Posted on 06/29/2003 1:51:34 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford
There is considerable anguish expressed about the Supreme Court’s striking down a Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy, declaring that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy. Until 1960, there were no states without anti-sodomy laws, and even today thirteen states retain them – or did, until now. The Supreme Court ruling is regarded as the beginning of the end of anti-same-sex marriage laws, and an assault upon family life, and normal marriage.
Well, gee whiz! You can’t make a privacy omelet without breaking a few eggs! And who better to do it than the Supremes? The very idea that Texas can make laws regulating the actions of people in Texas is simply mind-boggling. Who do those Texans think they are? And what gives them, or any other group, the right to think that they can determine Constitutionality on their own? Just open your copy of that document, my friend, and there, in big letters, you’ll find "The Constitutionality of Any Law Is To Be Determined By the U.S. Supreme Court." Well, OK, maybe it doesn’t say that in so many words; maybe it doesn’t say so at all, or even imply it; but are we going to quibble about legal niceties when the homosexual agenda is involved? I should think not!
Privacy is what drove the Supreme Court to legalize abortion, as well. What transpires between a woman and her obstetrician is private, and not subject to laws regulating it by the states in which it occurs. Again, it served the states right for thinking that they could make judgments regarding constitutionality on their own, or even exercise jurisdiction within their boundaries where such an important, if newly-discovered right, as abortion was concerned. What could more obviously be a federal matter?
There is, however, just one niggling doubt in my mind about this whole privacy thing: it seems to be so selective. For example, if a woman wants to get rid of her unborn child, no state can prevent her from doing so, because it’s a private matter. Well, sure! What if she wants to get rid of her husband? Is what transpires between a woman and her hit-man as private as her dealings with her abortionist? Private is private, isn’t it? In fact, the deal with the hit man is probably more private than that with the abortionist; many women are quite open in admitting that they terminated their child in utero, while few will acknowledge planning to bump off the old boy. Of course, killing a husband is a crime, but so was killing an unborn child at one time. We have to modernize our thinking, and maybe this privacy thing is the way to go.
Still, it bothers me. If the state cannot go into the bedroom, can it go into the boardroom? Weren’t Martha Stewart’s dealings also private – between her and her broker? And what about the privacy that must surely exist between a woman and her accountant? Must she bare all regarding her financial affairs when the government wants to know? Do you think the tax man will slink away when he’s told that one’s financial dealings are private, and thereby exempt from government control and regulation?
It’s evidently a very complicated affair, and I just don’t understand it. The loss of personal privacy resulting from the Patriot Act, for instance, is hard to reconcile with the right to privacy regarding sodomy and abortion. But at least in the government’s defense of personal privacy, two very deserving groups came up winners: aborting moms and randy homosexuals, whose gaiety must now be well-nigh unbearable. I hope they don’t resort to the use of drugs to enhance their celebrations. Even when used in private, such drug use is forbidden, oddly enough.
Well, there’s a job for the Court’s next session
Response; Simply note how the concept of 'privacy' is almost invariably used to cover vice, corruption, fraud and violence. If I remember correctly the initiation of the idea was by a lawyer whose father had been convicted of judicial corruption. Thus, even the birth of the concept is suspect! A Bastard born, if you will.
I don't know how our schools have convinced people to turn the Bill of Rights on it's head to give the feds more power over the citizens.
Don't they even teach children that the Constitution would not have been ratified if Madison hadn't promised to amend it to further limit the new government's powers?
Are Madison and Jefferson no longer mentioned in courses on our history except as examples of mean white men?
The Ninth amendment has joined the Tenth as a useless anachronism.
"The Georgia Supreme Court noted:
The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection [under the Constitution of the State of Georgia]... "
Patrick Henry: "Well goodness, this constitution doesn't give the new federal government enough power over the people and the states!"
James Madison: "Well if it's ratified I promise to introduce a Bill of Rights to give it more power!"
(... excerpt from a modern history text book- I suppose.)
They basically have ruled that the framers of the Constitution did not understand what was constitutional and what was not, since at the time of the enactment of the constitution, and for generations afterwards, there were sodomy laws.
If what goes on behind closed doors is protected by a constitutional right to privacy, then how can there be drug use laws, how can there be laws against prostitution, or bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, etc.?
But that was Santorum's point, wasn't it? Smart guy that Santorum.
The courts need to leave the legislating for the Legislature, and the federal government needs to leave as much of the governing to the states as possible. Only when there is a compelling national interest should the federal government be involved, at all.
I'll never treat the living constitutionalists lightly again
That is perhaps the most galling aspect to this whole thing. After the Santorum flap, all, including the leftists on the bench, must have known about those worms.
Then there is Sandy D, if one is going to strike that law down, equal protection is the way to keep it narrow. Since there was a difference between hetro/homosexual conduct in that particular law, it fails equal protection, protections.
Let Texas fix it was the way to go. This should not have been a Federal case. As Mark levin has been saying all week "I'm tired of everywhere I turn there is SODOMY! Over there, SODOMY! Over there, SODOMY! I don't care what anybody does, I just don't want to hear any more about SODOMY!"
This was an intentional case of expanding the rule of lawyers.
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.