Utah Man Uses Sodomy Decision To Push For Polygamy

Traditional Values Coalition ^ | Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

[Federalist 78]

Washington, DC - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's prophetic dissent in the Texas sodomy case (Lawrence v. State of Texas) is already being fulfilled barely six months after the ruling that overturned the state laws criminalizing sodomy.

In Justice Scalia's brilliant dissent, he warned, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are … sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based upon moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision." Bowers vs. Hardwick is the 1986 Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of states to criminalize sodomy. Lawrence has effectively overturned this decision.

Scalia's prediction is coming true. On December 1st, the lawyer for a polygamist argued before the Utah Supreme Court that his client's conviction on bigamy should be overturned because of the Lawrence v. Texas decision. Attorney John Bucher argued that if the government has no right to interfere with what homosexuals do in the privacy of their homes, then the state also has no right to interfere with a man who wishes to have multiple wives. Says Bucher, "It doesn't bother anyone, (and with) no compelling state interest in what you do in your own home with consenting adults, you should be allowed to do so."

This flawed logic could easily be extended to "consensual" incest, prostitution, bestiality, and group sex orgies in the "privacy" of a person's home. Indeed, Zoophiles should be encouraged by the tortured thinking in Lawrence. After all, if a man can freely sodomize his sex partner in his home, why should the Zoophile's love for dogs or sheep be criminalized? Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer, for example, argued for an end to the "taboo" against cross-species sex in an essay published in Nerve in 2001. Animal rights activist Singer believes that while we should not eat animals, it's perfectly okay to have sex with them. One wonders if he would argue that barnyard animals can "consent" to such activities.

The polyamorists must also be encouraged by Lawrence v. Texas. After all, if state can't criminalize certain deviant sexual behaviors, why should it have the right to limit the number of "partners" a person can marry? If a grouping of five women and four men wish to be "married," what's stopping them? It's only a matter of time before Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy discovers a "right" to group sex in the Constitution.

And with the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts by the Supreme Judicial Court, homosexuals are on the verge of achieving an objective they established in 1972. In that year, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations issued the "1972 Gay Rights Platform." In it, they demanded: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." This sounds like polygamy or polyamory to me. The platform also called for the abolition of all laws "governing the age of sexual consent." Does this sound like the promotion of pedophilia?

In short, the current debate about so-called "gay marriage," isn't just about two same-sex individuals living in a monogamous relationship. There's a far more disturbing objective: To abolish all laws governing sexual behavior and to usher in an era of unrestrained sexual hedonism-not only with adults but with children.

[Federalist 78]

American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Pedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses

LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS- Thomas My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' " Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.

LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS - Scalia Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.

[1stFreedom]

Anyone surprised?

[1stFreedom]

>> After all, if state can't criminalize certain deviant sexual behaviors, why should it have the right to limit the number of "partners" a person can marry? If a grouping of five women and four men wish to be "married," what's stopping them

Well, since the SC has no real rules about being consistent, I can see them upholding gay marriage but knocking down polygamy without offering any real reason for either one.

[wizardoz]

I'm surprised it happened so quickly. I thought it would be another two, three months before the natural leap from gay marriage to polygamy.

Then another two, three months before that precedent was used to legalize marriage to a child (after all, they do it in those other cultures we all want to be so sensitive to.)

Then maybe six months later, the precedent could be used to make a case for open marriages of convenience (you know, to help Habib get a green card.)

Then, gradually, they'd all be used together to ensure that anyone could marry as many people as they wanted for any reason they wanted, and employers would be legally required to give your 10 wives and 10 husbands full insurance coverage, the government would be required to give them all social security numbers, drivers licenses, and citizenship.

And there you have it. The approach that Palestinians intend to use (right-of-return) to flood, kill, and sink Israel could be used to destroy our economy.

I guess it's going to happen even quicker than I thought.

[LizardQueen]

After all, if state can't criminalize certain deviant sexual behaviors, why should it have the right to limit the number of "partners" a person can marry?

They're mixing up their issues here and comparing situations that don't match up.
The sodomy case wasn't a legal marriage issue, it was a "deviant sexual behavior" issue. Currently there's no law that I know of that prevents groups of heterosexual people doing being deviant in their own home (may depend on the state).

But when you talk about those deviants (whether homo or groups of heteros) wanting to get married, now you're looking at the gay marriage issue and the polygamy issue.

If the polygamy issue was not about legal marriage but just about who does what to who in what groups then it would be more like the sodomy case than the gay marriage case.

I'm probably splitting hairs here but bad comparisons bother me.

LQ

[newgeezer]

For a detailed explanation of these happenings, see Romans 1:28-31.

[Federalist 78]

Marriage, like the Constitution, is whatever a federal judge sez it is. Man & monkey, man & many women, boy & dog, many women and several trees….

[Mr. Thorne]

I'm waiting for somebody to realize that our bans on incest are really just constructs of our tradition and culture.

I mean, morality aside (since we musn't speak of such things before the courts), is there any lawful reason to ban incest?

Inbreeding? No problem, what with contraception and abortion.

Any other reasons that would stand up before the all-wise judiciary?

Maybe Sandra Day O'Connor should start researching what other, more enlightened courts have said on such things, since US law is no longer enough for her...

I mean, good grief...

[wizardoz]

Oh yes, I forgot about the incest thing. Yes, once the anthropologists get done explaining kinship patterns in Africa, and how marrying your first cousin on your father's side (but not your mother's!) is preferred... why... heck... we'll be all out of ways to decimate our culture.