As I’m sure you’ve heard, the good news is that even our hard-right Supreme Court still admits there’s such a thing as the right to privacy, and struck down Texas’ sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas — and with it most if not all similar laws nationwide. Predictably, the religious right promptly became hysterical about “protecting marriage,” a point of view perhaps finding its apotheosis in this quote from Colorado-based Focus on Family (James Dobson’s organization, I believe):
“With today’s decision, the court continues pillaging its way through the moral norms of our country,” Mr. Minnery said in an interview. “If the people have no right to regulate sexuality, then ultimately the institution of marriage is in peril, and with it, the welfare of the coming generations of children.” Mr. Minnery said the ruling violates the rights of Texans who can no longer decide “what they find appropriate in terms of sexual behavior.”
A more careful reading of the decision would, I note, point out that Texans are still free to decide this issue for themselves; what they have lost is the legal right to make that decision for others. The right-wing American Center for Law and Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the law; chief counsel Jay Sekulow said “By providing constitutional protection to same-sex sodomy, the Supreme Court strikes a damaging blow for the traditional family and will only intensify the legal battle to protect marriage.” Er, sure, Jay. I’m still trying to understand how B follows A in this picture. (Both quotes from this Washington Times story.)
What confuses me is this: why is it so damned important to these people to keep homosexuals from marrying? Why does that make one’s own marriage, or the idea of marriage, less viable or weaker? What’s the big fucking deal? It’s also pretty important to note that these cannards are pretty far from any legal or Constitutional argument in support of a law that (1) violates Privacy as understood and laid out by Griswold and Roe and (2) has even more blatent equal protection problems (the Texas law prohibited only same-sex sodomy, not sodomy between a heterosexual couple; Justice O’Connor stated that this issue alone was enough to support her ruling).
In their pursuit of hetero-only marriage, would these matrimonial Chicken Littles barter away this right to privacy? Would they allow the government into their own bedrooms to regulate birth control, as Connecticut was doing prior to Griswold? It would seem so; hopefully, the American public will see this for what it is, and make clear that the State has no right to tell them how to fuck.
Anyway, now the bad news — which is really only bad if you thought Bill Frist was any better than his bigoted predecessor. Yesterday Reuters reported that the good Doctor would support a Constitutional admendment banning gay marriage. Look closely at this. Twice in memory the GOP has disliked some SCOTUS ruling, and then tried to patch the Constitution to do an end-run around it — here, on sodomy laws, and prior to this, on flag burning. In both cases — and here’s the part most worth noting — the proposed amendment would take away rights that SCOTUS says the Founders wanted us to have. Make no mistake; this party of less-intrusion and smaller-government actively pursues an agenda contrary to both points in order to pander to the religious right, and the White House is right there with them. Watch these people. They’re the biggest danger our country faces right now. We know the terrorists want to hurt us; at least they’re honest about it.
