Posted on 02/17/2004 10:38:28 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Last summer, the Supreme Court, in LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, overturned a Texas statute against sodomy. The majority's sweeping rhetoric prompted concern that the Court's opinion would undermine marriage and virtually every other moral standard. Justice Scalia was outraged in his dissent.
Earlier this month, two important decisions concerning homosexuality came down, and surprisingly, the courts found a way around LAWRENCE. It's a reminder of the difference that judges who respect the law, instead of trying to write it, can make.
The first case, LIMON V. KANSAS, involved a challenge to Kansas's statutory rape law. The law, which prohibits sex between adults and minors, makes an exception in cases where the participants are close in age.
The exception, however, only applies to heterosexual, not homosexual, relations and, thus, was not expected to survive the LAWRENCE decision. In fact, the Supreme Court ordered the Kansas appellate court to reconsider LIMON in the light of LAWRENCE.
The Kansas court did and, to the surprise of many, upheld the statute. The Kansas court cited the "deterioration of the sexual morality" that Kansans believe in, "the need to reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases," and the non-procreative nature of homosexual sex as valid reasons for treating homosexual sex differently from heterosexual.
And what about LAWRENCE? The court distinguished LIMON from that case by noting that LAWRENCE was about the right to privacy, and LIMON was about equal protection of the laws.
The same distinction figured in the Eleventh Circuit's decision in LOFTON V. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. That case challenged Florida's ban on gay adoptions. Like LIMON, the law wasn't expected to survive LAWRENCE, and, like LIMON, it confounded expectations. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that LAWRENCE had not created a "fundamental right" to "engage in private sexual conduct." The court went even further, chastising the Supreme Court for "issuing a ruling that invoked principles not with 'careful description,' but with sweeping generality." Good for the Eleventh Circuit.
This is important, because if the Supreme Court had created a "fundamental right," that right could only be infringed by a "compelling" societal interest. Instead, the Court of Appeals was free to defer to Florida's decision to limit adoption to "optimal home[s] . . . one in which there is a heterosexual couple or the potential for one."
These rulings remind us of the importance of judicial appointments. While the much-criticized LAWRENCE decision opened the door for these rulings, not every judge has been willing to walk through it. Taking their stand requires a commitment to interpreting, not making, the law. That is the role envisioned by the founders.
It also takes courage, not only to criticize the Supreme Court publicly, but also, as the Kansas court did, to cite the increased health risks associated with homosexual activity.
This is likely to be an issue in the fall election, and it's important. As we saw in Kansas and the Eleventh Circuit, the kind of judges on the bench determine whether they are going to force their values on the people or respect the people's moral judgments.
The biggest problem with Lawrence was not that it said, "You can't outlaw sodomy," but that it said, "You can't outlaw sodomy because anything consenting adults do is fine and dandy." In doing this, the court carefully avoided the Constructionist way of striking down the sodomy laws, which would be to hold that a law that is almost never enforced doesn't really reflect the will of the electorate any more.
Lawrence opened the door to gay marriage, and to just about anything else you can imagine, and some judges are trying to close that door. God bless them.
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
That is the ultimate test. But, there are a lot of facts missing from the article. Was it a heterosexual or homosexual statutory rape in the case of Limon? If someone is using the heterosexual-only exception, to excuse a clear case of heterosexual statutory rape, I would expect a court to find whatever way it could to uphold the intent of statute.
It's like a white convict, who killed a white victim, trying to use a race-based line of reasoning to get his death sentence thrown out. Even if it can be proved that a particular state is unfair to non-whites in its application of the death penalty, that shouldn't be grounds for a white convict to claim unfairness in his case.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
What I got from the article is that they were expecting Limon to be struck down because Lawrence said, "Hey baby, if it feels good, do it," not because the people involved were of any particular preference.
IMHO the rapist should get not only the jail time but castration and a slow death but the courts didn't consider those reasonable and very humane punishments. Mores the pity.
