Clint Bolick of the libertarian-minded Institute for Justice, in this Washington Post op-ed, provides some sharp-eyed analysis of conservatives who support freedom of association for the Boy Scouts when they want to exclude gay scoutmasters despite anti-discrimination laws, but oppose freedom of association for gay partners who choose to have intimate relations. Likewise, he takes aim at liberals who believe gay partners should have the right to private sexual relations despite anti-sodomy laws, but want the government to force the Boy Scouts to allow gay scoutmasters.
Bolick, of course, would bar the state from intruding into either realm, and writes:
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, represented by my organization, the Institute for Justice, submitted a brief disdaining the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies but defending their right to maintain them. The brief argued that "[w]hile a creeping infringement of [freedom of association] would harm all Americans, it would particularly threaten the welfare of gay and lesbian Americans, who have historically suffered when government has not respected citizens' right to gather together free from government harassment."
Which is exactly what John Lawrence and Tyron Garner discovered when Texas police raided their dwelling on other grounds and arrested them for engaging in homosexual conduct.
Good point. By the way, this New York
Times op-ed also urges the Supremes to rule against sodomy
statutes, but while law professor Laurence Helfer scores some valid
points it's pretty much preaching to the liberal choir. The
Washington Post piece at least tries to address conservatives on
their own terms.
--Stephen H. Miller