Skip to comments.The sodomy ruling: A liberal gold mine: David Limbaugh challenges Bush to use bully pulpit
Posted on 07/04/2003 12:17:46 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (the sodomy case) is a veritable gold mine for liberals and the shifting values they hold dear.
Not many conservatives I know have any desire to see the sodomy laws of any state enforced against homosexual behavior within the confines of one's private residence. But the Supreme Court's opinion had little to do with protecting that kind of privacy and much more to do with legitimizing homosexuality, moral relativism and the concept of the Constitution as an evolving document. And for good measure, the Court also took a gratuitous swipe at American sovereignty in the process.
Sure, Justice Anthony Kennedy talked about privacy, and his reasoning could have disastrous consequences if applied to its logical conclusion, as Sen. Rick Santorum correctly warned. But "privacy" is hardly what was motivating the majority. The Court was determined to make a statement endorsing homosexuality as a status, not just homosexual behavior. This is profound and far ranging, but part of a continuing progression of cases sanctioning homosexuals as a protected class. The Court in Romer v. Evans (1996), for example, struck down a Colorado statute that prohibited granting special protection to homosexuals under state anti-discrimination laws.
In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy criticized (before overruling) the 1986 Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Hardwick in which the Court validated a state sodomy law for demeaning the homosexual relationship. "To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse." And, "[The] continuance [of the Bowers case] as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons."
I am not disputing that a criminal statute outlawing sodomy between homosexuals demeans the homosexual relationship of course it does, and it's intended to. Until relatively recently our society openly disapproved of such relationships. But it is equally true that the Court's language legitimizes such relationships and is intended to. Had the Court merely intended to protect the homosexual act within the home, it wouldn't have addressed the "demeaning of the homosexual relationship." The Court also acknowledged the "dignity" of homosexuals "as free persons."
And where this Court is concerned, forget any affinity for the Constitution's original intent, much less its reliance on absolute truths. Kennedy continued, "(The drafters of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and 14th Amendments) knew times can blind us to certain truths, and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress." Are we to infer from this that the writers of the Bible were blind to certain truths and that we can now safely discard them as outmoded, prejudicial and homophobic? This concept might be news to King Solomon, who told us "there is nothing new under the sun."
Justice Kennedy's endorsement of postmodern moral relativism and humanism is hardly new. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996), he and his robed colleagues wrote, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Oh well, we might as well throw out American sovereignty along with moral absolutes while we're at it. I'm not exaggerating. The Court virtually incorporated into the Constitution the ever-changing values of other nations "a wider civilization." "The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries," said the Court. "There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent (than that of other nations)."
Swell. Now we not only have to contend with the erosion of traditional values from the aggressive moral relativism in our own country, but that of other even more "progressive" nations. What possible justification is there to consider, let alone adopt, as constitutional principles the values of other nations? The last time I checked, we didn't have an international constitution.
President Bush has provided badly needed moral leadership in our War on Terror. But while we're paying scant attention, our moral foundations are continuing to crumble from within. The president should use his bully pulpit to challenge this court publicly. Done effectively, it could lead to the filibuster-proof majority he needs to bring sanity to the judiciary.
...which is why you should be very disturbed that Justice Kennedy cited precendents established in UN and EU court decisions.
European Legal Brief Threatened Trouble for US Over Texas Sodomy Law
As debate continues on the significance of the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Texas' law against sodomy, it has gone largely unnoticed that the majority's decision relied on judicial rulings made in Europe and at the United Nations. The pivotal role of international law in the Supreme Court decision seems to confirm the concerns of conservative legal scholars, who have long warned that laws developed in Europe and at the UN could be imposed on the US. The majority opinion was guided, specifically, by the pro-homosexual rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy also refers to a "Friends of the Court" brief submitted by Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which asserts, "This Court should not decide in a vacuum whether criminalization of same-sex sodomy between consenting adults violates constitutional guarantees of privacy and equal protection. Other nations with similar histories, legal systems, and political cultures have already answered these questions in the affirmative..This Court should pay due respect to these opinions of humankind."
Robinson's brief also says, "Legal concepts like 'privacy,' 'liberty,' and 'equality' are not US property, but have global meaning." Robinson argues that the United States should be "construing these terms in light of foreign interpretations," even warning the Supreme Court that "To ignore these precedents virtually ensures that this Court's ruling will generate controversies with the United State's closest global allies.".... [Can you believe the effrontery of these commisar wanna-be's?!]
Writing in dissent, Justice Scalia condemned the importation of foreign laws into US judicial deliberations: "Constitutional elements do not spring into existence.as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct.. 'this Court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.'"
Whole article can be read here
God bless Justice Scalia. We need a constitutional amendment to hamstring the NWO commisars who will stop at nothing to impose their perverted will on us.
David is one of my heroes, and I am not eager to criticize him or any of his writings.
That being said, there is no comparing Teddy and his bully pulpit to GW and his propensity to compromise.
It sure has helped me face the hordes at the Federal Building.