Michelangelo's David.
Exhibit 2:
FReeper's version of Michelangelo's David
Posted on 06/28/2003 7:08:52 AM PDT by Polycarp
Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?
CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter
June 27, 2003
**********************************************
There has been a lot of lot of talk since yesterday's Supreme Court decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, a dispute over Texas' law making sodomy illegal. The Supreme Court overturned that law by a vote of 6 to 3, saying that such laws "demean the lives of homosexual persons" and infringe upon their right to privacy.
Let me tell you right now: Lawrence is a devastating decision, worse than most people think -- and for reasons that haven't fully dawned on them yet.
I have to admit, the implications of this decision hadn't occurred to me yet, either, but after talking to my friend Professor Robert George of Princeton this morning, I can say that this is without question the most damaging decision handed down by the courts since Roe v. Wade -- one that will have even more far-reaching effects than its predecessor.
George is a political philosopher and a very smart guy. He pointed out a few things about the decision that I hadn't noticed. And because this decision is so huge, I wanted to make sure that I passed on his concerns to you.
Believe me, this is vitally important.
First, a little background history. As you may already know, Roe v. Wade based its decision to make abortion legal upon a woman's right to privacy, which the court found in the 14th amendment in the Constitution. The problem is, the 14th amendment doesn't give a person a right to privacy. What the 14th amendment REALLY guarantees is that no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law." You won't find a right to privacy here or in any other part of the Constitution.
The 14th amendment only protects rights by due process, meaning that they can't be taken from you except by formal procedures in accordance with established law. In other words, you can't be executed (deprived of life), jailed (deprived of liberty), or fined (deprived of property) without the government going through the proper procedure of arresting you, giving you a fair trial, and so on.
So what does this have to do with a right to privacy? Absolutely nothing. And yet this is what the Roe decision is based on. Legal scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, have denounced this faulty reasoning that they call "substantive due process." It's really a contradiction in terms: Instead of simply guaranteeing that you will receive certain treatment by the law, the law has been stretched to mean that you will also be guaranteed a certain RESULT.
What began in Roe has now come to fruition in Lawrence: A certain privileged class of actions is being protected from legal restriction by the Supreme Court. First abortion, now sodomy -- what will be next? Euthanasia?
It's up to the people to vote into effect certain laws through their legislature. It's the only fair way of guaranteeing that what the people want becomes the law of the land, rather than what a few justices on the Supreme Court want.
But this, George explained to me, is what happened in Roe v. Wade. The justices forced their hand to produce a certain outcome. Since then, the Supreme Court has avoided using the tricky (and completely false) "substantive due process" rationale in deciding cases.
That is, until now.
The six justices who voted to repeal the sodomy law yesterday did so because they said the law produced an unfair outcome -- unfair because it discriminates against homosexuals.
But the law was enacted according to the rules of due process -- the people supported it, the state legislature wrote it, and the governor signed it. There is nothing unfair about the process it underwent in becoming law. If people today feel that the law is unfair or outdated, they can vote to repeal it just as they voted to enact it, and THAT would be a fair process.
But for the COURT to say that the law produced an unfair outcome takes this power from the people and puts it in the hands of nine Supreme Court justices. This was certainly never the intention of the 14th amendment.
Nevertheless, that's what the Supreme Court did. And not only that -- in his statement for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy made his decision so broad that ANY case that comes before the court in the future could appeal to "substantive due process" to dispense with the law and get the outcome they want.
And that is what's really scary about this decision. With Roe, the decision applied only to abortion rights. But with Lawrence, the door has been opened for other kinds of sexual behavior to be exempted from restrictive legislation as well.
For example, if a case comes before the Supreme Court arguing in favor of incest, according to the Lawrence decision, there's no reason why incest should be outlawed. The court no longer has any principled basis for upholding laws that prohibit incest, bigamy, bestiality, you name it.
So what does this mean for the future? Well, think about this: Because Texas' sodomy law has been struck down, all the remaining states with sodomy laws will have to dispense with them as well.