(Someone correct me please if I've got the wrong case here)
Maybe there is a problem here, I can't think of a fourteen year old girl being any less manipulated by an eighteen year old, than a fourteen year old boy would.
But on the flip side there is a chance that a 14 year old girl could really love and decide to spend her life with an 18 year old man. It is after all a natural thing to do. And when they are both 4 years older they are about the perfect age range apart. Men do fall in love with women and vice versa. That's how we are designed.
A 14 year old boy however being molested by an 18 year old man is an unhealthy and unnatural thing. No child desires homosexual behavior without some outside influence and some underlying mental trauma. A healthy child never even imagines it. The act will destroy the childs life and deny him his proper place as a father and husband.
And every one of us here would strongly suspect she's deluded. If she were engaging in anything other than kissing, we'd all be pretty alarmed about it. When your hormones start kicking in at 14, you don't have enough discernment to even suspect that you are being manipulated as a sexual plaything.
And when they are both 4 years older they are about the perfect age range apart.
Sure, and if the example was an 18 year old young man being smitten with a 22 year old man, we'd be talking about two adults here, and the law wouldn't have a thing to say about it, no matter what each of us thinks individually.
Men do fall in love with women and vice versa.
Is a fourteen year old female a "woman"? To me, she's a girl.
No child desires homosexual behavior without some outside influence and some underlying mental trauma.
Perhaps you'd consider the slutty behavior exhibited by Britney Spears, et al, to be the "outside influence" that motiviates fourteen year old girls to want to sleep with eighteen year old self-styled studs, who find eighteen year old young women too wise for their wiles? Fourteen year olds do not need to be having sex with anyone, especially those who have 25 to 30% more life experience than them.
A healthy child never even imagines it. The act will destroy the childs life and deny him his proper place as a father and husband.
I don't know what causes homosexuality, and I don't even pretend to know what causes homosexual experimentation. There have been millions of young people who have been abused at least once either heterosexually or homosexually, who went on to become heterosexual spouses and parents. Some deal with it on their own, some have a trusted friend or family member who gets them through it, and thank goodness, more of them have professional resources to help them with it.
The "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions belong as part of a bygone era that did not encourage young people to confide in a trustworthy adult when they were being sexually exploited by someone more sophisticated and manipulative. When the exceptions were made, we didn't expect that most girls would go beyond high school, and marrying one's high school sweetheart the month of graduation was normal. Today, most people want their daughters to go on to either higher education, or at least trade school, or establish themselves in some sort of career path. I don't think that any of us want what happened to Romeo and Juliet (mutual suicide) to happen to our kids. In the case of opposite sex relationships, there's the very real chance of pregnancy, which can destroy either the life of an unborn child, or seriously set back these young people's futures.
It's very possible here that the courts might catch this state with some odd discrimination in its laws, and while the one appeals court found in favor of the state's right to make a distinction, it still has to play its way through the rest of the court system, and it's not over until the Supremes have their say. There really are two ways to eliminate the disparity, one is to make homosexual activity legal between a 14 year old and an 18 year old, and the other way, the one I prefer, is to make 16 years of age the cutoff for both activities. Don't we owe that to our kids?
if the example was an 18 year old young man being smitten with a 22 year old man, we'd be talking about two adults here,
Only because of lawrence. Sexual perversion should still be illegal as it is still hazardous behavior at any age
Is a fourteen year old female a "woman"? To me, she's a girl.
My grandma was married at 14. I expect your's may have been also. If not, then your great grandma. But of course we were much more responsible back then.
Fourteen year olds do not need to be having sex with anyone, especially those who have 25 to 30% more life experience than them.
Agreed entirely
I don't know what causes homosexuality, and I don't even pretend to know what causes homosexual experimentation. There have been millions of young people who have been abused at least once either heterosexually or homosexually, who went on to become heterosexual spouses and parents. Some deal with it on their own, some have a trusted friend or family member who gets them through it, and thank goodness, more of them have professional resources to help them with it.
There are three main causes. The prime cause is being molested or physically abused. Second cause is an absent or insufficient relationship with one's father. The third is relentless teasing from ones peers during the formative years. see the below link for more info.
