Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

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

[Polycarp]

Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter

June 27, 2003

**********************************************

There has been a lot of lot of talk since yesterday's Supreme Court decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, a dispute over Texas' law making sodomy illegal. The Supreme Court overturned that law by a vote of 6 to 3, saying that such laws "demean the lives of homosexual persons" and infringe upon their right to privacy.

Let me tell you right now: Lawrence is a devastating decision, worse than most people think -- and for reasons that haven't fully dawned on them yet.

I have to admit, the implications of this decision hadn't occurred to me yet, either, but after talking to my friend Professor Robert George of Princeton this morning, I can say that this is without question the most damaging decision handed down by the courts since Roe v. Wade -- one that will have even more far-reaching effects than its predecessor.

George is a political philosopher and a very smart guy. He pointed out a few things about the decision that I hadn't noticed. And because this decision is so huge, I wanted to make sure that I passed on his concerns to you.

Believe me, this is vitally important.

First, a little background history. As you may already know, Roe v. Wade based its decision to make abortion legal upon a woman's right to privacy, which the court found in the 14th amendment in the Constitution. The problem is, the 14th amendment doesn't give a person a right to privacy. What the 14th amendment REALLY guarantees is that no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law." You won't find a right to privacy here or in any other part of the Constitution.

The 14th amendment only protects rights by due process, meaning that they can't be taken from you except by formal procedures in accordance with established law. In other words, you can't be executed (deprived of life), jailed (deprived of liberty), or fined (deprived of property) without the government going through the proper procedure of arresting you, giving you a fair trial, and so on.

So what does this have to do with a right to privacy? Absolutely nothing. And yet this is what the Roe decision is based on. Legal scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, have denounced this faulty reasoning that they call "substantive due process." It's really a contradiction in terms: Instead of simply guaranteeing that you will receive certain treatment by the law, the law has been stretched to mean that you will also be guaranteed a certain RESULT.

What began in Roe has now come to fruition in Lawrence: A certain privileged class of actions is being protected from legal restriction by the Supreme Court. First abortion, now sodomy -- what will be next? Euthanasia?

It's up to the people to vote into effect certain laws through their legislature. It's the only fair way of guaranteeing that what the people want becomes the law of the land, rather than what a few justices on the Supreme Court want.

But this, George explained to me, is what happened in Roe v. Wade. The justices forced their hand to produce a certain outcome. Since then, the Supreme Court has avoided using the tricky (and completely false) "substantive due process" rationale in deciding cases.

That is, until now.

The six justices who voted to repeal the sodomy law yesterday did so because they said the law produced an unfair outcome -- unfair because it discriminates against homosexuals.

But the law was enacted according to the rules of due process -- the people supported it, the state legislature wrote it, and the governor signed it. There is nothing unfair about the process it underwent in becoming law. If people today feel that the law is unfair or outdated, they can vote to repeal it just as they voted to enact it, and THAT would be a fair process.

But for the COURT to say that the law produced an unfair outcome takes this power from the people and puts it in the hands of nine Supreme Court justices. This was certainly never the intention of the 14th amendment.

Nevertheless, that's what the Supreme Court did. And not only that -- in his statement for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy made his decision so broad that ANY case that comes before the court in the future could appeal to "substantive due process" to dispense with the law and get the outcome they want.

And that is what's really scary about this decision. With Roe, the decision applied only to abortion rights. But with Lawrence, the door has been opened for other kinds of sexual behavior to be exempted from restrictive legislation as well.

For example, if a case comes before the Supreme Court arguing in favor of incest, according to the Lawrence decision, there's no reason why incest should be outlawed. The court no longer has any principled basis for upholding laws that prohibit incest, bigamy, bestiality, you name it.

So what does this mean for the future? Well, think about this: Because Texas' sodomy law has been struck down, all the remaining states with sodomy laws will have to dispense with them as well.

And what about homosexual marriage? The Massachusetts legislature is considering that issue right now. If they decide in favor of it, any homosexual marriage contracted in Massachusetts has to be acknowledged in every other state.

With sodomy laws still in place, this wouldn't have been the case. No state is forced to accept contracts from another state that go against their own laws and policies. But now that the sodomy laws will be removed, no state has a legal defense against homosexual marriage. They'll all fall like dominoes.

The LAST HOPE for defeating homosexual marriage lies in a Constitutional amendment that explicitly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Alliance for Marriage, headed up by Matt Daniels, is leading the way in calling for the Federal Marriage Amendment to do just that.

If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk. The homosexual agenda will have won the day.

And this is why it's absolutely CRUCIAL that Catholics, Evangelicals, and all social conservatives in America band together NOW to stop them. There has been infighting among the groups in the past -- some think the Federal Marriage Amendment is too strong, others think it isn't strong enough -- but we have to put those differences aside and make the best we can with what we have.

CRISIS ran an article on just this problem in our July/August issue last year, "Can Same-Sex Marriage Be Stopped?", encouraging people to take note of the slow change that is already beginning. With Lawrence decided, we can't spare another minute. Visit the Alliance's Website, www.allianceformarriage.org, to find out more about how you can help.

I hate to end on such a grim note before the weekend, but I wanted to get this out to you as quickly as I could. The sooner we understand the danger that marriage in America is in, the sooner we can act to save it.

