Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter ^ | 6/27/03 | Deal Hudson

[sinkspur]

I appreciate your very thoughtful and considered reply.

It's given me some food for thought.

[Polycarp]

Will do, Pram. I've added you to my ping list.

[Polycarp]

Let's work together, shall we?

Yes, I'll behave now. Mea culpa ;-)

[jwalsh07]

I agree that young men raped by men would suffer more trauma than young men raped by women

Then, by logical necessity, you must agree that there is a rational basis for disparate sentencing for homosexual and heterosexual rape. To think otherwise would defy common sense.

[MalcolmS]

>>>Isn't the right to privacy a part of the 9th Amendment? <<<


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I don't see any specific mention of privacy. As I understand the history, the right to privacy cited in Roe v. Wade required the court to detect a penumbra (shadow) in the constitution to cover privacy. Some claim it is implied by the right not to have unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

[WOSG]

First, you think a 14-year-old retarded boy being not 'unwilling' I find that rather callous in the extreme, that doesnt make it any less *statutory* rape.

I guess if a pedophile could make a 9 year old say 'yes', that's okay in your book?!? That is the NAMBLA thinking and very destructive.

"The majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, as are the majority of pedophilic acts."

lets see around 2-4% of general population is homosexual, yet around 25-40% of pedophilia cases, in many instances the worst kinds, are homosexual. Why are you trying to evade the obvious distinctions?


see this article for example:


http://www.dadi.org/mpw_qtx2.htm

"The data from Gomes-Schwartz must now be seen in a different light. While only 5% of the population, gay males account for approximately 22% of the molested children. (The percentage of perpetrators who are female is negligible). If gays were no more active as child abusers than heterosexuals, then we would expect only about 5% of the victims to be boys molested by men. Instead we see that the proportion of victims of this type is more than four times greater than 5%. These findings are corroborated by Wurtele and Miller-Perrin, who report that from 24% to 40% of the child victims referred to treatment were boys.23 This disproportionality ought, at the very least, to inspire more thorough investigation by researchers. Instead it appears that, among those who should be taking professional responsibility for documenting and treating this problem, the data collection procedures and classification schemes currently gaining favor are obstructing politically neutral inquiry and leading to the demonization of heterosexual males."


From the article linked previously ...

"Rushfeldt stresses that pedophiles come in both homosexual and heterosexual forms, but there are differences between the two that need to be understood. "Do you treat the cocaine addict the same way you treat the alcoholic? If a priest abuses young boys, that's a homosexual act, and we have to recognize it as such if we want to help him."

Asked why the link exists in the first place, Rushfeldt, a former addiction counsellor, says part of the answer lies in the availability of sex. "Sex addicts generally need instant gratification. They have a very low threshold for delaying gratification, and it's much easier to manipulate a young boy into having sex than it is to manipulate another man." He adds that homosexual pedophilia is influenced by other factors as well.

"There's a distinct quality about male homosexuality that gay men tend to be attracted to young, good-looking guys. Another part of pedophilia's appeal is the power the pedophile feels in manipulating the boy. It's a combination of things."

[bvw]

As I read Lawrence, the condition known as Moral Turpitude has been gutted. Certainly for conmsensual sex. Over time as the damage of this novel amoral theory of law expands, more and mopre of what constitutes Moral Turpitude will be eliminated. We end up with the worst of men as Police, as Teachers and Professors, as Justices.

We had in my own town a Police Chief who favored people and harassed others -- if he didn't like a man he'd have his officers follow the man's sons and ticket them for the smallest infraction. If you were from a family he liked -- you might be stopped for speeding, but the ticket would get lost. This went on for years and became worse not better.

However he was stopped in the next State by the State Troopers at a motel with another man's wife. The man had called it in. The Troopers called the local municipal officials -- under threat of a charge of moral turpitude the Chief resigned.

With the Law of the Land after Thursday, that Chief is still on duty, making live miserable for all and aggravating the contentions between people. That is NOT a good outcome.

(Note: this is a "close enough to the truth" version -- some facts are different.)

* * * * *

Anyway you are celebrating the onset of chaos and petty tyrannies -- eventually wholesale tyranny -- by celebrating this decision.

