Fudgepackers To Get Their Own "Roe"???

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Tue Feb 25 10:45:06 MST 2003


High court to give 'gays' their own 'Roe'?
Case could establish constitutional right to 'homosexual conduct'

Posted: February 25, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore

The U.S. Supreme Court could soon grant homosexual activists their own "Roe 
v. Wade" decision, a constitutional guarantee that would undermine scores 
of laws that protect the traditional family, according to some opponents.

At issue is a challenge to a Texas law barring "homosexual conduct," or 
sodomy, but some legal minds involved in the case believe the stakes are 
much higher.


Attorneys for two men convicted of sodomy want the high court to expand the 
"right of privacy" used as the foundation of the controversial 1973 
abortion decision, establishing a constitutional right to practice 
homosexual sex.

This would be a "huge trump card" for homosexual activists, asserts Texas 
attorney Kelly Shackleford, an "atomic bomb that they could carry around to 
attack any law that does not treat homosexuality on an equal basis with 
heterosexuality."

The case is scheduled to be heard on March 26.

Lawrence v. Texas challenges a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. 
Hardwick, which said individuals have no federal constitutional right to 
engage in homosexual acts. Until the 1960s, every state prohibited sodomy, 
but Texas is now one of just 13 states in which a law exists. The rarely 
enforced laws carry penalties ranging from fines to 10 years in prison.

Shackleford contends that a high court establishment of such a right would 
have "massive implications," jeopardizing, if not overturning, thousands of 
laws that have a definition of marriage embedded in them, from tax laws to 
custody laws.

"If you don't have a law that says a man and woman can do something and a 
man and man can't, then every marriage law is unconstitutional," said 
Shackleford, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of about 70 
Texas state lawmakers.

Jordan Lorence, a senior attorney for the 
<http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index>Alliance 
Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz., which also filed a brief in defense of 
Texas, said it is not certain that a decision against the state would 
result in striking down marriage laws, but believes there is a "good 
likelihood."

"I think that the true objective of the Lawrence v. Texas case is laws that 
act as legal obstacles to homosexuals right now, such as the Defense of 
Marriage Act, 'Don't ask, don't tell' and laws that prevent adoption of 
children."

Right to privacy

However, Michael Adams, an attorney and spokesman for the 
<http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/index.html>Lambda Legal Defense 
Fund, which brought the case, insists that opponents are overstating the 
implications.

"We don't think in those terms," he told WND. "For us, the case asks a 
germane, basic question, which is whether the government has the right to 
invade the privacy of any citizen in this country."

Issues such as same-sex marriage are separate from this case, Adams 
contends, but "it would certainly be a major breakthrough for the court to 
rule that states should not be in the business of making people criminals 
because of whom they chose to love."

"Nonetheless, winning this case will not open the door for same-sex 
marriage," he added. "I think that that's an exaggeration and 
overstatement. There are 13 states that still have sodomy laws, but no 
state that allows gay and lesbians to marry."

Lorence said it is possible that even if Lambda prevails in this case, 
courts could decide in future cases that marriage is a legally recognized 
relationship with definable characteristics – a man can't marry his sister, 
for example – and thus preserve traditional marriage, "but they might not."

Lambda, he insists, is not being straightforward about its agenda, if it 
insists this has nothing to do with marriage, noting that the sodomy law is 
rarely enforced.

"The jailhouses are not going to be emptied from all the people convicted 
by the Texas sodomy law," he said. "That isn't the legal thing going on."

Along with its "right to privacy" argument, Lambda cites the 14th 
Amendment's equal-protection clause, contending that same-sex behavior is 
entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual behavior.

Texas is one of four states that applies its sodomy law only to homosexuals.

Among the groups backing Lawrence are Log Cabin Republicans, Republican 
Unity Coalition, the Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, American Bar 
Association, National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, American Civil 
Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and 
Education Fund.

Backing Texas are the state attorneys general of Alabama, South Carolina 
and Utah. Supporting groups include the American Center for Law and 
Justice, American Family Association, Center for Arizona Policy, Center for 
Law and Justice International, Center for the Original Intent of the 
Constitution, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Focus 
on the Family, Texas legislators, Liberty Counsel, Pro Family Law Center, 
Texas Eagle Forum; Daughters of Liberty Republican Women of Houston, Texas; 
Spirit of Freedom Republican Women's Club, Texas Physicians Resource 
Council, Christian Medical and Dental Association, Catholic Medical 
Association and United Families International.

Regulating bedrooms?

Lambda represents John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were arrested in 
Lawrence's Houston home Sept. 17, 1998, and jailed overnight after officers 
responding to a false "weapon's disturbance" report found the men engaged 
in private, consensual sex. The men were fined $200 and now are considered 
sex offenders in several states, Lambda notes.

