The Priorities of the Catholic Church »« Student Dresses as Jesus for Fictional Character Day

Truth in Action Still Wants to Jail Gay People

Truth in Action, one of the worst of the anti-gay hate groups on the Christian Right, is still upset that the Supreme Court overturned state sodomy laws in 2003 in Johnson v Texas because they think gay people should still be thrown in prison for their “crimes.”

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state in the union. But by 2003, only 13 still had such laws on their books. These were finally swept away as well when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law in its 6-3 decision, Lawrence v. Texas.

This decision was a stunning reversal of the Court’s earlier proclamation in Bowers v. Hardwick that “in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.”

In the majority opinion in the 1986 Bowers decision, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:

Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization…. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. … [Sir William] Blackstone described ‘the infamous crime against nature’ as an offense of “deeper malignity” than rape, a heinous act “the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature” and “a crime not fit to be named.”

“To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right,” Justice Burger averred, “would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

Well yes, it was. And Loving v Virginia also cast aside millennia of moral teaching. So did ending slavery. And allowing women to vote. And virtually every other advance in liberty and equality over the last 200 years. That moral teaching was, in fact, profoundly immoral.

Comments

  1. matty1 says

    [Sir William] Blackstone described ‘the infamous crime against nature’ as an offense of “deeper malignity” than rape, a heinous act “the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature” and “a crime not fit to be named.”

    So if ‘the infamous crime against nature’ is ‘not fit to be named’ how do we actually know what Blackstone was talking about? Did he after all bring himself to offer some description or are we left with outrage at an unknown target.

    Yes in context he probably did mean man on man sex but I find it amusing that he was apparently so busy being upset he forgot to mention what about.

  2. thomasmorris says

    Blackstone described ‘the infamous crime against nature’ as an offense of “deeper malignity” than rape

    A relationship between two loving, consenting adults is worse than rape? That’s one of the stupidest (also: vile) things I’ve ever heard.

    And someone today is actually quoting that approvingly, rather than as evidence of the degrading and irrational nature of certain “moral beliefs?”

  3. busterggi says

    At least they’ve temporarally tabled their work towards laws calling for executing gays for breathing.

    They are just so progressive.

  4. marcus says

    TCC @ 5 Yes, The actual case is Lawrence v Texas. There is an excellent and highly readable book just out called “Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas” by Dale Carpenter that gives an excellent overview and highlights the contributions of the many folks involved in this groundbreaking and brilliantly conducted case.

  5. leni says

    From their screed:

    The highest court of the land had succumbed to the false claim of homosexual activists that their sexual activity is identical with their human dignity.

    What Justice Kennedy actually wrote, which is right there on the same damn page:

    “The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”

    (Emphasis added in both quotes)

    Nice trick they do there! They can’t even read a Supreme Court ruling without turning into something about anal sex. Who the hell do these people think they are fooling?

  6. d cwilson says

    The people who kill me are the ones who want the government to be peeping through keyholes and monitoring our bedrooms and then say it’s all about smaller government.

    Clean air? No! Clean Water? Liberty!!!!!1111!!!! Food that is safe to eat? Job killing socialism! Two adults engaging in consensual activities in the privacy of their own home? Lock ‘em up and throw away the key!

  7. Francisco Bacopa says

    Just popped in to say it was Lawrence vs. Texas

    Also, in 1993 the Texas Legislature was all set to throw out its sodomy laws as part of a bundle of laws that a panel had selected to cut from the books in order to streamline the legal code. At the very last minute someone noticed that this was about to happen and a vote was held to not strike the sodomy law from the books. This effort was led by Juan Chisum and Talmidge Heflin.

    When the two shook hands after the vote, the Speaker of the Texas House was reported to have said “Sergeant at Arms, arresst those two men. It’s still illegal for a prick to touch an asshole.”

  8. Michael Heath says

    Truth in Action:

    This decision was a stunning reversal of the Court’s earlier proclamation in Bowers v. Hardwick that “in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.”

    Another bassackwards conservative; our rights are not defined by what is listed in the Constitution. We should instead consider whether the Constitution delegates power to the government to prohibit or limit this right. In the case of sex between consenting adults where neither or others are harmed, there is no provision in the Constitution which delegates such prohibitory powers.

  9. mrbongo says

    Remember the the whiteguiltnik rule:

    It is good to attack xtianity for its intolerance of gays but anathema to even mention the most vehemently anti-gay religion on earth right now — by far — Islam.

    Yes, they’re hanging gays in Iran and beheading them in Saudi Arabia. But you will rarely if ever see any of that in here, because we have priorities like snarking about decreasing and minor organizations in a nation that is increasingly becoming pro gay marriage by the year.

  10. says

    mrbongo: Fuck off already. Islam does not get a pass around here, no matter how much you insist that it does.

  11. Michael Heath says

    mrbongo @ 13,

    What’s your motivation for posting in this forum?

    How do you prefer readers who spot arguments relying on logical fallacies react? Should they ignore such posters, ridicule them, or provide those posters with advice in hopes of transforming them into someone who acts with more integrity and intelligence? If the latter, how much effort should be expended if the person demonstrating an inability to reason continues to rely exclusively on fallacious arguments? If that person is also dishonest in regards to their assertions, should this change our reaction in terms of helping them out?

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply