Replies

This Supreme Court's Activism Is Frightening

June 30, 2003

Folks, can you believe that we will need a constitutional amendment defining marriage, as we have always known it, in the traditional way? It's unbelievable.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) says we need an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that defines marriage, because of what the enlightened Supreme Court did in the Lawrence v. Texas case. David Frum writes that this amendment ought to be the very first thing Congress takes up in the next session. It is just stunning.

Does this now help you to understand what Rick Santorum was talking about? He's been validated. What he said was totally distorted and blown up by the media, but he said this line of reasoning opens the door to discovering constitutional protection for other kinds of sexual conduct between consenting adults, like prostitution, bigamy, incest. Everybody was upset because they thought he was comparing homosexuality to those things, but he wasn't. He was simply saying if consent and privacy in your own home trump everything else, then how do we stop anything else that goes on in the home? It's not about sex. It can be about drugs or any number of other crimes. If you think that this decision was about sodomy and allowing people to be free to do what they want, you are being very short sighted. This is about much, much, more than that.

Texas Decison Only the Beginning...

Try some fallout, ladies and gentlemen, in a story that cleared the wire services late Friday after this program, "In one of the first consequences of its landmark ruling on gay rights on Thursday, the Supreme Court set aside Friday the lengthy prison sentence imposed on a gay Kansas teenager for having had sex with a younger boy." This was a case in which an 18-year-old performed oral sex on a 14-year-old and received a 17-year prison sentence. My original assumption was that the Supreme Court is suggesting that there is nothing wrong with an 18-year old having sex with somebody 14-years old, but it could be that the court is saying Kansas had two different forms of punishment, a more severe punishment for a homosexual pair than a heterosexual couple, and it could be what the state is being told to change by the Supreme Court. Regardless, this court's level of activism concerns me greatly. This Texas decision is a classic example, especially when you consider that these sodomy laws were not being enforced, and that more and more states were getting rid of them.

The Supreme Court seems to be worried about the culture, but the culture is taking care of itself. These laws were going by the wayside. It was just a quirk that this Texas law was invoked by these cops, but in most states these laws are not being enforced, and in most states these laws were being taken off the books. What the Supreme Court did was usurp the power of the people in various states. That's scary to me.

We had a caller, Kevin, who said, "Whether we're white, black, green, or purple, can't we let people get on with their lives?" It's the Supreme Court that's focused on all that stuff, not conservatives. It's liberals who note differences between people first and foremost, and want to do something about it. When the Supreme Court says that racial discrimination is a compelling state interest, as they did in the Michigan affirmative action case, we're supposed to say nothing? If you had a child apply for college, graduate school, medical school or law school, you'd know this directly affects you and your family. It's not just words. It's not just babble. Talk to people who are affected by these things for a little reality.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_063003/content/rush_is_right.guest.html