"This is a tremendously important case for gay people and for everyone who 
believes in basic freedoms," said Ruth Harlow, Lambda's legal director and 
the lead attorney in the case. "These laws are an affront to equality, 
invade the most private sphere of adult life and harm gay people in many 
ways."

Harlow asserts that the state's power to regulate what happens in a private 
bedroom is "only the beginning of the damage done by this law and others 
like it around the country."

"These laws are widely used to justify discrimination against gay people in 
everyday life," she said. "They're invoked in denying employment to gay 
people, in refusing custody or visitation for gay parents, and even in 
intimidating gay people out of exercising their free-speech rights."

Adams points out, for example, that his group defended a Virginia woman who 
was prevented from adopting a child when it was discovered that she was a 
lesbian. The argument used against her was that she must be violating the 
state's sodomy law.

The homosexual advocacy group <http://www.hrc.org/>Human Rights Campaign, 
or HRC, notes that since the Supreme Court upheld sodomy laws in the Bowers 
decision, much has changed. Only three justices from that ruling remain on 
the high court and, since then, 15 states removed their sodomy laws "in 
large part because of the persistent court efforts of Lambda Legal and the 
American Civil Liberties Union, as well as state organizations fighting to 
overturn these laws."

Also, HRC points out, the current court struck down an amendment to 
Colorado's constitution in 1996 that would have prevented expansion of 
homosexual rights.

State's rights

Shackleford argues, however, that the high court could cause great harm to 
itself by taking this deeply contentious issue away from the states, where 
it has been decided for more than 200 years.

"If you asked people, is there a right to engage in sodomy in the U.S. 
Constitution, 100 out of 100 would probably start laughing," he said. "So 
this would be seen as extreme judicial activism. Five people would be 
ruling our country rather than the elected people in our state legislatures."

Shackleford's 
<http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_TexasLegsilators_USSCT_20030218.pdf>brief 
on behalf of Texas state lawmakers asserts "this case is about the right of 
the people and their duly elected representatives to determine state policy 
regarding marriage, the family and sexual conduct outside of marriage."

The lawmakers said the petitioners "seek a new 'right of privacy' in sexual 
behavior, not the traditional right grounded in rights of marriage and 
procreation. There is no natural limitation to the new expansive right 
sought by petitioners. It is not deeply rooted in the nation's traditions 
and history and should be rejected."

Shackleford argues that the court essentially could elevate sexual activity 
to a right equal to free speech, thus undermining laws against incest and 
prostitution.

The libertarian <http://www.ij.org/index.shtml>Institute for Justice, which 
sides with Lawrence, argues that prostitution is not private, but "public" 
because it is "commercial." It maintains that incest is an act that can 
never be properly viewed as consensual, even if between two adults.

But the Alliance Defense Fund's Lorence contends the argument has no 
"principled stopping point."

"With their argument, they are asking for constitutional protection for all 
private sex," he told WND. "They are trying to say, if it's commercial, 
that's different. But why does money changing hands make it any different? 
I think that is arbitrary line-drawing."

A setup?

Shackleford believes that although the facts of the case are not as 
important as the principle, the circumstances surrounding the arrest of 
Garner and Lawrence are suspicious.

"This was a setup to do what they want to do," he said, arguing that the 
sodomy law is almost never enforced.

An anonymous caller falsely told police that a crazy man with a gun was in 
the apartment.

"He leads police into apartment," Shackleford recounted, "and they find two 
men engaged in anal sodomy."

The Texas attorney insists there is virtually no way to enforce the law 
because the Fourth Amendment "doesn't allow the government to come into 
people's homes."

"This case is not about privacy," he said. "They could have made a Fourth 
Amendment claim, but they didn't; they made a privacy claim, to establish 
that I can do whatever I want."

Shackleford said he has watched homosexual activists bring "lawsuit after 
lawsuit here in Texas to overturn the law" and the courts have said "it's a 
problem of standing; if it's not being applied against you, you can't tell 
us it's unconstitutional."

"What they are arguing for here is sexual freedom, to make every act an 
elevated right," he contended.

Lambda's Adams insisted that the case was not a setup. The man who alerted 
police had no association with homsexual-rights groups and was prosecuted 
for making a false report, he argued.

"He was somebody in the building who had some kind of an axe to grind, not 
a friend of theirs, not somebody trying to do him a favor," he said. 
"Nobody opened the door and let the police in – the door was unlocked – and 
rather than leaving when they didn't find a criminal, they arrested these 
gentlemen."

Lawrence and Garner are very private people," he said, "They aren't out in 
front of any gay pride parade."

<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31187>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31187>31187  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20030225/6d9cc644/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 2/18/2003


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list