Lawrence Vs Texas: 'Spatial And Transcendent Dimensions' Of Liberty: Not In The Constitution!

The Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, past and present, provides for a 'right to privacy.' Justice William Douglas, in his majority opinion for Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), gave us the now-notorious expression used as the basis for a Constitutional right to privacy: "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." Got that?

According to Webster, a penumbra is ' a vague, indefinite or borderline area; the partly lighted area surrounding the complete shadow of a body (e.g., the moon) in full eclipse.' And an emanation is something that is emitted, issued forth or discharged (well, that part certainly fits!). Pretty ambiguous legal grounds upon which to hang the killing of 40 million babies, don't you think?

In the majority opinion for last week's Lawrence vs Texas , Justice Anthony Kennedy gave a new name for the Court's rewriting of the Constitution, referring to its 'spatial and transcendent dimensions of liberty.' If that sounds like it could mean whatever you want it to, go to the head of the class, for within those 'dimensions' Kennedy and five other justices discovered a Constitutional right for buggery. In so doing, they bestowed not only 'normalcy' but also the full protection and guarantee of the Constitution for homosexuals 'right' to practice their chosen perversion. Just as certainly, based on the wording and justifications for the ruling, they laid the foundation for the same 'rights' for pedophiles, adulterers, those who favor sex with animals, polygamists, and any other perverse, immoral or degrading sexual behavior a person might conjure up as desirable.

Like most ordinary Americans, you probably think that's just inflamed rhetoric, that it's just not possible for the learned and distinguished justices of the Supreme Court to be so reckless. Well, you certainly shouldn't take my word for it…but what about his? In the first two parts of this essay, I present Justice Kennedy's thoughts and reasoning in this case, expressed in his own words. Though I have made what I think are pertinent comments throughout, you can judge for yourselves what lies at the heart of this decision (forgive the pun). In the third and final part of the essay I offer my view about how this ruling, and those that will certainly follow, was inevitable.

In the Lawrence ruling, Kennedy wrote that the issue before the Court was '…two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.' To see it otherwise was to evidence 'animus' towards homosexuals, and he wrote that the continuance as precedent of Bower (the 1986 decision upholding anti-sodomy laws) '…demeans the lives of homosexual persons.' (As if men having sex with other men, or women with women, does not demean their lives.)

Now the word animus , again according to Webster, means 'animating force or underlying purpose, intention; feeling of strong ill will or hatred; animosity. 'Liberals' and other emotion-addicted types will, no doubt, point to the 'hatred' in the above definition, smug in their self-righteous claims that anyone opposed to homosexuality is a hate-filled bigot intent on denying others the same right to expression of love as we enjoy. But Christians understand 'hating the sin but not the sinner.' Immoral behavior can, and should be, despised, without 'animus' for the person. But neither are they to be celebrated for their immorality!

Rather than being rightfully ashamed of their perversion, however, or at least keeping it indeed a private matter, homosexuals actually identify themselves by their abnormal sexual behavior, as if the totality of their talent, abilities, thoughts, etc., spring only from what they prefer sexually. How, then, are we to separate the behavior from the person? That's no different from the local grocer, accountant or factory worker interjecting his or her sexual preferences and proclivities in personal or business conversations and interactions, and demanding to be 'respected' for doing so. Nobody I know would stand for that behavior from heterosexuals, yet it's supposed to be fine for homosexuals? Sean Hannity and others have said they 'have no problem with homosexuals, just with homosexual acts,' but based on homosexuals' own definition of themselves, that's an impossible feat!

But it also dodges the question. David Limbaugh recently wrote the clearest statement I've yet seen addressing the 'animus' to which Kennedy referred. He wrote, "I am not disputing that a criminal statute outlawing sodomy between homosexuals demeans the homosexual relationship -- of course it does, and it's intended to." That makes two of us who acknowledge and stand by the truth that homosexuality is degenerate, perverse and abnormal behavior, and should in no way be condoned, accepted or supported by individuals or society.

