Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?
CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter ^ | 6/27/03 | Deal Hudson

Posted on 06/28/2003 7:08:52 AM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionlaws; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; catholiclist; consentingadults; consentingminors; consentingteens; culturewar; druglaws; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; incestlaws; lawrence; lawrencevtexas; limonvkansas; notconsentingadults; privacy; prostitutionlaws; roe; roevwade; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; scotus; sexlaws; slipperyslope; sodomy; sodomylaws; statesrights; statutoryrapelaws; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-697 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2003 7:08:52 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; Antoninus; aposiopetic; Aquinasfan; ...
This is gravely serious, folks.
2 posted on 06/28/2003 7:11:30 AM PDT by Polycarp (Just like calling others a Nazi, Once you throw out the label "homophobe" you have lost the debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

the sky is falling!
the sky is falling!
the sky is falling!
3 posted on 06/28/2003 7:12:09 AM PDT by toothless (I AM A MAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: toothless
Only fools fail to see the danger of this decision. Fool.
4 posted on 06/28/2003 7:17:50 AM PDT by Polycarp (Just like calling others a Nazi, Once you throw out the label "homophobe" you have lost the debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.

5 posted on 06/28/2003 7:19:26 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.
6 posted on 06/28/2003 7:21:59 AM PDT by demkicker ((I wanna kick some commie butt))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Only fools fail to see a slippery slope falacy. Fool.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
7 posted on 06/28/2003 7:23:24 AM PDT by toothless (I AM A MAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.

8 posted on 06/28/2003 7:26:13 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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?"

9 posted on 06/28/2003 7:27:01 AM PDT by MalcolmS (Do Not Remove This Tagline Under Penalty Of Law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.

10 posted on 06/28/2003 7:28:01 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toothless
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.

11 posted on 06/28/2003 7:28:10 AM PDT by Polycarp (Just like calling others a Nazi, Once you throw out the label "homophobe" you have lost the debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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
12 posted on 06/28/2003 7:29:26 AM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toothless
From your previous post, that sounds like you.
13 posted on 06/28/2003 7:29:29 AM PDT by Paulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The Supreme Court can't invalidate a Constitutional amendment.
14 posted on 06/28/2003 7:30:49 AM PDT by LarryM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Howard Phillips is unelectable. Fat, scowling middle-aged men don't win national office.
15 posted on 06/28/2003 7:33:01 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: toothless
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.

16 posted on 06/28/2003 7:33:30 AM PDT by Paulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; Polycarp
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.

17 posted on 06/28/2003 7:34:33 AM PDT by TheGrimReaper (o)(o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I guess you are right, I'm not one of the wisened 2%ers. lol.
18 posted on 06/28/2003 7:36:17 AM PDT by toothless (I AM A MAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.
19 posted on 06/28/2003 7:38:47 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.

20 posted on 06/28/2003 7:40:25 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Don't you Bible-beaters have something better to do than worry about other people's sex lives?
21 posted on 06/28/2003 7:40:41 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I disagree with the whole substantive due process reasoning, by the way, for the same reasons mentioned by the article. However, I would've reached the same result (upholding a right to privacy) as one of the 9th Amendment's unenumerated rights (this was Justice Goldberg's position in Griswold v. Connecticut, but the 14th Amendment faction won out by the time of Roe.)
22 posted on 06/28/2003 7:44:04 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Hmmm...Can universities and schools make or enforce rules aimed to prevent consensual sexual relations between teachers and non-minor students if it is done in the 'privacy' of a hotel or home?

By this ruling doesn't ALL ADULT CONSENSENUAL SEX with other consenting ADULTS become protected private behavior?

23 posted on 06/28/2003 7:44:28 AM PDT by Van Jenerette (Our Republic...if we can keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
No, because we want our Judeo-Christian culture back.

This is only a first step. Wait until they come for your kids... and they will. Lust is never satisfied; it is the one "natural resource" which knows no limit.
24 posted on 06/28/2003 7:47:44 AM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All
There are two questions for conservatives with regard to homosexuality. 1) Is a homosexual a human being? 2) Does the practice help society, and this question should probably be interpreted narrowly from the perspective of reproduction.

1) Do conservatives believe homosexuals are not human? If we did, we would determine that someone who intentionally kills a homosexual had not committed murder. I don't think even the most extreme of conservatives would take this position.

2) Homosexuals are not going to reproduce biologically. Period. In the past, this mattered a great deal and society, which needed to grow, would oppose it on those grounds. Times have changed, but not all that much. We still have tax deductions for kids. We, as a society, still encourage growth to that degree. The sadness of parents whose child "comes out" has nuances. Some of it is not selfless. Some of it mourns for their own future joy of grandkids. And some mourns for the unhappiness they feel their own child will endure.

So. We, as conservatives, would do well to keep in mind that there are two ends to this spectrum. Our distaste is thoroughly constrained by item 1 above. Item 2 merely guides where on the shades-of-gray spectrum our position should be.