Homosexual list of links version 1.1
The "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions ... or seriously set back these young people's futures.
Agreed entirely
There really are two ways to eliminate the disparity, one is to make homosexual activity legal between a 14 year old and an 18 year old, and the other way, the one I prefer, is to make 16 years of age the cutoff for both activities. Don't we owe that to our kids?
While I'd rather see the age of consent for heterosexual behavior raised to 18 that is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion.
The state's argument is not based on the age of the minor so much as on the social hazard of the behavior. A loophole left open by all previous Supreme Court rulings. If the behavior violates the societies standards it can be more closely controlled. Of course we have to see how the black robed tyrants will deal with it but I pray that they will decide wisely.
(I also pray that President Bush will have a chance to appoint two to three real conservatives (can we clone scalia in time?) in his next term and that he has enough support in the senate to make it happen. It's our only chance as a nation)
Well, that ship has sailed. I'd rather have law enforcement and the local DA spending time on rapists, murderers, and meth lab cookers, myself.
My grandma was married at 14. I expect your's may have been also. If not, then your great grandma. But of course we were much more responsible back then.
Our grandmothers and great-grandmothers didn't even have to have high school educations then, either. My own mother didn't graduate from high school, but she was able to find a job as an assistant in a dental office, but that was over fifty years ago. Surely, we'd like to see our kids get through high school, at the very least, they have zero employability without it, and even with it, they're not considered fit for most jobs.
The prime cause is being molested or physically abused.
I've known a number of people who were molested, and all went on to live normal lives, married to opposite sex partners. I acknowledge that an attack may be a triggering influence, but it can also trigger promiscuous or inappropriate heterosexual acting out, also. There still may be something there inside the person that is brought out by an environmental factor. I'm not convinced by any of the research I've read, both pro and anti gay. In this instance, with a criminal matter, if you are right, and its a mental disorder that caused the 18 year old to target the same-sex 14 year old, that seems like a possible defense, doesn't it?
Second cause is an absent or insufficient relationship with one's father.
Again, this is practically a cliche. In an economy where most fathers spend nine hours a day at work, and a few hours to and from that job in commuting, we should have a much greater proportion of gays in our society if that were causative. I think its more complicated than that.
The third is relentless teasing from ones peers during the formative years.
Mr. Scripter and I have tussled in a few other threads a while back, and now, he tries to ignore me. I have certainly seen his list. Whether teasing causes homosexuality or not, surely it's something we can all agree is undesirable. But when schools put in programs to attempt to curtail insults flung around hallways of "Fag!" "Queer!" and "Homo!", they are assailed by conservatives as being gay indoctrination. I'm sure that a few of the programs go off the deep end, but surely there's a happy medium that can foster respect for one's peers, no matter what their perceived differences are.
The state's argument is not based on the age of the minor so much as on the social hazard of the behavior.
Which is what makes it a vulnerable argument. In addition to the possibility of disease (Mr. Scripter has refused to answer my question about which diseases promiscuous gays are the only ones subject to, while promiscuous straights are not subject to, if engaging in the same sexual behaviors), there is also the possibility of pregnancy. While a relatively small proportion of 18 year olds, both homo and heterosexual, have transmittable diseases, an extremely great proportion of 18 year old males have reproductive fertility. Surely, the social costs of teenage pregnancy have to be weighed in when talking about the relative social hazards of the two behaviors.
(I also pray that President Bush will have a chance to appoint two to three real conservatives (can we clone scalia in time?) in his next term and that he has enough support in the senate to make it happen. It's our only chance as a nation)
It's important that our President be allowed to play the Lawrence decision and the MA and SF situations as being bad timing for the Rats, and not as bad timing for the Republicans. I'm sure as soon as the election is over with, conservatives will be much happier with what they get from GWB and the Congress than they would be if Republicans overplay their hands on this. The media's lying in wait for a misstep, let it be Kerry who says the wrong thing.
Thanks for the discussion!
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.