For those who think sodomy laws never really hurt anyone, here's an example of how the Lawrence ruling is already making a different. As the Washington Post reports, the Supreme Court on Friday vacated the sodomy conviction of a Kansas teenager who received a 17-year sentence for having consensual sex with a younger teenage boy. Matthew R. Limon had just turned 18 when the relationship with a 14-year old took place. Had his partner been a girl, the sentence would have been no longer than 15 months under Kansas law -- which has a "Romeo and Juliet" exception for opposite-sex teens -- instead of the 17 years that Limon received.
Matt Limon has been in jail for two years. The ACLU is now asking the Kansas court simply to order his release and put an end to this miscarriage of justice.
Hypocrisy Alert.
Many conservative officials and groups denounced the Lawrence
ruling as a violation of states' rights. For example, Virginia
Attorney General Jerry Kilgore had
this to say on the overturning of his state's sodomy
law:
"I disagree with the ruling and am always disappointed when a court undermines Virginia's right to pass legislation that reflects the views and values of our citizens."
Right-wing organizations taking the states' rights line include
(and thanks to IGF's Mike Airhart for this list and links): the
American
Family Association, Concerned
Women for America, Exodus
International,
the Family Research
Council, and the Liberty
Counsel.
But many of those who favor the right of states to pass laws criminalizing same-sex relations are already supporting (or expected to support) a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would bar all states from recognizing same-sex marriages, or perhaps even civil unions -- despite the will of a majority of the state's citizenry and the desire of the states' legislatures. So much for states' rights when the shoe is on the other foot!
A Victory for Liberty.
Don't think that yesterday's landmark Supreme Court ruling
overturning sodomy laws is just a victory for gay folks. This
Cato
Institute press release calls it a "victory for the pursuit of
happiness" for all Americans. Says Cato's Roger Pilon:
I'm delighted that the Supreme Court did today what it should do in all cases - stand for liberty, against majoritarian tyranny. Today's decision is not a victory for alternative lifestyles alone. Because it has far-reaching implications, it is a victory for liberty itself and hence for everyone, gay and straight alike.
The state of Texas argued that its inherent police power authorized it to police morals. But the state has no such authority. State police power is meant to secure rights. Plaintiffs Lawrence and Garner were violating no one's rights. What they were doing was no more the business of the state than it was of any neighbor.
Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes rights against such state actions. In reaching that conclusion today, the Court may have taken the first step toward a Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence that is rooted at last in the amendment's first principles.
Cato, a libertarian-mined policy institute, filed a legal brief that was cited twice by Justice Kennedy in his majority decision.
Gearing Up to Strike Back?
The hard right isn't going to take this lying down. Along with
Justice Scalia, religious right groups are painting the anti-sodomy
ruling as part of an offensive for gay marriage. In the words of
the Family Research
Council:
The radical homosexual lobby will seek to apply the logic, extending a blanket privacy protection over one's choice of sexual partner to one's choice of marital partner as well -- regardless of sex.
Expect to see a renewed push for a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex matrimony.
A Non-Word from the President.
As I predicted, President Bush -- eager not to offend the
religious right, but not to seem too close to them, either -- is
keeping mum. From the daily
press briefing with White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer:
Q: And on the Texas sodomy case, does the President believe that gay men have the legal right to have sexual relations in the privacy of their own home?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think on this decision, the administration did not file a brief in this case, unlike in the Michigan case. And this is now a state matter.
Q: So he has no position on this?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's just as I indicated, the administration did not file a brief on this -- as, I think, you know.
He's not touching this with a 10-foot pole! But rightwing activists will attack him anyway for not rallying to their cause.
Scalia Doesn't Like Us.
A letter in the our Mail Bag says that the press truncated and thus distorted Justice Scalia's remark in his dissent as "I have nothing against homosexuals." What Scalia actually wrote was "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."
As the letter notes, "In reading Scalia's dissent, it is evident that he has a great deal against homosexuals." Clearly.
Check out all our current
letters, and add your own!