25 posted on 06/28/2003 7:49:44 AM PDT by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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

I'm of the belief that these laws are lame. The State has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults. Most of the jurisdictions do not enforce them for this reason and they have been repealed willy-nilly.

But my dislike for these laws does not blind me to what the Supreme Court has done and what it portends for the future. This is another manufactured out of thin air ruling. Scalia's scathing attack on it is right on the money. People are pretending that there is no such thing as precedent and that lower court judges will apply this ruling to everything under the sun. We rage about the 9th circuit court but can you imagine what that court will use this ruling to justify in the future?

You are right, if the number is 99% then I'm with you as part of the 1%
26 posted on 06/28/2003 7:51:27 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Van Jenerette
Private universities certainly can restricts relationships between faculty and adult students, since they're not subject to the 9th or 14th amendments.

As to whether those rules would stand up to a Lawrence scrutiny in a public university, I suspect the answer is "no, but it doesn't matter." Rather than being subject to defense, as must adult consensual sodomy laws, against the lowest possible threshold of state rights, public universities get to appeal to a much higher set of state public policy objectives -- in other words, the state can use the rationale of the Michigan law school affirmative action case, and say that it is necessary to impinge upon the professor's rights to screw whomever he chooses in order to maintain the essential qualities of access and diversity on campus (the theory being that professor-student affairs negatively impact women).

27 posted on 06/28/2003 7:52:19 AM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I'm of the belief that these laws are lame.

Or, in the words of the court, "uncommonly silly."

28 posted on 06/28/2003 7:52:21 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
If my kids want to be gay, that is a-ok with me. You can have all the Judeo-Christian culture you want in your own homes and churches. But the government is not your private goon squad for the enforcement of Christian morals. At least not anymore.
29 posted on 06/28/2003 7:53:05 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
Don't you Bible-beaters have something better to do than worry about other people's sex lives?

I could care less about other's sex lives. But I care very much about the Supreme Court manufacturing half-baked decisions just to reach a social goal. Having unelected people in black robes legislate is not my idea of progress.
30 posted on 06/28/2003 7:55:52 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: toothless
The sky actually is falling. Yesterday, in Limon, the Supreme Court vacated the sentence of someone who had homosexually molested a 14-year-old boy, on the basis of Lawrence. So much for Lawrence just being about ending the criminal prosecution of sex between consenting adults.
31 posted on 06/28/2003 7:57:13 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The Supreme Court can not overturn a Constitutional Amendment

Isn't is a pity that you are required to remind somebody of this fact?

If the congress and the states pass an amendment that states all cheese except for Extra Sharp cheddar is illegal, the supreme court must honor that as law.

The constitution is living, each time it is amended it changes. If people genuinely want changes, they can petition the congress to pass an amendment. If for example, somebody wants to jail homosexuals, they could pass an amendment to the constitution, get it ratified by the states, and it would be the law of the land.

Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

32 posted on 06/28/2003 7:58:18 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Even this warning is too limited. The theory the Justices applied doesn't stop at sex, doesn't even stop at privacy. AS of the time Thursday this rulling came out, we are officially an anarchy. Every single Judge can make whatever ruling pleases him, no according to rule, precedent, morality, common standards, etc.
33 posted on 06/28/2003 7:59:04 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The process used in arriving at this ruling is worse than the result.

Mr Justice Kennedy, for the Court:

"These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex".

So now, the Court claims the right to rule by discerning "emerging awareness" on the part of the population.

No need for voting, no need to listen to those selected through voting, no means to question the justice's perception of "emerging awareness" - if the laws passed by the People do NOT reflect "emerging awareness" what else can possibly do so?

The power to issue rulings based on a justice's discernment of "emerging awareness" is exactly the power claimed by the French revolutionaries to rule in the name of the General Will.

It is pure despotism, and it doesn't matter if they use the power to outlaw sodomy or to require it.

The consequences to a Free Republic are the same.

34 posted on 06/28/2003 8:01:28 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
The sky actually is falling. Yesterday, in Limon, the Supreme Court vacated the sentence of someone who had homosexually molested a 14-year-old boy, on the basis of Lawrence. So much for Lawrence just being about ending the criminal prosecution of sex between consenting adults.

How about the rest of the story though Aristiedes. The molestor was a mentally delayed man of the age of 18 years old and 1 week. If the victim was a 14 year old girl, he would have received 15 months in prison, but Kansas differentiated between molesting a girl, or molesting a boy, and sentenced him to 17 years instead of the 15 months. The Supreme Court in no way said it was illegal, or unconstitutional to write laws sentencing everybody to 17 years in jail for statutory rape, but that the sentences must be equal.

Again, if Kansas wants to give everybody a 17 year sentence for this offense, they are free to do so.

