The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex, ruling that the Texas anti-sodomy law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.
Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing.As a husband and a father I have absolutely no idea how other people's private behavior in the privacy of their homes could have any impact of any kind on my marriage or the raising of my children. That simply doesn't make any sense.
Oh wait, do you hear that great rushing noise? Don't you see all those dozens of married men, stampeding down the street, holding hands in pairs, running away from their wives and children, shouting "it's finally legal! we can start having sodomy now!"
I'll let you know if our civilization collapses. In the meantime, chalk one up for civil rights and decency.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 26, 2003 08:58 AMI agree with you that sodomy laws are stupid and intrusive, and should have been repealed a long time ago (as they in fact were, in most states, but not Texas). I am a bit troubled, however, by the growing "everything I like is constitutional, and everything I don't like is unconstitutional" mentality that seems to have carried the day in this case, Monday's affirmative action case, and a number of others.
I might see this differently if there were a more generally accepted doctrine prohibiting any laws that unduly restrict other people's private behavior (i.e., consenting adults) in the privacy of their homes, but there isn't. I have no doubt that any lawsuits seeking to invalidate anti-drug or anti-prostition laws on that basis would be smacked down 9-0, assuming the Court agreed to hear the case at all (which it probably wouldn't, unless the Ninth Circuit buggered it up along the way and left them with no other choice).
Posted by: Xrlq on June 26, 2003 10:03 AMI've argued to some libertarians friends that libertarians should craft an amendment to the constitution neatly circumscribing a right to privacy. A campaign to ratify it would be a great way to teach the public about libertarian ideas. But nobody listens to me.
Even after yesterdays decision, legislatures will still be able to challenge the "right to privacy" by arguing for a "compelling state interest" in banning types of human behavior. The key word, of course, is the word "compelling", which implies broad and overwhelming agreement that the particular act is worthy of sanction. Lawrence v. Texas is a judicial ratification of a trend in society against the stigmatization of homosexuality.
Yesterday it was miscegenation, today homosexuality. Tomorrow, who knows? We all live on a slippery slope -- and I and many others wouldn't have it any other way.
Posted by: Markus Rose on June 27, 2003 11:50 AM