Conservative Reaction to Lawrence v. Texas

Jacob Rosenblum

03/16/10

I just got my morning paper and guess what’s on the first page… Here, I’ll read it to you, “ The Supreme Court has decided 6 to 3 that a Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violates the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th amendment.” How crazy are they up there in Washington? Do they think that just because they can’t be fired, they are allowed to ruin the fabric of the American society? Anyway here’s what I think, not that it really matter much anymore… I’m just glad at least three of the Justices are on the same wavelength I’m on. I’ll tell you what, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and the Chief Justice, Rhenquist are all good, strong, Americans!

Here’s what I have a problem with, the majority of the Justices seem to have forgotten that homosexuality is not guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. Rather, the Supreme Court has set a precedent, which will create large constitutional areas of grey. As I heard Justice Scalia say on the radio, “Nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right”. Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “[R]espondent would have us announce … a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.”[1]

This Scalia guy is right on the money. How can the court make such an activist decision when the right to homosexuality isn’t even a right? How does the constitution protect something that isn’t recognized? In my opinion it doesn’t and shouldn’t!

In some respect, the Supreme Court has set a precedent for obscure laws to be abolished simply because they are obscure and difficult to enforce by the state. The fact of the matter is, homosexual relationships are not provided for under any government, much less ours. Not once does the court describe homosexual sodomy as a fundamental right or a fundamental liberty nor does it criticize the Texas statute itself. Instead, the Court concludes that the application of Texas’s statute fails the rational-basis test, and overrules Bowers’ by claiming, “The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest, which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”[2] How was this case even legally applicable considering that the state is not ignoring a fundamental right or liberty in the first place?

I agree with Justice Scalia when he said, “Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct.”[3] This, as I’m sure Justice Scalia would agree, makes a joke of our Constitution.

In my southern eyes, the Supreme Court has taken sides in this culture war, and has lost track of its intended democratic purpose. Many of my friends, including myself, do not want these people who openly engage in homosexual relations as scoutmasters of our children, as teachers in our children’s schools, or as boarders in our homes. We would like to protect our families from a lifestyle that we believe to be corrupt and harmful. It is laughable that the Court views it as “discrimination”! Referencing my pal Scalia once more, “The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a “fundamental right” (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws.”[4] I couldn’t agree more… Today is a very sad and frightening day.

[1] "LAWRENCE V. TEXAS." LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Web. 21 Mar. 2010. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html>.

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

[4] ibid