The perception that homosexuality is 'just another normal sexual choice' is largely due to the inordinate representation of homosexuals in the media, the arts and entertainment, areas responsible for great influence on our modern culture. Should the equally well-known sexual promiscuity, alcohol and drug use by those in entertainment also be considered 'normal,' and thus acceptable, simply because it's so widespread in a small-but-influential segment of society?

According to Kennedy, "…the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." But of course they are! Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have always been 'free' to do whatever they want, to and with whoever is willing. Back when homosexuals were 'in the closet,' are we supposed to think they weren't engaging in homosexual acts?

This public/private contradiction is so glaring, yet I've not heard or read any comment on it previously. Who or what is stopping homosexuals from engaging in their perversion in private, as they've always done? Is there a Special Fag Unit in city and county police departments that spend all their time peeping into windows and breaking down doors in attempts to catch them at it? Of course not; in fact, the Court acknowledged that a 'policy of non-enforcement' has long been evident even in states with anti-sodomy laws. So, since they're already 'free' to do as they please concerning their private sexual behavior, what is all this cant about 'protecting private behavior'?

That leads to the necessary conclusion that this ruling isn't about private behavior at all, since they've always been free to diddle each other in private. What's this really about, then? Read on.

Justifying the overturning of Bowers, Kennedy stated that Romer vs Evans 'eroded the foundations of Bowers.' The 1996 Romer ruling struck down a Colorado state Constitutional amendment (i.e., ratified by the people via referendum) that said homosexuals could not be singled out for protection under municipal laws. In his Constitutionally based dissent, Justice Scalia exposed the arbitrary nature of Kennedy's claim: "But Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey (the original 'abortion rights' ruling and subsequent Court ruling reaffirming it) have been equally 'eroded' by Washington v. Glucksberg , which held that only fundamental rights which are `deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition' qualify for anything other than rational basis scrutiny under the doctrine of substantive due process." In other words, if Bowers should be overturned then, on Kennedy's own reasoning, so should Roe and Casey!

It's clear, however, that such consistent, rational and Constitutional reasoning is not the foundation of any of these cases (else 'penumbras' and 'transcendent dimensions,' et al, wouldn't be necessary). Kennedy blithely discards the rights 'deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition': "The condemnation [of homosexuality] has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however ." [Italics mine]

Kennedy also dismisses former Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinion supporting Bowers in 1986: "The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction." What 'other authorities' does Kennedy mean? He cited only one: "A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct," and noted that the British Parliament acted on that recommendation in 1967 (just one more reason to be glad we separated ourselves from that country).

Based on such reasoning, Kennedy wrote, "The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis." That is, the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical considerations to which Burger referred no longer apply in today's America. That is what this ruling (and its precedents) is about. Must it be put any plainer before the American people will comprehend?

That, clearly stated, is the basis for the 'right to privacy' rulings. Quoting from the Casey decision that upheld Roe, Kennedy wrote: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Ever hear of personal autonomy, the heart of the radical humanist philosophy? This is a perfect description of that view. There's nothing about rule of law, or that individual rights are accompanied by personal and societal responsibilities.

In defense of Romer, Kennedy wrote: "We concluded that the provision was born of animosity toward the class of persons affected and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose." In other words, 'legitimate government purpose' is not what the American people decide it is, but what the Supreme Court says it is. And having the law protect sexual perversity - though the people of Colorado voted against that - is, for the Court, a legitimate government purpose.

And I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"

." In other words, 'legitimate government purpose' is not what the American people decide it is, but what the Supreme Court says it is. And having the law protect sexual perversity - though the people of Colorado voted against that - is, for the Court, a legitimate government purpose.

And, the time for The People to put the brakes on this radical, deviant, behavior by the SCOTUS Justices is now while there's still time to reverse many of their rulings.

These Justices have abused the boundaries of their office and are no longer acting in "good behavior". The evidence is plain to see, and the Legislature should hold hearings on the SCOTUS's behavior followed by an Amendment to subject them to direct elections.

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.