I just read through the worst U. S. Supreme Court decision in many years (probably since
Evans v. Romer, which presaged this result but perhaps even since
Roe v. Wade). I’ve copied a few choice quotes, which I think point to some interesting likely conclusions. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not especially likely to become one given the amount of money and time that would take, therefore take this for what it is, the opinion of one conscientious Catholic layman. I’m sure that if you’re so inclined, you can find clergy, attorneys or any other sort of folk who will condemn what I’ve written below. That’s why I do this blog thing pseudonymously, folks.)
“This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the [sexual] relationship or to set its boundaries absent injuries to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.” (
Lawrence v. Texas slip opinion @ 10)
I can see this sentence, along with many other parts of this opinion, used to overturn prostitution laws as unconstitutional. “Whatever goes on in private between consenting adults” – that famous seventies phrase – could certainly include play for pay so long as the only justifications for State action are “injuries to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects”. The pro-prostitution campaign hasn’t been working as long or hard as the pro-homosexual campaign, but don’t be surprised when you see it. (The same applies to pedophilia and bestiality.)
“The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which the
Bowers decision placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character.” (Ibid @ 13)
It should be no surprise that, once our society divorced sex from reproduction that the sphere of permissible sex would continue to widen and deform. But, to steal a phrase, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
“Its [
Bowers -- the decision which explicitly allowed criminal laws against homosexual conduct] continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.” (Ibid. @ 19)
One of the catastrophic consequences of
Evans was the recognition of “homosexuals” as a defined (and implicitly privileged) class of people. Rather than the homosexual being a person who had engaged in a particular behavior, the homosexual is a person defined by . . . . current political fashion mostly. Remember the term “sexual preference” – that was a relic of the days when the image of homosexual desire went from being a sickness (morally objectionable and involuntary) to a “lifestyle choice” (morally unobjectionable yet voluntary). Of course now the dominant paradigm has moved on to viewing homosexual desire as a “left-handed trait” (morally unobjectionable and involuntary). The future may bring yet another permutation. Regardless, there is now a legally recognized group of people entitled “homosexuals” and they must be given equal protection vis a vis other groups of people – that’s the disgusting legacy of
Evans.
“The petitioners [the persons who engaged in homosexual conduct] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.” (Ibid @ 22)
The first sentence in that quote is merely vapid. The second is absurd. It’s true that no matter how severely the State makes their private sexual conduct a crime – even if it were to make it a capital crime – that would not demean the existence of the people involved (in fact, quite the contrary would be true as it would establish that these people’s human dignity requires that their bodies be treated with a degree of respect that is absent from exploitative sexual acts) or “control their destiny”. The inference is that the sum total of a person’s existence or even their destiny is no greater than his sexual experience. What a crock! Again, if their right to liberty gives them a right to engage in that conduct, then what is to be said of prostitutes, pedophiles, pot heads or any other number of people whose behavior may be found morally objectionable by sundry bluenoses.
“The Texas statute makes homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the law by making particular conduct – and only that conduct – subject to criminal sanction.” (Ibid – O’Connor’s concurrence @ 25)
Back to the
Evans rationale since it’s apparently not feasible that a non-homosexual might engage in a homosexual act. (Ever hear what goes on in prison?)
“This case raises a different issue than
Bowers; whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. It is not.” (Ibid – O’Connor’s concurrence @ 26)
If moral disapproval is not a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, then any other unpopular law against the so-called victimless crimes should be open to challenge on this same basis.
Yesterday
John Derbyshire had a great article on NRO about the demise of the Anglican church due to the ascendance of homosexuals therein.
Amy Welborn has a great discussion going on about that article (usual problems w/ Blogger links – just scroll down). I mentioned in her comments that we may be facing a day soon when Christians will face persecution in the western world by the new homosexual power elite. That day appears to be fast approaching. May we be given the grace to face it with courage.
