The Supreme Court: Unlocked Doors and Whitey

IntellectualConservative.com ^ | Friday, December 6th | Brian S. Wise

[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.

[Illbay]

What does your "living, breathing" Constitution actually SAY about sodomy in the Ninth Amendment?

And why for centuries was this undiscovered until YOU in your incredible wisdom were able to discern it?

[Illbay]

Yes, they're located in the Bush Red Zone.

[Illbay]

"Someone" is. That "someone" is the community, all of us.

This notion that only individuals can be "harmed" by crime or there is no crime is false. It is NEWTHINK.

Note that in a criminal prosecution it isn't "The Victim vs. The Alleged Perpetrator."

It is "The State vs. The Alleged Perpetrator."

There's a reason for that.

[Illbay]

"I (or my particular religious fantasy) feel that it is wrong, and therefore it should be a jailable offense."

"It" can also be murder, or grand larceny, or armed robbery.

In some Muslim countries, it is absolutely considered proper for a male relative to kill a female relative if they have "dishonored" the family by committing fornication, for example. To us, that's a "jailable offense" because our "particular religious fantasy" proscribes it (and don't give us any guff about "human dignity." If humans determined this stuff ANYTHING would be legal. Religion is the single palliative to a host of human ills).

[Illbay]

Tell me, is it okay then for this to take place at the street-corner in front of your house? Why or why not?

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Is it possible for a Texan to publically expose his anus in a non-provocative manner?

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

"Conventional (normal, heterosexual) sex between consenting adults in privacy" is prohibited in all states except Nevada if money changes hands.

"Conventional (normal, heterosexual) sex between consenting adults in privacy" virtually requires, in most if not all states, that money change hands. Have you checked on divorce laws?

[jammer]

This case is about lowering public standards of decency.

I am a more than a little skeptical about the universality of the shibboleth, "You can't legislate morality." But, really, this case isn't about lowering public standards of decency. It's about removing laws that attempt to legislate private activity.

I am of two minds, however. The principles of federalism, as stated above about Roe v Wade's intellectual quicksand, require that the court allow cities to make their own laws. This just isn't a federal matter. I don't agree with the laws--I just don't agree that it is Washington's business.

[meyer]

Did the police have to enter to discover the activity, or was opening the door and observing from outside sufficient?

I don't know the particulars of the case, but I beleive that they merely had to open the door and look in. It was the living room where the "activity" was taking place. Does this matter legally? Should this matter legally?

[csvset]

Tyron Garner, right, and John Lawrence, left, listen to their lawyer, Suzanne Goldberg, center, speak to reporters after a Harris County Criminal Court judge found them guilty and fined them for homosexual conduct on Dec. 22, 1998, in Houston. The Supreme Court said Monday, Dec.2, 2002, it would consider whether states can punish homosexuals for having sex, a case that tests the constitutionality of sodomy laws in 13 states. The justices will review the prosecution of these two men under a state law making it a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse. The two men, arrested for having sex in a private home, appealed their conviction under Texas' sodomy law. (AP Photo/Michael Stravato,file)

[meyer]

Its hard to beleive that their lawyer which is apparently the one speaking is a woman. I would have expected, from looking at the picture, that the two on the right were the guys that were "light in their loafers" as it were. Strange...

[laredo44]

This is a state's rights issue. There's nothing in the U.S. constitution that delineates a right to sodomy...

Your thinking faces 180 degrees away from liberty. Our tyrannies come from just your kind of logic and are supported by you and those that think like you do.

The Constitution is not a deliniation of rights eventhough it does list a few, Amendment IX is very specific about that. Rights are not something dispensed by government. They inhere to individuals and are independent of any state or form of state.

All governments, including states have no rights. Only individuals have rights. States have powers, not rights. The purpose of those powers is to secure the rights of individuals.

[Straight Vermonter]

Ronald Reagan’s long held wish to get government off of the people’s backs

It wasn't the government who was on that guy's back. LOL

[bvw]

Produce the comprehensive survey of the laws of private spaces -- which term, btw, changes within a body of laws, and can be peculiar in statute definition and case law interpretation.

Do you think I used the term "g-string" for naught, it was a clue -- that is this -- when you can be clear be so, and sodomy is clear -- modesty, public decency, and privacy are not so clear and perversion is like a spider's web -- each strand barely noted, but with continued efforts a trap is sprung. Good folks go along with simple seemingly harmless concepts when stated -- such as "we already protect against lewdness and sexual acts in public" or "we already define private spaces".

Yet go into any convenience store -- look near the counter at the vista any five year old sees -- naked and near-naked men and women in provocative pose on many a magazine. Do the concepts work there? NO! Or consider the misfortune and aggravation had in many a nieghborhood once a lap-dancer bar moves in -- why that's a private space -- the bar itself, in some places, or a okay under a relaxed intrepretation of public decency and modesty in others. I'll even exempt and allow for long established red-light districts off the usual school-age kid and families day-to-day business path -- still you have fierce and contentious battles every day about what constitutes lewdness, nakedness, a sex act, and a private space. That is a common sense, a known warning, yet good folks miss it at the time some down-sliding, yet amiable, gaffer says "We we already a have provision for that aspect of it. Let us remove this ancient marker in the law, let us be more modern."

Again, Karsus -- show us the facts, the as-it-really-is, the survey, the comprehensive researched narrative that shows how adequately modest "private areas" are already defined in the law so that removing a far more clear ban on sodomy, no innocent child would suffer entering a park restroom to see a 69 in progress, or no family on the beach would have to leave to avoid having kid chance to glimpse under the boardwalk were those two men are actively engaging under a big-enough-for the-local-court blanket.

[laredo44]

This is a states rights

States have no rights. Your ignornace of the reason for government gives rise to your own foolishness in this arena and aid and comfort to tyrannts everywhere.

[laredo44]

It is also amazing to see "conservatives" who hate big goverment want to get the goverment involved on issues they don't like.

They are, of course, not really interested in limited government. They simply have their own reasons for wanting to be tyrannts.

[bvw]

If only the laws of physics obeyed such human constructs as "privacy" as well as your fervid imagination would have it! Why we could bax in a black hole and never worry about the rest of the local univesre falling in after it. Even inside the most artfully and tightly constructed box physicists have learned that at least by gravity and inertia, the aspects of the thing inside the box and what goes on within it do indeed affect the outside world.

Physics teaches us, at least by suggestion, of what can happen in the social, the psychological, and spiritual world we live in too. No act, even under the greatest cover, in the darkest room, goes on without affect on all of us. Not only at the time of the act, but also the actors in that act carry the results -- the fruit, the scent, the echo -- out of that private space with them.

[laredo44]

Also the government has the right

Governments do not have rights.

[bvw]

If humans determined this stuff ANYTHING would be legal. Religion is the single palliative to a host of human ills.

The question then becomes which religion is the true religion -- and that, for all the pain that goes along with it -- is still a far sight better than the alternative.

We already have reports of te final result of the alternative. Most recently: the lives and fate of the aboriginal inhabitants of Van Damien's Land.