# Conservative dopers vs. gay sex decision **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786 "2003-06-27T16:19:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/101 "2003-06-30T17:20:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I don’t think anything about my viewpoint means that people need to sit passively by and accept whatever rules are thrown their way. Indeed, I embrace the right of people to bring about change – to lobby, to protest, and above all to vote. If the law is wrong, then let the law be changed – but let it be changed by those who have to live under its provisions. Grudginly accepting a law seems only slightly better than passively accepting it. ---
**Author:** ![jeevmon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@jeevmon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeevmon)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/102 "2003-06-30T20:21:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\* > And this may betray my ignorance (has there been a SC ruling on this?) but I believe that prohibiting mixed race marriages–an equally egregious offense against common sense and decency–would also be constitutional. > > \*\* Loving v. Virginia. Decided in 1967. And you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/103 "2003-06-30T21:14:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*Grudginly accepting a law seems only slightly better than passively accepting it. \*\* What part of “working to change the law” don’t you understand? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/104 "2003-06-30T21:24:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scott Dickerson \* > \*\*You are already well-aware that the very great majority of the American populace, and of Constitutional scholars, law-school professors, Federal judges, and historians, do not share your philosophy. Not to say that they don’t share a good chunk of it; what they don’t share is “your philosophy” taken as a coherent whole. \*\* I think you may be reaching a bridge too far with that “very great majority” language. While I doubt any particular jurisprudential philosophy will have all of its adherents sign on to every jot and tittle, the broad strokes of my position are hardly the realm of obscure hermits shunned by the rest of legal society. It is a minority position, yes, but certainly a respectable one among legal scholars and judges. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/105 "2003-06-30T21:40:28Z")
Would that all opponents of the _Lawrence_ decision were as coherent as **Dewey.** I got quite a few giggles reading the WSJ editorial of last Tuesday blasting the _Lawrence_ decision as an judicial usurpation of authority, then, in the very same editorial, blasting the Supremes for refusing to hear the _Nike_ case. The _Nike_ case, you see, was dismissed because the Court decided it did not have the **authority** to hear the case at this point. According to the viewpoint of the WSJ, judicial usurpation of authority is bad when they don’t like the decision, but mandatory when they do like the decision. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/106 "2003-07-01T01:48:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jeevmon \* > \*\*Loving v. Virginia. Decided in 1967. And you’re wrong. \*\* Oh, yeah? Pardon me if I don’t rely on your say-so, since it doesn’t seem so certain to me. Unlike the current opinion, Loving v. Virginia has as part of its foundation an equal protection issue, because the law in question prohibits inter-racial marriages only to whites. If that law had prohibited all inter-racial marriages, the court may well have had a different opinion; they could certainly not have used the same logic. > [@](#): > > \*\*The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. \*\*I’ll ask yet again: if you feel equal protection is so unassailable in the current case, why do you suppose the majority opinion did not rely on it? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/107 "2003-07-01T02:22:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\*Oh, yeah? Pardon me if I don’t rely on your say-so, since it doesn’t seem so certain to me. Unlike the current opinion, Loving v. Virginia has as part of its foundation an equal protection issue, because the law in question prohibits inter-racial marriages only to whites. If that law had prohibited all inter-racial marriages, the court may well have had a different opinion; they could certainly not have used the same logic \*\* FTR, race-related matters are a “suspect class” for equal protection purposes, subject to “strict scrutiny” analysis. For that reason, it is much, much harder to have a law that makes any kind of distinction based on race pass constitutional muster. On those grounds, I strongly suspect even your race-neutral anti-miscegenation law would fail the court’s scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/108 "2003-07-01T03:40:47Z")
To expand on what **Dewey** said. “Race” is impossible to define in the first place so it would be an unenforceable law. How do you prove what “race” somebody is when race has no biological meaning? Any attempt at a legal definition would be so arbitrary as to render it worthless. Discrimination laws don’t have this problem because it’s not necessary to prove the race of the victim, only that the victim was discriminated against based on a _perception_ of race. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/109 "2003-07-01T18:00:21Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dewey Cheatum Undhow_ > **A belief in democratic decisionmaking is not to be married forever to any particular set of rules. Quite the opposite, really: it is to embrace the power of the people to set the terms under which they live. Those rules can, do, and should change as time goes on** Can? Sure. Should? Definitely. Do? DO?.. [Ummm…](http://www.delmarvanow.com/easternshore/stories/20030419/149430.html) [No, not really.](http://www.dumblaws.com/) Thus, the principle known as representation reinforcement\*. \*"[A] process-based notion that the courts should use judicial review aggressively only when the electoral process has broken down or is tampered with or when litigants are deemed not to have a fair chance to achieve change at the ballot box, either because of hostile laws or because of prejudice against them." Peter Linzer, The Carolene Products Footnote and the Preferred Position of Individual Rights, 12 Const. Commentary 277, 278 (1995) As to the whole hijack about the equivelance of homosexual sodomy versus heterosexual sodomy, that is answered by another principle. [_de minimis non curat lex_](http://www.sacklunch.net/Latin/D/deminimisnoncuratlex.html) The larger issue is the same. The state’s interest in consenting adult sexual behavior practiced in private. The details, like the presence of a prostate gland, are irrelevant. The law is not concerned with trifles. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/110 "2003-07-02T00:07:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*What part of “working to change the law” don’t you understand? \*\* What part of “grudgingly accept” don’t you understand? Is accusing each other of not understanding our positions really going to accomplish anything? It’s quite possible to work to change a law, while at the same accepting it as a valid law. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/111 "2003-07-02T00:20:34Z")
I think “acceptance” implies that you have no recourse but to live under the law. Not so. Laws can be changed. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/112 "2003-07-02T13:59:35Z")
I still think arguing that the government is violating your right to privacy by arresting you for sodomy is stupid, if you have to go to the lengths of making false statements to the police to induce them to arrest you. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![LosAdri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@LosAdri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LosAdri)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/113 "2003-07-02T14:11:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\*There will always be a trade off between the damage to individual liberty by outlawing a behavior and the damage to society by allowing a behavior. In a democracy these tradeoffs are decided by the people except for certain areas which the constitution put off limits. The supreme court substituting its wisdom for the american people’s is not a victory for conservatives. \*\* That isnt true in this case and many others. The reason we are a republic (not a democracy) is that there are too many ppl for a direct democracy and our “founding fathers” (and that darling mother Abby Adams) did not trust the masses to make a decision (a person is smart, people are not). Since we are a republic, decision making is delegated to our congresspeople, president/admin, judges and justices, etc. What the Supreme Court did was say that a) a law was unconstitutional (you remember the Constituion. Despite the Patriot Act, it exists) and that b) discrimination against a group of people was illegal in this case. There has been no trade off. Queers don’t hurt anything (in fact, they may bring the population down so less spent resources _yea_) So check your government books, buddy, cause u r off ---
**Author:** ![LosAdri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@LosAdri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LosAdri)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/114 "2003-07-02T14:29:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SRVick \* > \*_Well, think about it this way: Suppose the law read “A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of a different species.”_ We would most likely agree that the law isn’t discrimnatory, even though those into bestiality would argue differently. > > In other words, it is the act of homosexual intercourse that is being outlawed, not homosexuality _per se_. Like I said, I don’t like sodomy laws, so I don’t much care about the decision, except for the implications to federalism. But my beliefs about that are pre-Jacksonian, so I’m used to it. > > \*Disclaimer: I in no way intend to imply a moral corrolation between homosexuality and bestiality. \*\* I’m gonna hit each point in order ok folks? Thanks Paragraph 1: Despite your disclaimer, you are going into a common equivocation (mmm big word, im so smart, go me) and you are choosing to say that two adult men, in full mental capacity, choosing to engage in anal intercourse is the equivalent of one man, in full mental capacity, choosing to inflict anal intercourse on an animal, which, and im just gonna ignore the PETA flamers on this one, is not at our mental level or able to say no Paragraph 2: so you can be a Christian, just not pray, worship in a church, witness, or any of the other beliefs. And CHRISTIANITY IS A RUDDY CHOICE! You can be black but just not look it? You can have cancer, just dont get treatment? Sorry, that argument fails, fully ---
**Author:** ![LosAdri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@LosAdri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LosAdri)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/115 "2003-07-02T14:38:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SRVick \* > \*\*Right, but it is an issue pertaining to whether or not the law is proper, not whether it is Constitutional. Unless you can find the article and clause where states are prohibited from making laws of the sort. > > Amendment X, U. S. Constitution: “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.” > > No part of the Constitution