Check out these cases of Moral Turpitude, open your head and heart:

1. NY Judge Removed For Moral Turpitude
   New York Lawyer
   February 14, 2003

   The Commission on Judicial Conduct has determined that Calvin M. Westcott, a town court judge in Hancock, Delaware County, should be removed for having sex with a mentally retarded woman entrusted to his care, the New York Law Journal reports.

   In November, Westcott was convicted of endangering the welfare of a mentally retarded person, a crime of moral turpitude, according to the commission.

   The state Constitution provides that upon conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, a judge shall be removed from office.

2. "Beware the 'no's of the campus sex triangle - harassment, conflict of interest, abuse of trust"
   Dr Martin is senior lecturer in the Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, Australia
   Campus Review, 11-17 March 1993, p. 8

   What about sex between staff and students where both sides agree to participate? As a result of a serious case involving a tutor, the sexual harassment committee at the University of Wollongong began looking into this issue in late 1991.

   We were concerned about two types of problems associated with "consensual" staff-student sex. The first is a conflict of interest, such as where a teacher has sex with one (or more) of his or her students. In this situation, the teacher cannot be, or be seen to be, an objective assessor of the student's academic work. A conflict of interest should be grounds for complaint by anyone affected, including colleagues and other students.

   The other type of problem is abuse of trust. An academic is under an implicit obligation to foster the intellectual development of students. The trust that a student puts in the academic for this purpose can be abused when the relationship becomes sexual. But it is difficult for others to say whether trust has been abused -- only the student should be able to make a complaint.

3. The Orr Case -- Excerpts from "Gross Moral Turpitude"
   

   In court Suzanne gave details of regular assignations at several different beaches, usually sandbanks (the professor carried a rug in his car) and once on a piece of Burnie-board at his partially completed house. In most cases they were unobserved, although 'two men and a dog' passed close by on one beach and at Bellerive beach Orr's car got stuck in a ditch and they had togo to a nearby house to get a tow. Once the university accountant saw her at the house site, even though she tried to hide. Some time after her nineteenth birthday they moved Indoors to the bedroom at his home. It was, after all, the middle of winter.

   When questioned about why she did not resist Orr, Suzanne said 'he did have some sort of power over me ... all through our association I held back and was talked into things by Professor Orr.' She had not intended the sexual relationship 'but I suppose I got into such a state that I thought it would be rather peculiar if I didn't or that it would be wrong or something like that.' She felt that Orr did have a powerful hold on her. She was very suggestible. Over two years of lectures she had come to identify totally with his ideas. '

4. SELECTION OF RESERVE OFFICERS
   IOWA STATE RESERVE LAW OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION

   As a matter of policy, the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy Council has used the definition set forth in IAC, Chapter 2.1(5) (hiring standards for regular enforcement officers) as the definition of moral turpitude. This rule states in part or crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to another person, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between person and person. It is conduct that is contrary in justice, honesty or good morals. The following nonexclusive list of acts has been held by the courts to involve moral turpitude: Income Tax Evasion, perjury, or its subornation, theft, indecent exposure, sex crimes, conspiracy to commit a crime, defrauding the government and illegal drug sales. Various factors, however, may cause an offense which is generally not regarded as constituting moral turpitude to be regarded as such. For example, a record of a number of convictions for simple assault would involve moral turpitude, whereas a single act would not.

[Bryan]

Here's something interesting. The Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas rejected stare decisis. The Bowers decision is 17 years old, and they reversed it without hesitation. You suggest that Lawrence may be worse than Roe, but I believe it provides the key to unlocking Roe and other decisions like it that are eroding the social structure of America.

If Bowers can be reversed, then Roe can be reversed. And so can Lawrence.

[aristeides]

If Bowers can be reversed, then Roe can be reversed.

Scalia points that out in his dissent.

If Bush appoints pro-life justices, Lawrence will be the basis of reversing Roe. The irony would be delicious. I wish I could be sure Bush is going to appoint pro-life justices.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"The sky is falling!"
"The sky is falling!"
"The sky is falling!"

If only the present crisis was that fixable.

[A. Pole]

Mr Justice Kennedy, for the Court: "These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex".

This is much more worse than using the argument of privacy. At least about the privacy many people who still want to adhere to the rules of morality, can agree that policing peoples bedrooms is not a good thing.

