Quantcast

«

»

Sep 26 2012

Barton Screws the Pooch on Lawrence v Texas

David Barton can’t seem to get much of anything right. Not only is he wrong about practically everything he says about the founding era of the country, he is equally ignorant of modern American history. Like his recent claims on his radio show about Lawrence v Texas, the case that overturned state sodomy laws.

Lawrence v. Texas was a 5-4 decision and that’s the one that gave the whole foundation for gay marriage because the court there said “look, here’s the new deal: if it’s consensual, it’s constitutional.”

Really?

So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that’s constitutional?

Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that’s constitutional?

So what happened is that decision was a 5-4 decision that has opened the door to what we’re seeing now not only with gay marriage but with what they’re calling polyamorous marriages and open marriages and so many other things because the premise is that if everybody agrees, it’s fine. And that’s a wild decision.

First, it was a 6-3 decision, not 5-4. And four of the six justices in the majority were nominated by Republicans. But notice how he changes the subject from criminal prosecutions to polygamy? Lawrence v Texas dealt with whether someone could be criminally prosecuted for having gay sex. The analogy about 5 men and one woman is absolutely invalid; to be valid, it would have to deal with whether the woman should be thrown in prison for having sex with five men.

The analogy of the eleven year old girl is equally absurd. The young girl cannot give consent to have sex with an adult under the law and this ruling did nothing at all to change that.

21 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    hunter

    You have to understand that David Barton is a marvelously gifted man — he can make word salad sound coherent.

    His though processes are downright scary.

  2. 2
    slc1

    So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that’s constitutional?

    Apparently, Barton has never heard of statutory rape.

  3. 3
    wscott

    I continue to be mystified that such a simple concept as “consenting adults” is so hard for social conservatives to grasp.

  4. 4
    Avo, also nigelTheBold

    I continue to be mystified that such a simple concept as “consenting adults” is so hard for social conservatives to grasp.

    If they accepted that concept, the entire basis for their religiously-influenced bigotry would disappear. It’s not just “consenting adults;” it’s, “consenting adults in relationships I God approves.”

    Anything else leads to chaos. Dogs and cats getting along! Marriages to naked mole rats! Violations of the laws of physics! If we allowed consenting adults to form legal relationships for mutual support and stability, the very sky may fall.

  5. 5
    Ace of Sevens

    That’s OK. Lawrence v. Texas made it legal to screw the pooch.

  6. 6
    Gretchen

    Screwing a pooch, for example, would not be constitutional because it is generally not regarded as consensual for the pooch.

    Well, that’s if you’re a person who cares about animal welfare. I think the reason it’s actually illegal is that people just find it gross.

  7. 7
    Gretchen

    Damn my commenting hesitancy!

  8. 8
    TGAP Dad

    To quibble a little with Ed, Barton’s 5-guys-1-girl analogy related to marriage rather than simply sexual encounters. Which, for what it’s worth, also was not affected by the Lawrence decision. As I read it, the court’s decision allows the orgy, and doesn’t address the polyandrous marriage.

  9. 9
    cptdoom

    So what happened is that decision was a 5-4 decision that has opened the door to what we’re seeing now not only with gay marriage but with what they’re calling polyamorous marriages and open marriages and so many other things because the premise is that if everybody agrees, it’s fine. And that’s a wild decision.

    Putting aside the not inconsequential issue that Lawrence v. Texas had NOTHING to do with marriage, I still want some fundie to explain how polyamorous marriages are prevented now? Is it really due to the gender requirements of marriage, because Kody Brown and his various sex partners, the stars of Sister Wives on TLC, meet the requirements of man/woman relationships.

    Oh, and as Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Newt Gingrich all prove, open marriages are already allowed in this country, even when only one half of the marriage knows that it is open.

  10. 10
    Abby Normal

    Gretchen, it may be interesting to note more states specifically prohibit same-sex marriage (42) than bestiality (27). Of the 42 states banning SSM, 31 actually put it in their constitution. Of the 27 states that ban bestiality, 14 consider it a misdemeanor.

  11. 11
    Abby Normal

    Correction, that should be 28 states that specificly ban bestiality.

  12. 12
    grumpyoldfart

    Did I hear Barton say that it was constitutional to have sex with an eleven year old girl?

    if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that’s constitutional

    Yes he did.

  13. 13
    Chiroptera

    Actually, wasn’t it Griswold v Connecticut that first put us all on the slippery slope of minding our own business?

  14. 14
    lofgren

    If they accepted that concept, the entire basis for their religiously-influenced bigotry would disappear. It’s not just “consenting adults;” it’s, “consenting adults in relationships I God approves.”

    I think you are being too generous.

    I really believe that there is a cohort of people who simply do not grasp the concept of consent. Instead, they see the world as a cascading hierarchy of rights. A doctor does not have the right to cut into you because of informed consent, he has the right to do it because he is a doctor. A man does not have the right to have sex with a woman because she consents, he has the right because they are married. Or because her clothes were too revealing. Or because she was at a party. Even the rights enshrined in the Constitution do not apply to you. They apply to state governments, who have total control over their constituents, as long as they can get themselves elected.

    Men never have the right to have sex with other men, because they are equals and thus the sex is actually too mutual. It plays havoc with their hierarchical outlook. Sex is something that a person with more rights takes from a person with fewer rights.

  15. 15
    F [i'm not here, i'm gone]

    Since when are these things directly Constitutional issues, anyway? I don’t recall the sex-related statutes being listed in there.

  16. 16
    yoav

    David Barton is not ignorant on the subject, he’s deliberately lying

  17. 17
    Raging Bee

    Whenever some idiot like Barton tries to link gayness with polygamy and pedophilia, just remember that the communities that have the worst instances of polygamy and/or pedophilia are the ones with the LEAST tolerance of gayness. Think Taliban, FLDS, Catholic Church, Boy Scouts…

  18. 18
    computerguy

    I’m surprised that Barton is still around. Is he only talking the to Glenn Beck crazies or is he still seen as the rights official historian.

  19. 19
    kermit.

    lofgren Sex is something that a person with more rights takes from a person with fewer rights.

    This is why macho men from gay-bashing cultures can joke about screwing other guys. “Don’t bend over in the shower around me, har har!” His manhood is not threatened because he is clearly stating the he will be the active, dominant party (male) while the other will be the weak recipient (female). They rarely are conscious of all of this, and are disconcerted if a bystander were to suggest they are “promising gay sex”. They don’t ever think of it as such; sex is largely a way of reaffirming their manhood through power.

    Note – if they are violent, e.g. prisoners, I do not suggest trying to enlighten them unless one wants to physically participate in a contest of male dominance.

  20. 20
    footface

    Well, Barton is right that Lawrence v Texas is the ruling that made gay marriage and polygamy and pedophilia legal from sea to shining sea. Like it is. Now.

  21. 21
    democommie

    Lofgren:

    “I really believe that there is a cohort of people who simply do not grasp the concept of consent.”

    I think you’re close.

    I think that where Ed is reluctant to have a header that states:

    “Barton fucks the dog on Lawrence v Texas”

    Barton is also to reluctant to state:

    “So, if a ninety-five year old white guy (speshley if he’s rich) wants to have the sex with a a eleven year-old girl, it’s okay because men are in charge and JESUS said that’s okay when he wrote the constitution!”

    I may be a little bit off in the details but I think I have the gist of his argument.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site