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.
From the original text:
Amendment [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I was wrong in my earlier post and laredo 44 is obviously correct about what the Ninth Amendment says. The States once had powers that mattered, and now they have little. I think that is a shame. The States never intended to give this much power to the federal government and if they could have seen as clearly as the anti-federalists, they would never have ratified the Constitution we have.
At least, that is my opinion.
But do/should they have the power to?
Ever hear of disease? STDs are prevalent among heterosexuals. They, and many other diseases are almost the rule among homosexuals. Whole arrays of disease are prevalent in those that practice anal sex that aren't in those that don't.
The state has a legitimate interest in differentiating these behaviours and discouraging some - especially since many infected by these various diseases allow them to more easily become carriers of other diseases (Then there's the whole idea of public health-care).
Define "harm".
You're creating a rather bazaar construct, trying to attach physics to ones' privacy within the confines of their own home (which is where this act took place).
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.
Well, I don't think Physics teaches us that. Socialogy might. But you have to ask, is the effect noticable and is it significant and is it detrimental?
A line probably needs to be drawn with regard to sexual behavior but that line ought not to cross the threshold of ones' home.
On this we do agree. I think power exercised by the governent should be as close to the individual as possible so that it can be effectively checked. The further power devolves from the individual the greater the threat to liberty.
I concur so completely I've argued that the two are separate conditions of the same concept. Liberty does not exist where I enjoy the option to lay my burdens off on you. That is a state where I am the tyrannt and you the subject. Likewise, a person cannot assume a responsibility without enjoying the liberty needed to carry it out. You can say I'm responsible for taking out the trash, but if you have me chained in the attic I cannot assume it.
Interesting question. If one feels that people should be allowed to engage freely [with regard to society's laws--not with regard to Judgement Day] in non-commercial sexual relations provided that (1) they don't violate things like marriage contracts, and (2) they take reasonable care to avoid discovery, then the two questions that arise in this case are: -1- Did the police do anything illegal, given that they had what they reasonably believed to be accurate information about a crime-in-progress?
-2- Did the men take reasonable care to avoid discovery, or would reasonable care have required that they either undertake their activities away from the entrance [which they may have done, I don't know] and/or lock the door?
If the Supreme Court were to take this case, this would be the issue that I would like them to tackle - in essence, is the visual evidence that the Police gained in this case admissable in court based on the fact that they did open the front door erroneously? I'd like the answer to be "no". Otherwise, look for doors to inadvertently be opened more frequently, and without warrant.
As I recall, warrants and probable cause are quite specific - they aren't blanket "search the house, you may find something" kinds of things. If the Police opened this door without thinking that they might find a sodomy law violation, does their inadvertent discovery become admissable? I can see observing a crime on the street in a public area, but this was in the confines of someone's abode.
-2- Did the men take reasonable care to avoid discovery, or would reasonable care have required that they either undertake their activities away from the entrance [which they may have done, I don't know] and/or lock the door?
That's a good question. I tend to keep my doors locked at night, but sometimes during the day, they are unlocked. I, as a reasonable person, don't expect folks to come walking in. And if they do, I have Mr. Glock at my side to escort them back out. I would hope that the police don't inadvertently walk in some afternoon looking for something entirely different.
I understand that this "visible from the door" issue had come up before, but I'm not sure what court it was in. If I recall, it was a gun case and the cops won in the court.
Nonsense. Each of these things involves someone being hurt through force or fraud. Two people making a mutually beneficial exchange hurts no one. Next.
Of course not. A sexual act in a public place is and should be against the law. I don't want to see it and I'm being forced to, not to mention other people (especially children) in the area. I've no problem with public sex being against the law. Go get a room. The problem is, even if the two people do go get a room, somehow what they're doing is still a jailable offense.
Police even go so far as to dress their female officers as prostitutes in order to entrap men and charge them. I guess that's a lot easier than dealing with real criminals and terrorists.
Next thing you know, you'll be making entreaties about the harm done to "society". I'm part of the "community", and I'm not harmed one bit if someone wants to pay for sex and someone wants to be payed for sex. Next.
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.