prohibits states from making laws where the victim can’t refuse prosecution. After all, a woman can “consent” to being beaten by refusing to press charges, but the prosecutor can make them on his own. So I am having a little trouble understanding where you are coming from with your “consent” argument. \*\* No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor ) **deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws**. (Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution). O’Conner was right: this was NOT equal protection… it was unequal comepletely. And btw: a domestic abuser is a threat to society and to health and well being ---
**Author:** ![LosAdri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@LosAdri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LosAdri)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/116 "2003-07-02T14:57:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I just looked up Kennedy’s opening remarks in the opinion - that’s what I remembered from the paper: > > _Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions._ Reminder to all: privacy became part of the consitutional debate in Griswold v. Connecticut. Its a penumbra of the 4th amendment. Who else loves the word penumbra? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/117 "2003-07-02T15:51:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I think “acceptance” implies that you have no recourse but to live under the law. Not so. Laws can be changed. \*\* Again, this is fine in theory, but crap in practice. Remember the cite from Governor Bush that said he’d veto any attempt to repeal the Texas Sodomy law? Even if the representatives got off their asses and started cleaning it up, a single jerk can derail it. Well, there are safegaurds against that too right? Vetos can be overridden, governors can be voted out. Sure, a disenfranchised minority is going to be able to mobilize enough support in the legislature to override a veto or swing the next election. Sure thing. In the meantime they’re still being legally denied the same freedoms others enjoy daily(or nightly as the case may be). These cries of “democracy works” should all have the qualifier “in theory” on them. Check out the dumb laws site sometime and see some of democracy in practice instead of hanging doggedly onto the theory. Because, you know, socialism works, in theory, too. **Shodan** , what the heck are you talking about? Lawrence and Gardner were, one or both, closeted at the time of their arrest. They didn’t “stage” this. An activist group contacted them and offered free legal services if they would pursue the case. At THAT point it turned into a crusade, but it wasn’t “making false statements to the police to induce them to arrest [them]”. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/118 "2003-07-02T15:56:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*I still think arguing that the government is violating your right to privacy by arresting you for sodomy is stupid, if you have to go to the lengths of making false statements to the police to induce them to arrest you. > > Regards, > Shodan \*\* **Shodan** , my friend, I really have to call you on this one. It’s entirely plausible that sometime, somewhere, some person made a false statemnt in order to put him;'herself in a position to mount a test case. But in the cases under discussion, both _Lawrence_ and \*_Bowers_, this was not in fact the case. What, in fact, caused you to bring this apparent deceased fish into the discussion? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/119 "2003-07-02T16:33:38Z")
Question: Would conservatives support a Constitutional amendment extending protection to gay relationships (assuming it was tailored to exclude polygamy, etc. and ignoring the burdens of the amendment process)? ---
**Author:** ![jeevmon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@jeevmon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeevmon)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786/120 "2003-07-02T17:13:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\*Question: Would conservatives support a Constitutional amendment extending protection to gay relationships (assuming it was tailored to exclude polygamy, etc. and ignoring the burdens of the amendment process)? \*\* Depends on who you call conservative. The ones who are tearing their hair out over the Lawrence v. Texas decision are religious conservatives who abhor homosexuality, regard it as a sinful perversion, and who believe that homosexuals deserve our scorn and condemnation until they change their sinful ways by either shedding their sinful ways and entering into matrimonial monogamous heterosexual procreative relationships, or, at the least, abstain from intimate contact completely. These conservatives would stridently oppose anything that smacks of giving homosexuals equal rights or equal protection, or that would take away their right to discriminate against homosexuals (by, for example, refusing to hire them, refusing to rent to them, etc.) Tolerance for homosexuality, for them, is intolerance of their homophobia. Small government isn’t the key issue for these conservatives; it’s that they believe the U.S. is a Christian nation that needs to be run according to Biblical teachings. These people are also fairly reliable Republican voters, so Karl Rove needs to make sure they are fed enough red meat so that they will come to the polls and vote for Bush. The Bush 43 party line is that Bush 41 did not sufficiently respect his religiously conservative voting base, and they stayed home in 1992, ushering in eight years of darkness in which no one named “Bush” was running the country. So these people wield disproportionate clout. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-dopers-vs-gay-sex-decision/184786.md?page=7)