Griswold?
Posted on 07/01/2003 10:45:21 AM PDT by truthandlife
Has the end of the world arrived because the Supreme Court ruled no state may prohibit private, consensual homosexual conduct? No, the end of the world is being handled by the Supreme Judge. But the end of the Constitution has arrived, and that is something about which everyone in this temporal world should be concerned.
Writing for the majority that struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law, Justice Anthony Kennedy takes us on a journey with no fixed origin, no map, but a certain destination. His constitutional rewriting will lead to same-sex "marriage" and a Constitution that means to liberal judges what the Bible means to liberal theologians - a document to be tailored to the whims of culture, not the reverse. This, from justices named by Ronald Reagan (Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy) and George H.W. Bush (David Souter).
Beginning with the manufactured "right to privacy" created out of nothing by the godlike court in Griswold vs. Connecticut, Kennedy leads us through Roe vs. Wade (which many correctly predicted would follow Griswold) to the present Lawrence vs. Texas. He asserts that religious beliefs, history, tradition and even the desires of the majority to set parameters for the moral climate in which they wish to live are irrelevant. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," said Kennedy. That can lead to anarchy.
Kennedy dismisses thousands of years of law, history and theology, choosing to rely solely on modern times: "In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here." Kennedy deletes the wisdom of the ages, preferring to download the squishy morality of post-modernism.
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) predicted two months ago that if the court struck down anti-sodomy laws, challenges would soon follow to laws prohibiting bestiality, polygamy and all sorts of other sexual practices. We will now see him proved right (see Justice Antonin Scalia's remarks below). Prostitutes, call your lawyers. Kennedy said anti-sodomy laws "do more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home."
Supreme Court decisions like this one also have far-reaching consequences. Griswold led to Roe, which led to partial birth abortion. And this ruling will lead to same-sex "marriage," because the court has removed from the people their right to create community standards for themselves. Inevitably, this will force the schools to teach homosexuality as normal and not just an "alternate lifestyle." The trend in that direction was already well advanced before this ruling.
It fell to Justice Antonin Scalia to say what needed to be said. While chiding the court for reversing itself in a Georgia sodomy case (Bowers vs. Hardwick) only 17 years ago, Scalia took the majority's arguments and turned them back. He noted that if the logic for reversal was applied to Roe, then Roe would also fall.
He said that the majority believe a case should be overturned if "(1) its foundations have been 'eroded' by subsequent decisions, (2) it has been subject to 'substantial and continuing criticism', and (3) it has not induced 'individual or societal reliance' that counsels against overturning. The problem is that Roe itself - which today's majority surely has no disposition to overrule - satisfies these conditions to at least the same degree as Bowers."
Then Scalia gets to the heart of it: "Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior is 'immoral and unacceptable' constitutes a rational basis for regulation."
No wonder Kennedy wants to ignore history and appeals only to the last 50 years for his constitutionally twisted and morally specious rationale. Scalia declared the end to "all morals legislation. If the court asserts that the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws (prohibiting fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity) can survive rational basis-review."
This ruling and similar court usurpations of lawmaking power from the people's representatives will, and should, be a major theme in the coming election campaign. We know where the Democratic presidential candidates stand, as well as most Democratic members of Congress. Where do Republicans stand, and will President Bush make this an issue, as he should?
Griswold?
Yeah, sure, Kennedy. Gland-driven laws and traditions rooted firmly in the sand of statistical morality will surely endure.
2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;"
Very soon a remnant of divine creatures transformed by the resurrection power of Christ, will transform His creation from earthy to heavenly, and Christ will remove Satan, and rule the planet inhabited with creatues like Him. If you say you are like him now, you lie, because you are getting old and dying. Christ does not age, because he has no sin or death in him.
Romans 9:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
Same-sex marriage is indeed next on the menu after this decision, and the gay community didn't waste a second pursuing that goal.
Talking to Nix the other day, she wondered why no one seemed to be thinking about the economic ramifications of a whole class of new marriages. And she's right - there are far-reaching consequences of this, for example for the social security system.
There are two notions of privacy in play here -- the legitimate one you're invoking, which is central to the Fourth Amendment ("A man's home is his castle"), and the phony one ("Between a woman and her physician") that was conjured up to rationalize abortion as a "constitutional right" in Roe vs. Wade.
The constitution does not give six unelected old f##ts the power to tell the states what they can and cannot make private. As a federal constitutional power, it does not exist. Thus, as a federal constitutional right, it was entirely manufactured out of, dare I say, wholecloth.
Do you have any doubt but that the founding fathers thought state sodomy laws were constitutional and based on sound policy? Or that the post-civil-war congress (who passed the 14th amendment) also felt the same way. If so, why did both groups write a constitution that banned state sodomy laws? The answer (of course) is, they did not and no reasonable person can argue otherwise, without being willfully blind to the constitution and the historic record.
It took 230 years for six old f##ts to make-up the right of Sodomy (or the right of "privacy" for the squeamish who need nice euphemisms). "Manufactured right" is a reasonable synonym for this entirely made up right.
And that's why the term "manufactured" right is repeated over-and-over. And that's why, for that use, the term is quite precise.
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.