![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Correct me if I'm wrong...
I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar, but is there a passage or amendment in the Constitution that actually spells out that heterosexual sex is a protected right in this country. I don't think there is, but, it certainly makes the following argument kind of hard to swallow:
Backers of the Texas law assert there is no fundamental right in the Constitution to engage in certain sexual activity. To strike down the law, they say, could create such a right and lay the legal groundwork for recognition of same-sex marriages.
It's from the following article:
"Homosexual Conduct" and the Court:
An overzealous pair of Houston policemen, who arrested two adult men engaged in consensual sex in a private residence, have set the stage for the most important court decision on the rights of gay and lesbian Americans in a generation.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Lambda Legal's case challenging the constitutionality of Texas's "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes oral and anal sex by consenting gay couples.
But does the following argument hold water?
Or the court can issue a much broader ruling, declaring American bedrooms to be protected by fundamental concepts of liberty and privacy and off limits to state scrutiny. Such a decision would invalidate all 13 sodomy laws nationwide, and would overturn a 1986 court precedent upholding Georgia's sodomy law.
I certainly like to think so, I mean that'd be my interpretation. Guess we'll have to wait until June to find out, though. And it would be so nice if the writers of the article had included bisexuals as well as gays and lesbians as being effected by this decision. Ah well, why quibble, right?
Backers of the Texas law assert there is no fundamental right in the Constitution to engage in certain sexual activity. To strike down the law, they say, could create such a right and lay the legal groundwork for recognition of same-sex marriages.
It's from the following article:
"Homosexual Conduct" and the Court:
An overzealous pair of Houston policemen, who arrested two adult men engaged in consensual sex in a private residence, have set the stage for the most important court decision on the rights of gay and lesbian Americans in a generation.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Lambda Legal's case challenging the constitutionality of Texas's "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes oral and anal sex by consenting gay couples.
But does the following argument hold water?
Or the court can issue a much broader ruling, declaring American bedrooms to be protected by fundamental concepts of liberty and privacy and off limits to state scrutiny. Such a decision would invalidate all 13 sodomy laws nationwide, and would overturn a 1986 court precedent upholding Georgia's sodomy law.
I certainly like to think so, I mean that'd be my interpretation. Guess we'll have to wait until June to find out, though. And it would be so nice if the writers of the article had included bisexuals as well as gays and lesbians as being effected by this decision. Ah well, why quibble, right?
no subject
"Backers of the Texas law assert there is no fundamental right in the Constitution to engage in certain sexual activity. To strike down the law, they say, could create such a right and lay the legal groundwork for recognition of same-sex marriages."
So here's the thing: the constitution says that anything not covered by the constitution is left to the states. Ammendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So the state of Texas made laws about sex. If the US Supreme Court says the law is unconstitutional, it must think the constitution has something to say about sex and the rights regarding it. This seems a rather weak argument, but there it is.
Re:
See this is why I'm not so sure that those fighting against this law are going about it quite the right way. The question probably shouldn't be "can the states pass such a law" rather "does it make sense in this day and age for the states to pass laws about what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom"? You want to pass laws to make it illegal to have sex with minors, or farm animals, or dead bodies, hey I'm down with that. But what two grown ups want to do in the privacy of their own bedroom should be their business. We shouldn't be opposing this on a Constitutional level, rather on a common sense one. Does this law make any more sense than those on the books saying witches may be stoned to death or cats put on trial? Uh, no, so why not fight it as a stupid law that should be repealed rather than making a Supreme Court case out of it?
no subject
We're not a _real_ orientation, see. We're just confused. *smirk*
I'm with you on this one, quibbling or no.
no subject
Re:
"Bisexuality, we're not confused, just broad minded."
"Bisexuality, sorry mom, it's not just a phase."
"Bisexuality, the forgotten orientation."
"Bisexuality, we are not sexual predators who'll sleep with anything...we're just played that way on t.v."
"Bisexuality, it's what's for dinner."
Re:
I'm with you on this one, quibbling or no.
Well my mom still considers it a "phase"...*G*