But when the issue is defined in the context of liberty - the vices (probably others are in the queue) acquire the ultimate protection - even to be publicly displayed, to be celebrated and promoted by the state. The liberty itself gets redefined as a licence.

Other quote from Kennedy's statement:
"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government." ( AP, Sat, Jun 28, 2003, by Anne Gearan

"Full right to engage in their conduct" without limits of privacy?

[Jim Noble]

Well, I agree with everything you say, but I still think that the criterion of "emerging awareness" is the worst part of this whole mess.

We have successfully avoided since 1793 the disaster that befell France, because we have not accepted any method to determine the "general will" except the election of our representatives and latterly our senators.

Now, Anthony Kennedy and the rest of the Committee of Public Safety can discern the will of the people by consulting "references" to an "emerging awareness".

As I posted before, this is very bad, and it is bad irregardless of the result.

[Holden Magroin]

The Supreme Court can't invalidate a Constitutional amendment.

The Court also can't say that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of undue search and seizure constitutes a right to abortion, but it did.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are right, the Republicans enacted this unconstitutional, knee-jerk time bomb.

This is the sort of thing that kills us. We stand behind a clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation such as the DoMA, never giving full tought to the consequences, then, when a Court declares that it is clearly unconstitutional, we cry foul, and blame activist Judges instead of idiotic members of Congress.

You claim that this verbiage actually supports the DoMA:

"Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

You say that somewhere in there, the Constitution has granted the Federal government the ability to legislate an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause...it's not there.

The DoMA is a good example of the Federal government acting in excess of its power.

"The federal Constitution protects state sovereignty by limiting what the federal government may do, i.e., by defining the federal government's "enumerated powers." The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to create a categorical exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thereby inviting states to disregard the official acts of other states. Rather, the Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to enact general laws and to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Simply stated then, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not allow Congress to decree that a state action which is disfavored by Congress on substantive grounds may be disregarded by states that share the congressional viewpoint. Taken to its logical extreme, were Congress to have the power it deems it has by proposing the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress could next declare that one state need not recognize a no-fault divorce of a sister state, or need not recognize a punitive damages award in excess of $100,000. Obviously, Congress could not enact such legislation." -- Source.

This Act is in actuality an afront to State's rights.

Your California Proposition 22 is in direct conflict with the recently passed Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibility Act of 2003. It will be interesting to see how this Act, Proposition 22, the DoMA, and the 14th Amendment interact with one another in the huge legal mess you have headed your way.

The more Laws we enact to control the behavior of homosexuals, the more strenght we will give to their claim that homosexuals should received the strict scrutiny afforded all protected classes of citizens.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You think discrimination against motocycle riders is a wonderful, but discrimination against those engaged in sodomy is a terrible thing."

There are no laws that say that most motorcycle riders do not have to wear helmets, but some do. In each State, either all have to wear the helmet, or none do.

This law stated that most people could commit sodomy, but some could not.

Your herrings are starting to stink up the joint.

[FreedomCalls]

I don't see any specific mention of privacy [in the 9th Amendment].

The whole point of the 9th is NOT to mention any specifically. Do you mean to imply that the 9th, by not specifically mentioning other rights, does no allow the people to retain ANY rights other than those specifically mentioned in the others? What rights do you see in the 9th then?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The only way DMA becomes a Constitutional crisis is through the clutching at power of judicial activists..."

Funny, one who claims to be such a "conservative" condoning the Federal government's violations of the US Constitution.

Show me where in the Constitution the Congress is given power to legislate an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[lentulusgracchus]

SCOTUS is out of control.

More to the point, what the hell is the matter with Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy? These people were Reagan appointees, but they're writing stuff that sounds like they're channeling Wm. O. Douglas and Earl Warren.

[lentulusgracchus]

Now, Anthony Kennedy and the rest of the Committee of Public Safety can discern the will of the people by consulting "references" to an "emerging awareness".

I think it's code for, "You've all been overruled by the Fourth Estate." The quote is a direct reference to the media campaign against morality.

[lentulusgracchus]

The more Laws we enact to control the behavior of homosexuals, the more strenght we will give to their claim that homosexuals should received the strict scrutiny afforded all protected classes of citizens.

So what's your answer? Let the gays win? Let them take their pick of the schoolyard? Speak up, don't be shy -- you are noticeably not shy. So speak up, signify to us.