Lawrence v. Texas; How the case helps gun owners...

[Gray Peterson]

In late June, the US Supreme Court ruled that the state governments had no right to regulate the private non-commercial sexual conduct between two consenting adults in private under the due process clause and privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

Though some opponents claimed that the US Supreme Court created a "right to homosexual sodomy", though leaves out the fact that the sodomy laws in 9 states applied equally against both same sex sodomy and opposite sex sodomy. In fact, there was a case in Georgia where a person was put in prison for having oral sex with one's wife, and it was later used against him in a divorce court proceeding, which got him arrested under the sodomy statute, which was declared unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

Justice Kennedy's opinion in the Lawrence case said that the court in the previous case on private non-commercial consensual conduct, Bowers v. Hardwick, erred in that it misapplied the liberty interest in that case, by ducking the privacy issue and basically stated flat that "There is no right to homosexual sodomy", without even going over the privacy aspects in the case.

The Lawrence opinion goes even further, saying that persons in their own home, when engaging in consentual conduct, has a LIBERTY interest in keeping the government out of their lives, and criminalizing their most private conduct by decree of the majority.

This was the first time that the Supreme Court used to term "liberty" rather than "right" in a major opinion.

Already, Gary Gorski has included in his writ of certiorari for the Silveira v Lockyer case some arguments using Lawrence v. Texas against the California Assault Weapons ban, which bans the ownership of "assault weapons" even in one's own home.

It can be argued that the decision to strike down the sodomy statutes would make it much more difficult to the anti-gunners to justify their forms of gun control, including outright bans, because the right to keep and bear arms is directly stated in the constitution.

Some who are weary of sending a 2nd amendment case to the Supreme Court uses the Lawrence case as a reason to prevent any cases from making it to the US Supreme Court level. The NRA tried to torpedo Silveira by filing an amicus in the 9th Circuit AGAINST rehearing, and the NRA tried to torpedo the Parker v. DC case by attempting to merge it with an inferior NRA filed case, Seegars v. Ashcroft. They failed.

However, the reason why many are weary of sending a case to the US Supreme Court is that they look at CNSnews.com and Agape Press and see how the Supreme Court is being "liberal" and "Legislating from the bench".

Gun owners should know better than to listen and make their decisions based on pure propaganda spin machines who's only interest is to make money by scaring people into donating their organizations to "defeat the liberal agenda of those evil homosexuals". It's the same thing that causes many of us more pro-gun folk bash the NRA, but for different reasons.

If they actually read the Lawrence case, you would actually see how the current US Supreme Court is probably the BEST to send a Second Amendment case to the docket. With Gary Gorski's well researched writ along with Roy Lucas' research on the Miller case, along with the courts predisposition to personal liberty, a positive outcome will bring more court challenges and finally put the gun control issue out of the hands of the politicians for the first time.....

and that's worth cheering about.

------

FYI, this is my own work, not taken from anywhere else. Thoughts?

 

[themic]

i think in general libertarians will see the advantages of the Lawrence case for other causes, and Republicans will have difficulty. That being said, this is a good general summary and I like that you avoided using the "L" and the "R" words.

 

[El Tejon]

Precatory, just like the language of the majority in Lawrence v. Tejas.

 

[Gray Peterson]

i think in general libertarians will see the advantages of the Lawrence case for other causes, and Republicans will have difficulty. That being said, this is a good general summary and I like that you avoided using the "L" and the "R" words.

Thanks.

Precatory, just like the language of the majority in Lawrence v. Tejas.

In what way?

 

[El Tejon]

Lonnie, it's wishful thinking. The majority of the Supreme Court, yet again, confused policy with the Constitution. While consensual sodomy statutes may be a complete waste of time (Indiana abolished its sodomy statute during recodification in '76 and, thumpers to the contrary, hellfire and brimstone have not rained down upon us [well, it has rained a lot recently]), discovering imaginary "rights" means the Court is free to disregard the Constitution entirely.

That bodes very ill for any Second Amendment case to reach them.

 

[MicroBalrog]

El Tejon - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

 

[El Tejon]

Micro, yes, that was the anti-Federalists objection to even having a Bill of Rights to begin with. However, I am unaware at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment was there any discussion as to construing sodomy as a fundamental right.

The Court, acting as a superlegislature of Tejas, decided that a sodomy statute was unconstitutional based upon policy, not the Constitution. Very bad for us.

 

[MicroBalrog]

El Tejon: that was a direct quote from the constitution. I suspect sodomy is protected by it.

 

[El Tejon]

You "suspect"?!?!

Please show me where the right to sodomy is mentioned?

 

[MicroBalrog]

It doesn't have to be mentioned explicitly. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unless you infringe on someone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[El Tejon]

Micro, you have the right to life, liberty and property. Show me where sodomy is implictly mentioned in the history of the Bill of Rights.

While laws against sodomy may be bad policy, that is what legislatures are for. The Court is making policy, not upholding the Constitution.

 

[MicroBalrog]

El Tejon: I have the right to life, libery, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Where is it implicitly mentioned? Does the word "liberty" ring a bell to you?

I have a natural, undeniable right to go into my bedroom with any consenting adult and screw him/her or be screwed by him/her.

It has nothing to do with "bad policy" or "good policy". It has to do with FREEDOM.

 

[El Tejon]

And this purported freedom to commit sodomy anyoldwhere stems from?

