Posted on 12/06/2002 5:57:06 PM PST by Tina Johnson
The Supreme Court will hear three cases that should be of particular interest to conservatives, as the subsequent rulings could put significant weight behind two of the Right’s grander tenets. First, Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court will determine the validity of anti-sodomy laws in 13 States, concerning the 1998 arrests of John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were caught in Lawrence’s apartment engaging in acts of sodomy. (The two eventually plead no contest and paid $200 fines.)
Now most Right-wingers will read that and wonder, “What conservative tenet does this address, exactly?” None, unless you take seriously Ronald Reagan’s long held wish to get government off of the people’s backs and out of their lives. President Reagan was speaking of the federal government, of course, but taking the extra step to include State and local governments is not only desirable but logical, at which point one must admit getting off of one’s back should include not giving a damn what happens in his bedroom, provided all are adults, all consent and the neighbors aren’t being kept awake. (All right, that last bit is self-serving, but still.)
We are speaking here of laws in 13 States banning sodomy, nine of which are for both sexes (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia), the other four pertaining strictly to gays (these are Texas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma). How does a municipality go about enforcing said laws, exactly? In the case of Lawrence and Garner, a false report about an armed intruder was made to police, who then walked into the unlocked apartment and proceeded to make a federal case out of it. Literally. If not for an unlocked door, these State laws would probably be allowed to stand. And let’s make no mistake about it, they should all be overturned.
Put aside for a moment the normal arguments regarding whether or not one has a constitutional right to sodomy, or whether or not the integrity of the anti-AIDS crusade can be upheld, and consider just this: Part of having and enjoying autonomy – and in this it is meant the autonomy of human beings, not just American citizens – is being able to make up one’s mind regarding those activities not necessarily typical of his contemporaries. A man or woman of sound mind and majority can choose whether or not to undergo or skip cancer treatments, whether or not they can be kept alive artificially should some horrible trauma befall them, whether or not their organs can be harvested and donated to those in need. To suggest the same adults who are presumably capable of making these decisions cannot decide rationally on the matter of oral and / or anal sex, and must therefore be overseen by law (no matter how generally unenforceable) is ludicrous. It’s an idea that supplants the ability of adults to decide for themselves what happens within their own walls; private walls, after all.
The second and third cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court will consider the University of Michigan’s open race-based preference admissions policy. Here two white students were turned away from the University’s undergraduate and law schools respectively in favor of “minority applicants.” The interest to conservatives is obvious: It should be said by the Supreme Court that every man and woman trying to get into college should be considered by the weight of their intellect, not the color of their skin (to adapt Reverend King’s well spoken expression).
It’s fine for one to wish upon the Court the wisdom to make the proper decision (and I do), but how come no one has ever complained about racial preferences on the University’s basketball court and football field? The University of Michigan has for years produced basketball and football teams that have not only contended for Big Ten and national championships, but have won them, as well. At some point the dictum “Whitey Really Isn’t Needed Here, Unless He’s a Quarterback or a Center” came from on high, and not so much as one fit was ever pitched. Weren’t nitwits brought onto campus for the sole purpose of putting the University within shouting distance of one championship or another (Yes; e.g., Chris Webber), and therefore haven’t large bags of cash been dumped on administration desks, one after the other, as a result?
Well sure, that’s because we’re talking about sports, and the standards there have come to be held at different levels for sports teams, especially in large Division 1-A schools like … well … the University of Michigan. So the Right should know, in this matter, even if the Court rules on the side of logic, there will always, always, be race-based preferences on the college campus, some preferences just stated more loudly than others.
Beavis: Heh Heh - he said 'rise'.
Okaaay.... And his point was what?
BTW, you wouldn't have happened to notice where most of those states are located geographically would you?
If the elected representatives of a state should so decide, so it should be. The Tenth Amendment means such matters are committed to the states to decide.
Drug trafficking, on the other hand, directly concerns and impacts international borders--matters expressly reserved to the federal government by the Constitution.
This is absolute lunacy. In order for there to be a crime, someone must be injured by either force or fraud. Period. Otherwise no crime has been committed.
Including allowing prostitution?
I have yet to see one argument against legalized prostitution that does not devolve into "I (or my particular religious fantasy) feel that it is wrong, and therefore it should be a jailable offense."
Tell me either person in the exchange below is injured by force or fraud:
"Would you like to manipulate my private parts?"
"How much?"
"$20."
"Sure."
If I grow my own weed, then it's OK to smoke it?
One argument for a difference is that many if not all states have the authority to regulate commercial businesses in ways that they cannot regulate non-commercial transactions. If you want to give a friend a beer at 2:01am, you are free to do so. But if you want to offer beer for sale at 2:01am, state and local governments can forbid it.
Had the defendants' door been locked and the police broken in, I would have no trouble finding unambiguously for the defendants. While it is certainly possible for the police to break into a house based upon false information, I would not regard such a thing as "foreseeable". Since the door was unlocked, however, I find things a bit more murky.
Consider, for example, that people who are visiting others and are expected will often open the door and announce themselves or in some cases just enter outright. Every once in awhile, someone doing so may manage to open the wrong door. Generally they will then close it again as soon as they realize their mistake (apologizing if noticed), but they would first see whatever was visible from the door. Such mistakes are perhaps unfortunate, but they are hardly unforeseeable.
This in this particular case I'd probably base my decision upon the layout of the house and the men's position within it. If the living room was away from the entrance such that the cop had to enter the dwelling to observe the two men, I would certainly vote to acquit. Otherwise, depending upon the facts of the case, I might not.
Did the police have to enter to discover the activity, or was opening the door and observing from outside sufficient?
People seem to conveniently forget that we don't live in a society where feudal lords reign unrestrained. The peasants don't just have pitchforks; they have the vote.
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.