And what about homosexual marriage? The Massachusetts legislature is considering that issue right now. If they decide in favor of it, any homosexual marriage contracted in Massachusetts has to be acknowledged in every other state.
With sodomy laws still in place, this wouldn't have been the case. No state is forced to accept contracts from another state that go against their own laws and policies. But now that the sodomy laws will be removed, no state has a legal defense against homosexual marriage. They'll all fall like dominoes.
The LAST HOPE for defeating homosexual marriage lies in a Constitutional amendment that explicitly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Alliance for Marriage, headed up by Matt Daniels, is leading the way in calling for the Federal Marriage Amendment to do just that.
If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk. The homosexual agenda will have won the day.
And this is why it's absolutely CRUCIAL that Catholics, Evangelicals, and all social conservatives in America band together NOW to stop them. There has been infighting among the groups in the past -- some think the Federal Marriage Amendment is too strong, others think it isn't strong enough -- but we have to put those differences aside and make the best we can with what we have.
CRISIS ran an article on just this problem in our July/August issue last year, "Can Same-Sex Marriage Be Stopped?", encouraging people to take note of the slow change that is already beginning. With Lawrence decided, we can't spare another minute. Visit the Alliance's Website, www.allianceformarriage.org, to find out more about how you can help.
I hate to end on such a grim note before the weekend, but I wanted to get this out to you as quickly as I could. The sooner we understand the danger that marriage in America is in, the sooner we can act to save it.
Til next time, Deal
Michelangelo's David.
Exhibit 2:
FReeper's version of Michelangelo's David
Only during peacetime.
We are not at peace.
Obviously, a contract to ship drugs to one another is illegal on it's face, but for example a law that stated same sex people can not engage in a contract to sell ice cream to one another would be struck down without blushing.
I do believe there does need to be a constitutional amendment on this one.
Let's just forget the ceremony. If two guys or two gals write a contract that states, I agree to reside with you forever. I agree to provide for you no matter what circumstances befall you. If you or I engage in sexual relations with somebody other than within this contract, we both have the option to void this contract. We are also free to void this contract at a penalty of 50% of the joint assets that we have amassed since it's date of existence if we so choose.
Ok, these two gals sign this contract. One with better legal and stylistic language of course. One of these gals hits the lottery, and decides, hey I don't want to share, the country doesn't recognize our relationship, so I will take a skate here.
The other partner petitions the court for the terms of this agreement to be upheld, the defendent uses the argument that since they are lesbians and this is a quasi marriage contract, it is void because of the illegality of gay marriage.
That is how it is going to be decided by the courts I believe. Something along these lines will bring it to the Supremes. Legally, I don't see how they can uphold the Unequal treatment. It is all fine and good to say that this country has moral values, and history in that regard, so you can skip gay marriage, but this is a contract, entered in good faith at the time it was signed.
Sodomy is a behavior. To outlaw it, either wholly or in part, or not, is not legislated prejudice.
So it is a natural and fair question to ask if you engage in acts of homosexual sex?
They didn't, they legalized consensual sodomy between members of the opposite sex, for everyone.
There is not an equal protection component to the matter at hand.
There is no Constitutional basis for the federal government to extend a privilege of sodomy, or immunity from prosecution of it, to anyone. It's simply not a federal matter. There is no application of the 14th Amendment.
Well you're wrong but why don't you get to the point. I consider anal intercourse, beastiality, and homosexual sex of whatever kind perverse.
Oral sex between men and women is not something I would put in that category.
Any other questions?
As does the majority in this Supreme Court decision, which does not support your contention that there is a "right to privacy" component in play here.
Sodomy as a behavior was not outlawed for 97% of the population of Texas, it was however outlawed for a minority of the citizens of the State.
That's my opinion, yes, and it's been my impression, based on your posts, that it is yours as well, even though we disagree on the particulars of where the SCOTUS will prove to be unwise in future rulings. Do I have that accurately?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.