Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

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

[cherrycapital]

It is contemptible for the state to prosecute an 18 year old for having consensual relations with a 14 year old. But all the Limon decision did was say the sentences for heterosexual and homosexual offenses had to be equal. Is there a problem with that?

[aristeides]

I also didn't mention that the 14-year-old victim too was, as you put it, "mentally delayed." Doesn't that make the case worse? I also didn't mention that the perp had a prior.

And are you denying that Limon shows that, whatever Kennedy said in Lawrence, the Supreme Court has no intention of limiting the effects of Lawrence to cases involving consenting adults?

[bart99]

I tend to agree with you.

Does this ruling also make prostitution legal?....... the cops must be scratching their heads trying to figure out if the privacy rule applies, and if so they probably have no more than potential tax evasion of a prostitute as a cause to arrest the person - but for that they'd have to wait for April 15. *sigh*.

[bvw]

The right to kill or be killed.

[cherrycapital]

"The most comprehensive of all rights, and the right most valued by civilized men; the right to be left alone." (Brandeis)

[aristeides]

I don't share your opinion that it is contemptible to prosecute an 18-year-old for sex (consensual?) with a "mentally delayed" 14-year-old. The fact that you would call it "consensual" shows where you're coming from.

But, contemptible or not, what makes it unconstitutional? Lawrence? If so, that's my point.

[cherrycapital]

The 14 year old victim was a willing participant. In a civilized country it would never have gone to trial, much less earned a 17 year sentence.

[Van Jenerette]

the FOUNDING FATHERS UNLEASHED		Our Constitution provides the legitimate foundations of this country as a free nation that is of the people and by the people but, we must read beyond it words and read it's authors words and thoughts in order to understand the warnings they have sent through generations to it's application in todays world.
		warning... "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams, October 11, 1798 warning... "Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?... And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?..." - John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

The entire argument about sexual behavior is so simple it can be reduced to the following: Should there be any social rules about what sexual activity a human being engages in?

If the answer is no then everyone should just shut up...hetero is okay, cousins are okay, polygamy is okay, bi is okay; gay is okay, 13-year olds are okay, and one or one-hundred-at-a-time are okay, et. al.

However, if a society decides that certain rules about who does whom when and where is functional and perhaps even necessary, all that is left is to decide is WHAT are the rules of sexual behavior and WHO shall make them...simple. Those who follow the 'rules' are then NORMAL and all the rest are PERVERTED or DEVIANT... so very, very simple...you decide.

Van & Katherine Jenerette

www.jenerette.com �

[cherrycapital]

I would say it is a violation of the right to privacy, which, unlike the Burger and Rehnquist courts, I would locate in the 9th Amendment doctrine of unenumerated rights rather than the shaky "substantive due process" doctrine.

[aristeides]

Again, if Kansas wants to give everybody a 17 year sentence for this offense, they are free to do so.

Are you sure? Mightn't that interfere with the essential expression of identity?

Anyway, the details do nothing to refute my point that Limon shows Lawrence doesn't just have implications for sex between consenting adults.

[Van Jenerette]

I'm afraid you are right....

[tdadams]

It's amazing how you're having to dance around the facts and details of this case to support your outrage.

[aristeides]

That's what you would say. In its order yesterday, the Supreme Court pointed to Lawrence as the reason.

[cherrycapital]

Social rules and criminal laws are not the same thing.

[Kevin Curry]

Toothless is witless--a BIG cavity in the cranium. It will require a dentist with a scoop shovel and a small cement mixer to fill it.

I'll bet you're a barely-post-adolescent ersatz South Park conservative--no children, no real responsibility other than stuffing yourself with the thrill of the day.

[aristeides]

It's amazing how you do not consider my point, that Limon shows that Lawrence is not limited in its legal effects to cases involving sex between consenting adults.

[bvw]

You've been well-trained by the Human Secularists, grasshopper.

[cherrycapital]

Yes, Lawrence and its 14th Amendment argument. I don't agree with that argument, but would've reached the same conclusion based on the 9th Amendment, both in Lawrence and Limon. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Kevin Curry]

Libertarians are notoriously short-sighted. They figure what they can't see, can't hurt them.

[tdadams]

You're picking a very shaky example to make your point. The fact that you're doing a lot of dancing around the facts and details only confirms that.