 

[Al Norris]

From this:

...discovering imaginary "rights" means the Court is free to disregard the Constitution entirely.

to this:

However, I am unaware at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment was there any discussion as to construing sodomy as a fundamental right.

Gives us these:

The imaginary right of non-property owners to be on the same legal footing as property owners?

The imaginary right of blacks (or pick another racial color) to be on the same legal footing as whites?

The imaginary right of women to be on the same legal footing as men?

And of course, let's not forget about that imaginary right to privacy.

Using your logic, El Tejon, none of the afore mentioned rights exist. After all, none of them are explicitly or implicitly mentioned. I also suspect that anyone that thinks for more than a few seconds, can come up with sevceral more "imaginary" rights.

 

[MicroBalrog]

El Tejon, again:

You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unless you infringe on someone else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That includes, if you're gay, making love to a male, having sex while watched, if you're an exhibitionist, and all other perversions, as long as they are committed by consenting adults. So yeah, the Constitution protects your right to have sex with Mike Moore, Dianne Feinstein, and Sarah Brady simultaneously AND tape it all - as long as you aren't forcing innocent people to watch the tapes.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...the reason why many are weary of sending a case to the US Supreme Court...

"Weary" or "wary"?

 

[El Tejon]

Standing, weary when I typed it. Yet another short night.

Micro, now you're fighting dirty! You cannot cite, other than precatory language, in the text, structure, or history any reference to sodomy being a fundamental right.

This is imposing a legislative function upon the Court. As such, it is a corruption of their role and abandonment of the Constitution.

Al, you've confused me. The rights of non-property owners are protected by due process which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in several provisions. The rights of blacks or any other racial group are explicitly mentioned in the 14th Amendment which extended the BoR into the South to protect the freedmen. The rights of women are explicitly mentioned.

The right to privacy is imaginary. Created from nothing to suit the Court when they wish to play legislature. Nothing more.

However, I would not mind if they would extend the imaginary "right to privacy" to my firearms!!! Can you imagine if the same standards applied to us!!! Of course, that is against "policy" so it can never happen.

 

[MicroBalrog]

The Constitution is based on the priciple you have right to be free. That includes sodomy.

The Constitution also does not explicitly include the right to masturbate. Is it constitutional to ban masturbation? Porn films as implements of masturbation? Where does it stop?

 

[Gray Peterson]

Let's keep this thread on the High Road, folks. We're getting into the semantics of whether or not the Lawrence decision was correct. We need to keep it in terms of "How can we use the Lawrence decision on privacy" to our advantage.

 

[El Tejon]

Micro, those things stop when the legislature says they stop. There is no right to any of the things you cited. If 51% of the General Assembly sez we need to stop making sodomy a crime, then O.K., not a problem.

However, we have big, big problems when a Court, like, ummm, the Supreme Court, sez "we, the unelected, do not enforce the Constitution, but hereby impose our policies upon you." Very dangerous!

Lonnie, how to use Larry v. Tejas to our advantage. I've already outlined that: all gun laws are void, in the bedroom!

 

[MicroBalrog]

There is no right to any of the things you cited.

Can you prove that statement?

Because, remember, the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny...

 

[Gray Peterson]

However, I would not mind if they would extend the imaginary "right to privacy" to my firearms!!! Can you imagine if the same standards applied to us!!! Of course, that is against "policy" so it can never happen.

Keep saying it will never happen and it won't.

You cannot cite, other than precatory language, in the text, structure, or history any reference to sodomy being a fundamental right.

Again, the "court said that sodomy is a fundamental right" argument is a bit of a red herring. The court did not say that sodomy is not a fundamental right. They said that the state did not have the right to regulate private consensual sexual conduct between adults, and did not have the right to make all gays and lesbians "presumptive criminals".

You could also gain from the decision that the states have to justify private consensual conduct has to be regulated. Some things, including ownership of a piece of metal that can fire bullets, or other such things, can also be inferred from the decision.....

 

[Gray Peterson]

If 51% of the General Assembly sez we need to stop making sodomy a crime, then O.K., not a problem.

That's about as likely in Texas as New York repealing the Sullivan law.

 

[El Tejon]

Lonnie, chicken and egg. And why did the Court say that the State could not regulate???

Sodomy laws were in decline at the time of Larry v. Tejas. Heck, even Indiana abolished its sodomy statutes decades ago. Homosexuals could petition their government (if any of it decided to show up for work in Austin) and abolish the statute as did homosexuals in Indiana.

Owning and carrying firearms is a fundamental right to be protected against governmental interference by the courts. Doing THAT is not a fundamental right, no matter how "enlightened" a Supreme Court Justice believes he or she is. Modern politics does not transform criminal behavior into protected activity just because several people on the Supreme Court wish to feel good about themselves.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Sodomy laws were in decline at the time of Larry v. Tejas. Heck, even Indiana abolished its sodomy statutes decades ago. Homosexuals could petition their government (if any of it decided to show up for work in Austin) and abolish the statute as did homosexuals in Indiana.

1. The Sodomy statute in Texas only applied to sodomy between those of the same sex.

2. The sodomy statute in Indiana applied equally to opposite sex and same sex couples when it existed.

3. What you ask essentially is that we put the legalization of gays and lesbian's most private consentual conduct to a Legislature which is full of anti-gay bigots, with an election machine that can, and will succeed, in removing people from office for voting to "legalize sodomy". You can compare that to in Alabama during the desegregation crisis in the 1960's. The states rights people made the same demands of black people to petition their legislature to remove the race bans...