Posted on 03/26/2003 9:28:34 AM PST by Stone Mountain
More than sodomy
The Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging a Texas law against "homosexual conduct," but the real issue is whether the government can regulate private lives in the first place.
March 26, 2003 | Conservatives and liberals alike have tended to avoid public debate about Lawrence vs. Texas, a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges a Texas law criminalizing "homosexual conduct" -- that is, sex between consenting adults of the same gender. The law is fundamentally un-American, but instead of opposition spanning the political spectrum, there have been the familiar unprincipled divisions along partisan lines.
Ostensibly, the question in the case will be whether the Constitution protects a "right" to homosexual conduct. But superficial concern obscures a more fundamental question too often ignored in constitutional cases: Does the government have the power to regulate people's private lives in the first place?
This difference is not just a matter of semantics. The Declaration of Independence, which establishes the ethical foundation of American government, states that government exists to secure broad rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and gains its "just powers" from the "consent of the governed." The government, in other words, must establish its authority to act; individuals do not.
Modern constitutional jurisprudence turns this principle on its head. As the Texas court saw it, the question was whether Mr. Lawrence could establish a "fundamental" right to homosexual sodomy. Since no such right has ever been recognized, the court upheld the law. Had the court sought to make a ruling consistent with America's founding principles, it would have required the state to justify its decision to outlaw the conduct in this case.
Lawrence and his partner are consenting adults who were engaged in private conduct within the confines of Lawrence's home. They were harming no one. While it is true that laws against sodomy have a long history in this country, so does the principle that governmental power is inherently limited. The touchstone of that limitation is harm to some identifiable third party. Since Texas can show no such harm -- indeed, it didn't even try to do so -- it has no power to enter this sphere of individual conduct.
Conservatives often suggest that the states can pass laws that express the moral sentiments of a majority of the community and that the courts have no authority to intervene in those democratic decisions. But all laws are passed by democratic processes and can be said to express the moral sentiments of the community. Texas claims, in essence, that laws do not need any real justification. That is a claim that everyone -- conservatives included -- should find dangerous.
Conservatives, especially, ought to be wary of casting their lot with the states on this issue. If the states can ban purely private conduct between consenting adults, what is to keep them from banning home schooling, for instance, or instituting mandatory preschool, or requiring parents to follow certain nutritional guidelines for their children? Conservatives who condone a process that leads us down this path need to start asking themselves what exactly it is they are trying to conserve.
Unfortunately, the left's approach is no better. Where conservatives extol the virtues of the state's governmental power when it comes to certain moral or lifestyle issues, the left extols the virtues of governmental power when it comes to regulations of property and economic affairs. Both sides love governmental power when it suits their immediate agenda, but both ought to realize that this approach is only as good as one's ability to control a particular legislature. The left ought to recognize that it cannot pick and choose which aspects of individual liberty are beyond governmental power. Privacy is worth very little if one has no property on which to practice it.
America is the only country founded on the principles of individual rights and limited government. Governmental power must be limited if we are to live in a free society. Until everyone, of every political persuasion, takes this principle to heart, cases such as Lawrence vs. Texas will amount to little more than political battles over one more "right," while the war over the proper role of government in our lives rages on.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer Dana Berliner is a lawyer with the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice.
Steve Simpson is a lawyer with the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice.
I'm not so sure we are that far apart. I am not defending the actions of the homosexual community. I am only oppossed to the governments role in defining what behavior is or is not acceptable.
The battle begins at home, and it is up to parents to define morality for their children. It is not the governments role to do so.
In a perfect world that would be so, however, in our corrupted school system, pop culture, and filtered News sources, our enlightened society is emboldened by the lack of an organized resistance.. History is an early warning system, we never thought AIDS and Gay Scouts Leaders would ever happen in my lifetime.. but.. you get my point, I'm sure.
You have a twisted notion of "love" to include homosexuality within it. Homosexuality is an expression of hate against God, Man, and Family.
In a good society, laws most closely conform to the right in order to encourage the populace to upright behavior. The more that they do not, the worse the society becomes and the more vicious the people become.
A Biblical direction blaspheming anointed actors and pretenders have been attempting to tear away.
Subsequently, Amendment IX now has jurisdiction within state boundaries.
The Bible.
Is it comprehensive?
Yes, according to the Catholic Church. I'm not aware of a diligent search of verses ever turning up other sins that "cry to heaven for vengence."
From the Diocese of LaCrosse website:
The Catholic tradition recognizes four sins that especially arouse God's justice, four sins "that cry to heaven for vengeance." The first sin is the murder of the innocent. After Cain murders Abel, the Lord addresses him saying, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries to me from the earth" (Gen, 4:10). The second is sodomy: "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous" (Gen, 18:20). The third is oppression of the poor, as we see in the oppression of the Jewish people in Egypt: "Now after a long time the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel groaning, cried out because of their work, and their cry went up to God from their work" (Exod, 2:23). The fourth is the defrauding of the laborer his wages: "Behold the hire of the laborers, who have reaped down your fields, which by fraud has been kept back by you, cries; and their cry has entered the ears of the Lord of sabaoth" (Jam, 5:4).
"Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 154, Art. 12, Reply 2)
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.