, if the citizens of Texas had not decided that they didn't want legal trouble if caught being sodomized by, or sodomizing their wives or sweethearts, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Good point.
If people didn't think they could get away with their hypocrisy and bigotry when it comes to enforcing sodomy laws ONLY against gays...this issue would have NEVER needed to be decided by the Supreme Court.

The people of Texas would have removed these laws from the books years ago.

[F16Fighter]

"The idea that because police can't peep into peoples bedrooms and bust them for homosexual acts is the end of anything significant in this country is a joke."

Now that you can leave your blinds opened without all those police who used to do all that "peeping," you must be soooo relieved, eh??

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...the laws proscribing adultery are now void for anyone wishing to challenge them..."

Not at all Marvin, marriage is a contract, and not committing adultery is part of that contract, violating that contract has nothing to do with "privacy".

[MHGinTN]

I see you don't want to get the point. So be it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No Marvin, your point is wrong.

One thing has nothing to do with the other no matter how much you want to try and make it fit.

If you enter into a marriage contract with an agreement of monogamy, there is no "privacy" protection if you break that contract.

[Jorge]

... the laws proscribing adultery are now void for anyone wishing to challenge them, thus the protection a spouse had, derived from the legal proscription on adultery, is now void also.

Sorry but this is one more illogical disconnected conclusion regarding the Supreme Court ruling.

Adultery is a violation of the marriage contract whether it is public or private.

Saying consenting adults may have sex in private without the sex police breaking down their door and arresting them...doesn't free anybody from their marriage vows and responsibilities.

[nunya bidness]

Get used to it. The sound and fury doesn't address the opinion. I read it, I read Bowers, I chased the statutes, and I came to the same conclusion that the Supremes came to as well.

The blame should be laid squarely on the shoulders of the Texas legislature and courts for writing, charging, and sentencing this abomination.

The one thing from the opinion that no one is talking about is what justice Kennedy wrote, "...They [the police] entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence, resided. The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned."

[Jorge]

"The idea that because police can't peep into peoples bedrooms and bust them for homosexual acts is the end of anything significant in this country is a joke."

Now that you can leave your blinds opened without all those police who used to do all that "peeping," you must be soooo relieved, eh??

I wouldn't know. Not everybody views this decision from your perspective.

But once again we do see that those who cannot challenge a post on it's merits need to resort to juvenile wise-cracks.

[Rebellans]

Excellent article by Mr. Limbaugh. What so many people are overlooking is that the main issue here is not sodomy but our Constitutional system of government. This decision, like Roe thirty years ago, was an instance of judicial fiat -- the majority of nine black-robed lawyers simply decided to overturn a state law they didn't like, disregarding precedent and the Constitution itself.