35 posted on 06/28/2003 8:01:30 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I have no problem with having unelected people in black robes legislate as long as they are protecting individual freedom from the state. Democracy is a means, not an end. When democracy is inconsistent with individual freedom, it is democracy that must yield. The whole point of having a Bill of Rights was to make certain things vote-proof. As Justice Robert Jackson said:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943))

When you study the founding fathers--everyone up to about Andrew Jackson--it is striking how little they had to say about democracy. Some of them even used it as an epithet. They knew that unlimited majority rule is as bad as any other sort of tyranny--worse, in fact, because it is harder to fight.
36 posted on 06/28/2003 8:02:13 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.

And such an amendment would do more than end the prospect of homosexual marriage. It would represent the repudiation of the so-called thinking in the Lawrence decision and might persuade the Supreme Court to cabin the implications of Lawrence to what that decision was ostensibly about, striking down sodomy laws. Limon yesterday showed that the Supreme Court presently has no such intention. Quite the contrary.

37 posted on 06/28/2003 8:02:21 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Leaving out some details aren't you?
38 posted on 06/28/2003 8:03:21 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Bingo! You got it! Better than I did!
39 posted on 06/28/2003 8:03:23 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
You can have all the Judeo-Christian culture you want in your own homes and churches. But the government is not your private goon squad for the enforcement of Christian morals..

I wonder if we 'cleaned house' of ALL government laws, statutes, including the U.S. Constitution of anything based on Judeo-Christian morals and values, what rights would we the people have left?

40 posted on 06/28/2003 8:04:09 AM PDT by Van Jenerette (Our Republic...if we can keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
It is contemptible for the state to prosecute an 18 year old for having consensual relations with a 14 year old. But all the Limon decision did was say the sentences for heterosexual and homosexual offenses had to be equal. Is there a problem with that?
41 posted on 06/28/2003 8:04:26 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12; kristinn
I also didn't mention that the 14-year-old victim too was, as you put it, "mentally delayed." Doesn't that make the case worse? I also didn't mention that the perp had a prior.

And are you denying that Limon shows that, whatever Kennedy said in Lawrence, the Supreme Court has no intention of limiting the effects of Lawrence to cases involving consenting adults?

42 posted on 06/28/2003 8:05:03 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bvw
I tend to agree with you.

Does this ruling also make prostitution legal?....... the cops must be scratching their heads trying to figure out if the privacy rule applies, and if so they probably have no more than potential tax evasion of a prostitute as a cause to arrest the person - but for that they'd have to wait for April 15. *sigh*.

43 posted on 06/28/2003 8:05:25 AM PDT by bart99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Van Jenerette
The right to kill or be killed.
44 posted on 06/28/2003 8:05:49 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Van Jenerette
"The most comprehensive of all rights, and the right most valued by civilized men; the right to be left alone." (Brandeis)
45 posted on 06/28/2003 8:06:00 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital
I don't share your opinion that it is contemptible to prosecute an 18-year-old for sex (consensual?) with a "mentally delayed" 14-year-old. The fact that you would call it "consensual" shows where you're coming from.

But, contemptible or not, what makes it unconstitutional? Lawrence? If so, that's my point.

46 posted on 06/28/2003 8:06:56 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
The 14 year old victim was a willing participant. In a civilized country it would never have gone to trial, much less earned a 17 year sentence.
47 posted on 06/28/2003 8:07:31 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cherrycapital

the FOUNDING FATHERS UNLEASHED

  Our Constitution provides the legitimate foundations of this country as a free nation that is of the people and by the people but, we must read beyond it words and read it's authors words and thoughts in order to understand the warnings they have sent through generations to it's application in todays world.
 




warning...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams, October 11, 1798



warning...

"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?... And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?..."

- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson


The entire argument about sexual behavior is so simple it can be reduced to the following: Should there be any social rules about what sexual activity a human being engages in?

If the answer is no then everyone should just shut up...hetero is okay, cousins are okay, polygamy is okay, bi is okay; gay is okay, 13-year olds are okay, and one or one-hundred-at-a-time are okay, et. al.

However, if a society decides that certain rules about who does whom when and where is functional and perhaps even necessary, all that is left is to decide is WHAT are the rules of sexual behavior and WHO shall make them...simple. Those who follow the 'rules' are then NORMAL and all the rest are PERVERTED or DEVIANT... so very, very simple...you decide.

Van & Katherine Jenerette

www.jenerette.com

48 posted on 06/28/2003 8:08:36 AM PDT by Van Jenerette (Our Republic...if we can keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I would say it is a violation of the right to privacy, which, unlike the Burger and Rehnquist courts, I would locate in the 9th Amendment doctrine of unenumerated rights rather than the shaky "substantive due process" doctrine.
49 posted on 06/28/2003 8:09:17 AM PDT by cherrycapital
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Again, if Kansas wants to give everybody a 17 year sentence for this offense, they are free to do so.

Are you sure? Mightn't that interfere with the essential expression of identity?

Anyway, the details do nothing to refute my point that Limon shows Lawrence doesn't just have implications for sex between consenting adults.

50 posted on 06/28/2003 8:09:17 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-697 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson