Posted on 07/08/2003 7:08:39 AM PDT by F_Cohen
Is It A Fundamental Constitutional Right To Have Sex With Children, Too?
By Lowell Phillips Tuesday July 8, 2003
Toogood Reports
"This is a glorious and beautiful time to be queer."
Don't start hammering out the hate mail just yet. Those aren't my words, but those of a bona fide "gay rights" activist. Amid the orgy of celebration (pun intended) following the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down sodomy laws, Molly McKay, spokeswoman for Marriage Equality California proclaimed,
"This month has been filled with hope... This is a glorious and beautiful time to be queer."
Few on either side of what remains of the ideological debate could argue.
It must also be a glorious and beautiful time to sit on the imperial U.S. Supreme Court. Honestly now, could there be a better gig? Granted, getting there is no simple feat. But once you have accumulated just enough gray hair, paid homage to the miscarriages of those who have preceded you and aced the litmus tests, you are set for life and free to indulge in philosophical flights of fancy.
Sure, the job description mentions something called "The Constitution" and adherence to it, but you know that the notion of it being a "living document" entitles you to make it whatever you want it to be. Comically, some of your colleges, one is a black man who's a traitor to his race, another a spiteful Italian, harp about this thing called "original intent" and prattle on about "the Founding Gentlemen," " the Drafting Fathers" or something like that, thus preventing them from making their own rules, as others have. Whatever they're called, they certainly could not know what they meant as well as you do.
The recent decisions of the high court have again proven that it is not a forum within which the survival of our republic is assured, but rather one where two-dimensional, feel-good social thinking outweighs codified constitutional safeguards. Indeed its actions show that our once sacred document no longer lives. The illusion of life is maintained, however, by regularly applied swats and kicks to its hollow carcass.
The Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" to some, though succinctly written, never existed. And if it did, it could not possibly have been expected to apply in an era when modern weaponry would pose such a dire threat to the collective good. But when it was written, corporations and ad hoc associations could easily match the firepower of the federal government (see: The Whisky Rebellion of 1794). Whatever the power of modern weaponry today, such groups could not possibly hold out for long against the U.S. government, or a local police force for that matter. As such, the "threat" to the collective good today is miniscule as compared to the time of drafting of the Constitution.
But those were barbaric times and government has evolved into a benign servant of people and can assure that criminals will never be armed and roaming the streets. Right?
Funds extorted from the American people and then returned as an entitlement opiate, along with the whims of the activist judges, have been instrumental in rendering the Tenth Amendment meaningless. It clearly states,
"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."
But very little remains outside the purview of the federal government, and as such this represents nothing more than a quaint reminder of a time when this country was something called "a republic".
The concept of "diversity" represents a "compelling state interest", assuming erroneously that the term, as it relates to public policy, is definable. But whatever it means, the decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger affirms that it trumps the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. While the University of Michigan and all publicly funded institutions are asked not to be so obvious as to assign a specific point structure, they may certainly continue to favor some over others based on skin color.
The distortions of the meanings behind the Constitution are sweeping, and though never stated outright, the assumption must be that the Drafter's intentions were to deconstruct their entire culture.
Not only were they intellectually enlightened, the Founders were also largely pious men, which despite modern interpretations are not mutually exclusive. In a step to assure the free practice of religion and to prevent the establishment of an American version of the Anglican Church, they spelled out in the First Amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Yet somehow the courts interpret this to mean that any and every reference to, or expression of, faith is prohibited in the public square. Moreover, the aforementioned abandonment of the Tenth Amendment and near universal distribution of federal dollars insure that no municipality, however tiny, or faith-based organization, however benign, is unaffected by this misrepresentation.
But the truest illustration of the Founders assumed desire to lay waste to all they knew is the dogged recognition of the constitutionally unenumerated "right to privacy". Whether this alleged right is derived from a creative reading of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th or 14th Amendment, or a combination of them, the result is to place all morality on an unstable foundation.
"Good," the response often is. Following the Supreme Courts ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas, Democrat Rep. James P. Moran of Virginia commented,
"The government has no business regulating or legislating morality, and it certainly has no business interfering with this very private action between consenting adults..."
There is nothing remotely unusual about the statement. Such sentiments pass for acumen, but are nothing of the sort. On the contrary, this is screaming stupidity. To suggest that law, any law, can be enacted apart from morality is ludicrous. It is no more possible than attempting to breath without inhaling. They are one and the same.
No matter if it is found in the text of the Constitution or born of the legislature, when broken down to its basic components law ends up being a "because it's right" or "because it's wrong" issue. And conclusions of right and wrong are moral judgments. Period. Few would argue that rape should be permitted, but when put to a series of "whys", it comes down to "because it's wrong". The same holds for any crime.
Writing for the majority in Lawrence vs. Texas, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy proclaimed,
"Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct... Adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons... The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime..."
Noted by many "intolerant" right-wingers is that, while directed at decriminalizing homosexual sodomy, this leaves the door wide open for endless actions that can be said to fall under the manufactured right to privacy.
Although ridiculed, vilified and generally ignored by the politically correct intelligentsia, Justice Antonin Scalia responded with the undeniable,
"States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults in matters pertaining to sex: prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography...This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review..."
The notion of a right to privacy, entangled with an increasing creative application of the "Equal Protection Clause" and the vacuous term "consenting adults" sweeps the moral, and thereby legal, underpinnings out from beneath American culture, human civilization, and to a great extent natural law. If the thinking behind rulings like Lawrence vs. Texas and Roe vs. Wade is in keeping with the Constitution, exactly where is the rationale for forbidding homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, polygamy, bestiality, drug use, adult incest, prostitution and child pornography?
It does not exist.
The term "consenting adults" is itself a clear statement of moral judgment. An age at which consent can legally be given is set according to what is considered morally appropriate, and has no definitive connection to emotional, intellectual or physical maturity.
The idea that what is now considered "statutory rape" or even "pedophilia" could ever be legitimized is far from the minds of average Americans. But so too were thoughts that homosexuality would be deemed "normal", that "gender" would be a subjective concept, and that homosexual "marriage" would be seriously contemplated to Americans not long ago.
The malleability of modern moral standards is already setting the philosophical groundwork. Throughout the media children are increasingly objectified sexually. Contraception and pregnancy termination have established sex in our emerging reality as nothing more than a recreational activity. Instruction is given in all variations with public dollars in schools, along with contraceptives and abortion on demand, free from restrictions of parental oversight. And parenting itself on the subject of sex is more and more often summed up in the phrase, "well, they're going to do it anyway".
Children are increasingly asserting their independence through the courts, challenging dress codes, drug testing, locker searches and winning on alleged constitutional grounds. Considering the intellectual acrobatics necessary to find a "right to abortion" in the Constitution, a conclusion that ages of consent are arbitrary and that denying children the right to give consent constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause should be easy; perhaps not today, or next year but a decade or two from now.
Noted champions of the "gay rights" movement have for years romanticized "man-boy" love in literature, like Paul Russell in his book "The Coming Storm," David Leavitt in "Martin Bauman; or, A Sure Thing," Agustin Gomez-Arcos in "The Carnivorous Lamb," and others. Such works are published by major companies and available at your local bookstore.
Much as the acceptance of homosexuality by the psychiatric profession and its removal from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973 was a watershed in the mainstreaming of this "lifestyle," so too will it be for those who wish to engage in sex with minors, euphemistically referred to as "intergenerational intimacy."
As far back as the mid-1980's experts like Dr. David Finkelhor had concluded that,
"[A] body of opinion and research has emerged in recent years which is trying hard to vindicate homosexual pedophilia."
In 1998 the American Psychological Association (APA) published the essay "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" which concluded that sexual contact between children and adults was not necessarily harmful, decried the "indiscriminate use" of terms like "child sexual abuse," "victim" and "perpetrator," and that "a willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex." Mainstream commentators like Andrew Sullivan embraced the thinking and Judith Levine mirrored it in her 2002 publication of "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex," with a foreword by former Clinton Surgeon General Joycelyn M. Elders.
Mental health professionals attending the May 19, 2003 convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco proposed removing several categories of mental illness from the DSM, including exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism, as well as pedophilia. CNS News reported on the event and on Dr. Frederick Berlin, from the Sexual Disorders Clinic at the Johns Hopkins Hospital who argued that adults that feel a sexual attraction to children should not be made to feel shame and was quoted as saying,
"I have no problem accepting the fact that someone, through no fault of his own, is attracted to children..."
Linda Ames Nicolosi of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) protested and concluded, as any clear thinker should,
"If pedophilia is deemed normal by psychiatrists, then how can it remain illegal?...It will be a tough fight to prove in the courts that it should still be against the law."
With the ever-expanding, extra-constitutional right to privacy, the inventive application of the Equal Protection Clause, in conjunction with our moral devolution spearheaded by the psychiatric profession, adult-child sex may one day be legal. With the discovery by our learned Supreme Court Justices of the "right to abortion" and now the "right to sodomy," the day may not be far away when sex with children is considered "fundamental" and "constitutional." And when that day comes, ask we might, but it's doubtful that G-d will any longer bless America.
No such thing. Governments don't have rights, they have powers. people have rights.
to make Age of Consent laws
Correct. It is entirely correct for legislatures to make hard calls like this when it comes to defending rights and determining who needs protection. they have made logical determinations. They protect those who cannot protect themselves. they have done it time and again on myriad different subjects.
and not sodomy laws using the criterion of consent.
Sodomy laws for those who do not need protection are a violation of rights. The rightful role of government in a free society is to defend rights, not regulate non-rights violating behavior.
Get it yet or are you going to ask the same another 10 times?
I'll continue to ask questions as long as you continue to avoid them.
I said you can state that for me to make your point and I wouldn’t care. OK?
I can make all your decisions for you and state your opinions? LOL, you are a scream.
You want a number let’s try 35.
Is that YOUR final answer?
Lets start with 1 hour old and work forward. Are people 1 hr. old disadvantaged when it comes decisions about many things, sex included? See how silly these things are when taken to their logical conclusion?
I reject your solution. Under that scenerio someone 18 yrs and one day would be imprisoned for having consenual sex with a girlfriend/wife of 17 yrs 11 months.
These kind of things require some thoughtful concideration, not one size fits all "solutions".
If a community permits a 17 year old to get married you can damn well be sure that the age of consent in that community is 17 or under. I'd also wager that a couple getting married that young these days has already had sex (and possibly a pregnancy) before the marriage date.
Are silly semantic games the best you got? The concept of state’s rights comes from the 10th amendment.
It is entirely correct for legislatures to make hard calls like this when it comes to defending rights and determining who needs protection. they have made logical determinations.
Yes and if the legislature wants to protect social culture it has that power too.
They protect those who cannot protect themselves. they have done it time and again on myriad different subjects.
But you can’t prove why some citizens need protecting and others don’t except through arbitrary law. The rights of some children are being discriminated against.
Sodomy laws for those who do not need protection are a violation of rights.
So are age of consent laws.
The rightful role of government in a free society is to defend rights, not regulate non-rights violating behavior.
Only if you’re a hypocrite.
I’m sticking with age 35, have at it.
The ages on all things you mentioned are different. Go figure.
The question really is; is there an age that should be set for when someone is incompetant to make sexual decisions? Is it the same for other decisions?
Not really, if a 1 hour old has the capasity to consent then it's not disadvantaged is it. But I don't know any 1 hour olds that can do that do you?
That's a pretty deep point, IMO. As an example, California Police Officers spend a lot of time, manpower, and resources suppressing prostitution, entrapping customers, and towing or seizing their vehicles. The neighboring State of Nevada simply allows some counties to legalize prostitution. Some states punish sin, others profit from it. If there is one other consensual adult crime which the court is likely to strike down, it will be in this area.
LOL! Is it me or is it hot in here?
Incorrect, it deals with powers delegated. And it's not semantics.
Yes and if the legislature wants to protect social culture it has that power too
Incorrect again. It is to protect rights, not "social culture", whatever the hell that means to whomever.
I'm not a hypocrite, But you are obtuse.
And now you can go about selling your idea to the rest of the forum that people over thirty five can do whatever they want sexually but anyone 34 yrs and 11 months or younger needs the consent of government.
You need a life preserver.
I'm outta here for the day, have fun with the forum on that premise.
Correct. It is entirely correct for legislatures to make hard calls like this when it comes to defending rights and determining who needs protection. they have made logical determinations. They protect those who cannot protect themselves. they have done it time and again on myriad different subjects.
Age of consent laws vary from as low as 14 to as high as 18 in the United States. Anyone over the age of consent (including 14 year olds in some states) may have sex with an adult over the age of 18. These same states will prosecute a person in such a relationship from photographing any person under 18 nude (especially if they are engaged in a LEGAL sex act).
The law is a ass my friend. Photographing the act carries a stiffer penalty than the act itself.
Are the legislatures in some states not as conserned with the morals of their youths as some other states or do they believe that their youths are somehow more mature (mentally and legally) than those in other states?
With the Lawrence v. Texas decision, there is no ability to even set a different age of consent for homosexual activities than heterosexual. A court in Kansas sent a man who had been convicted at age 18 of performing oral sex on a 14 year old at a center where both were seeking guidance for being mentally disabled; he was to be resentenced under the more leniant Romeo & Juliet (Romeo & Romero?) law.
You don't believe that the courts will allow more sexual predators to find their targets but I say that you are wrong.
Yeah sure, you go girl. But congratulations, you join the long line of Liberaltarians who can’t prove consent is the mitigating criterion for not regulating behavior. Your Liberaltarian social experiment doesn't pass the test of common logic unless you’re a hypocrite.
Pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia or whatever your favorite philia is will not be made legal as a result of the Lawrence decision.
I did not say that. The push for the "normalization" of the sexual abuse of children is happening; in spite of Lawrence, not because of it.
Need a little proof?
Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered
Harmful To Minors
Considering your prior statement, "And I'm willing to put my money on it," which makes one think of the proverb, "A fool and his money are soon parted," perhaps you can take said money and donate it to Free Republic, hmm?
I guess I'm talking about you, who just provided a fine example of someone who can't discern between a moral objection and incidents of actual harm (such as murder and theft).
Are you suggesting a belief anyone can do as they please as long as nobody gets hurt?
That sounds more like moral relativism than moral objection, don't you think?
What is your point by asking this? Do you also think morality is relative?
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.