Til next time, Deal

[Polycarp]

This is gravely serious, folks.

[toothless]

the sky is falling!
the sky is falling!
the sky is falling!

[Polycarp]

Only fools fail to see the danger of this decision. Fool.

[Always Right]

If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk.

How can the Supreme Court can find a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional? That makes no sense at all.

[demkicker]

I agree that this is serious and think all sane people better make their voices heard NOW. Folks, do not wait until the left gets their shrill supporters of gay marriage whipped into a vitriolic freenzy. Pretend you are the leader of a PAC, get off your butts and find your voices now! We need to flood our representatives with a show of force. Call, write and fax your opposition to gay marriage unless you want to see it made legal.

[toothless]

Only fools fail to see a slippery slope falacy. Fool.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[dogbyte12]

Only fools fail to see the danger of this decision. Fool.

Matthew 5:22

This decision is not even close to being as bad as Roe vs Wade. Two homosexuals killing themselves spiritually and physically, does not even touch the taking of a defenseless life. Not even close.

[MalcolmS]

I'm confused.

On the one hand, the right to privacy does not appear in the Constitution, as stated in the article.

On the other hand, is it a natural right, not assigned to the Federal government, and therefore devolving to "the state or the people?"

[sinkspur]

If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk.

The Supreme Court can not overturn a Constitutional Amendment.

[Polycarp]

Of course, you are right. Lawrence wasn't a point on the trajectory of the slippery slope of Roe. Roe was not a point on the trajectory of the slippery slope of Griswold Vs Connecticut. Griswold Vs Connecticut was not a point on the trajectory of the slippery slope of the 1930 Lambeth Conference. The 1930 Lambeth Conference decision was not a point on the trajectory of the slippery slope of the Reformation. Ad nauseum.

Of course, you are 98% ignorant of what I'm referring to. Go back to your TV and vegetate. Everything is just fine.

[Ahban]

don't expect W to help you on this one. he is one the wrong side. Personnel is policy. We can get worked up over issue after issue, but we will keep losing if we don't elevate the right PEOPLE to office. That no longer includes most Republicans.

www.constitutionparty.com

[Paulie]

From your previous post, that sounds like you.

[LarryM]

The Supreme Court can't invalidate a Constitutional amendment.

[sinkspur]

Howard Phillips is unelectable. Fat, scowling middle-aged men don't win national office.

[Paulie]

What the fool doesn't understand he laughs at, thinking by his laughter he demonstrates his intellectual superiority, when in fact he does nothing more than demonstrate his own latent idiocy.

From your previous post, that sounds like you.

[TheGrimReaper]

Rehnquist was correct when he wrote that the Court's majority had "entered the culture wars"... where the Court has no business meddling. Those 6 justices have effectively used the bench to make social commentary - and the usual "unintended consequences" are inevitable.

The 10th Amendment has again been spat upon. The debates and deliberations of state legislatures to write statutes have been rendered null, void and meaningless.
Despite the majority's protests, they have given the nod to virtually any deviant, dangerous, harmful behavior - with the only requirement being that such acts must occur behind closed doors.

The "slippery slope" is real...and it looks like we're on our way down it.

[toothless]

I guess you are right, I'm not one of the wisened 2%ers. lol.

[VOA]

Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

Both are terrible.

And as much as I have serious trepidation about suspending the statute of
limitations on any crime, about the only things I can think about the US Supreme Court
is this:

1. You have the right to slice, dice, and Julienne-fry any "non-viable tissue mass"
as long as it hasn't fully exited the birth canal before being "terminated".

2. You have the right to anything you want with any orifice or appendage of the
body as long as everyone involved is over legal age and doesn't call the cops.

3. If you molest children...be sure to lay low until the statute of limitation runs.
(I about screamed today to see the angelic smile on the face of Father Wempe here
in California, realizing that his confederates on the US Supreme Court were going
to make sure he never faced scrutiny (and the justice he probably deserves) for his
relationships to little boys.

Former Governor Frank Keating was right to attribute qualities of La Costra Nostra
to the pedophile conspirators/enablers of his church...now I wonder if the conspiracy
has spread to the guys in the robes in Washington, D.C.

The silver lining?
Democrats/Liberals/Libertines don't anything to gripe about.
Most of Dubya's constituency have now been mobilized...the left has
foolishly never learned to check to see if a big doy is securing chained before
laughinly prodding with a stick.

[tdadams]

I'm not surprised to you see posting this hysteria.

How many people are going to jump on board and parrot this ridiculous line that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. News flash, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was ever intended to be an exhaustive enumeration of a person's rights. Can we all agree on this?

Secondly, following Bowers v. Hardwick, eleven states abolished their anti-sodomy laws. So far we've not seen an alarming rise in the incidence of bestiality and incest in those states. Let's relax, OK?

Does anyone think that any homosexuals out there chose to abstain from their preferred sexual practices due to these laws being in place anyway?

Even proponents of anti-sodomy laws admit ther were rarely if ever enforced. That tells me that they weren't intended to uphold personal morality so much as they were to persecute a disfavored minority.

I've looked out my window the last couple of days. The sun is still rising and setting as usual. Relax.