Posted on 08/11/2003 11:45:05 AM PDT by jmc813
It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.
These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
It's not ridiculous at all. When they both entail people acting in the privacy of their homes, and (in the case of infertility) do not entail any direct violence against unconsenting third parties, then they very much fall into the same category. The only difference is in the level of revulsion society attaches to them.
To use your own line of reasoning, since heterosexual sex has always been completely permissible, and in light of the general acceptance of fornication, why has it not led to the legalization or societal acceptance of heterosexual pedohilia or heterosexual incest?
Pedophilia of course involves persons unable to give consent, and so that's totally off the topic of this discussion.
As for the remainder of the question, the reason it hasn't led to the acceptance of incest is that incest is still considered an abomination, despite the fact that fornication is generally more accepted. You have argued that that is an invalid reason to declare something illegal, like when you said that laws against sodomy must apply to heterosexual as well as homosexual sodomy - or not at all. If you believe that, then you would also have to believe that laws against extramarital sex must apply to every type of couple, not just immediate relatives. It's the same principle.
The Lawrence case was not decided on a privacy issue, but rather a equal protection under the law issue. Incest laws apply equally to everyone, there are no States that allow for heterosexual incest, but has anti-homosexual incest laws in place, so this discussion is moot.
You can argue the point all night, but in spite of the chain of red herrings you are putting up, it comes down to the same basic issue; the Texas anti-homosexual sodomy law was unconstitutional, and as such, it was struck down by the Supreme Court.
A disease that is critically dangerous and absolutely certain to spread exponentially will, no doubt, result in a different response from the legislature than will one that is harmless and rarely communicable.
The question for the legislature is to determine when a particular disease is so far up those scales that they decide something must be done.
And if it poses a danger to me or my family, I really don't care about your privacy concerns.
Not by your stated principles they don't. They only apply to people who are in the same family. Just as anti-homosexual sodomy laws only apply to people of the same gender. There's no basic difference between the two. Both laws state that certain types of sexual combinations are illegal, even if they're engaging in acts that are legal for other types of sexual combinations.
You simply can't defend one and condemn the other on any kind of rational basis.
Source? Are you referring to overall numbers, or percentages of persons infected?
If they're not in the same family, then it wouldn't be incest, would it?
You are reaching new depths in idiocy to justify the unjustifiable.
By the way, you just tried to justify the law by arguing that it is based on gender...unconstitutional.
The only thing that can be made illegal is the act, not the gender of those engaging in the act.
The law was struck down as unconstitutional...get it?
And likewise, if they're not in the same gender, then it wouldn't be homosexual sodomy. If they have the power to outlaw one, they have the power to outlaw the other.
By the way, you just tried to justify the law by arguing that it is based on gender...unconstitutional.
Any more unconstitutional than basing it on family?
I'm tired of wasting my time with you, you're not even making any sense...not that you ever did.
Good bye.
Don't bother, I will not reply.
The joke's on you. I was only repeating your own logic back at you.
In any case, I'm happy to let our respective statements stand.
Where's the part about "same sex"?
They do indeed, though as stated, Texas made no claim that its sodomy law had anything to do with control of disease.
Just as a state legislature can make a law, so the US Supreme Court, hearing a citizen's petition for relief from a usurpation of his liberty by that legislature, can find it unconstitutional and overturn it.
Forget Marbury vs. Madison or the various early judiciary acts, or Madison on the Bill of Rights, just see Federalist 78, as quoted above.
And how could that be? Are you or a member of your family planning to have sex with them too? In that case, be sure to take protective measures.
I really don't care about your privacy concerns.
I've logged that from your posts already. However, I do care about peeping toms sticking their noses into my bedroom. While you (if we are to believe you're serious) may like to be watched, or to watch others. Which is what someone would have to do in order to enforce your legislative wet dream.
Bottomline, if I expect privacy for myself, then I must recognize it for everyone else as well. It's a well recognized concept known as "equal treatment."
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.