From Defend the family.com (an anti-homesexual legal group)
The “gay” movement is exulting over the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas (which protects sodomy under the right to privacy), and well it might. That decision has not only overturned the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual sodomy, it has robbed the states of virtually all authority to regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults.
The amicus brief which the Pro-family Law Center submitted on the Lawrence case highlighted the severe public health consequences associated with the practice of sodomy. Nevertheless, without mentioning public health at all, the court ruled that “[t]he Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual” (emphasis mine).
Neither, wrote the majority, is “the fact that a governing majority in a state has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral … a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” Justice Scalia, in his dissent, observed that “[t]his effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”
Posted by apelles at June 27, 2003 01:24 PMYes. I admit this issue confuses me. As I was watching it on the news last night (in a very conservative area), many questions were raised in my mind.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the police entered their home and discovered them practicing sodomy.
Was sodomy between consenting adults a violation of current legislation at that time? I understand that it is a blatant violation of God's laws, but I am having a difficult time understanding why the police were justified legally and constitutionally to invade a private home in the first place and arrest these men based on their sexual conduct if it was not indeed a law instated at that time.
Can you shed some light on the facts there? I'm not certain where to look for viable information.
As Christians, violation-of-privacy laws should be a matter of concern to us as well. There are fornication laws in Rockford at the moment that state that sex outside of marriage is illegal, but they are notoriously unenforced.
Back to the age-old question of whether true morality (i.e., that morality which measures up to the absolute truth of God's Word) can be realistically legislated or fairly and consistently enforced.
In a way, I'm glad the police caught those guys. And yet--I would not want policemen to enter my home without warrant and check up on my morality as they define it. I would not categorize myself as a theonomist or reconstructionist. I enjoy my Constitutional rights and have chosen to subject myself to American polity, drawbacks and all. My mind is at a complete loss to compensate for all the seeming contradictions of the theory that we could possibly expect Constitutional legislation that adheres fully to and enforces Christian morality.
Posted by: joydriven at June 27, 2003 01:49 PMYour final paragrahp well summarizes my personal feelings of frustration, too. I've thought about this one for a while (i even commented on one of your blogs a while ago on the same topic), and can't seem to find the right biblical perspective on it all.
On to this case in particular--the following two web sites concur with all the other sources I found who said the police were responding to a false alarm of an armed intruder when they entered the residence and found the guys. (Interestingly enough, they spent a night in jail and were fined $200, yet their case has risen to being considered the landmark case for gay rights) It is indeed against the law in Texas to commit sodomy. Apparently it's classified with their lowest misdemeanors, so although it's illegal we're not talking become-a-felon kind of illegal. (how do you like that bit of legal explanation?)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0325/p02s01-usju.html
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usnews65.htm
This site gives a brief overview of this case and past ones as well--http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/905175.asp?cp1=1#BODY--while this site is the transcript of the opening oral argumentation--
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-102.pdf (it's a fairly long read, but well worth your time to see the actual arguments used in court.)
thanks. i will look at these.
by the way, and for what it's worth, David Horowitz did have an opinion on it today.
Horowitz's blog, 27.06.2003
Posted by: joydriven at June 27, 2003 03:17 PMah, foiled again. html-guard. try this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp
to all, for future reference:
if you want to make a link in a comment, just write the URL (universal resource locator--the www.whatever.com, for example) and it will automatically create the link.
for those of you that would rather be able to write the HTML, i apologize. most ease for the most people (please pardon the utilitarianism), wins again. :-)
Posted by: david at June 27, 2003 03:36 PM