Law professor Stephen Clark provides
another look at why constitutional decisions voiding
anti-"sodomy" laws (Lawrence) and voiding anti-abortion
restrictions (Roe) "aren't conjoined twins." He
argues:
Lawrence is the considerably stronger of the two and is less likely to be threatened by any separation. Pro-choice advocates have far more to gain from associating Roe with Lawrence than gay-rights advocates have to gain from associating Lawrence with Roe. Conflating the two may put Lawrence at unnecessary risk.
But failure to pledge fealty to Roe was a key reason why leading gay groups such as NGLTF and HRC condemned John Roberts, and NGLTF has already condemned Samuel Alito. No, abortion is no longer always stated up front, but it's there, lurking in the "penumbra" and "emanations" of the language about "far right extremism."
Further: Here's more in the way of
constructive criticism on the failed tactics of groups such as
HRC, from Washington Blade editor Chris Crain. He notes, for
instance:
Last year, when Laura Bush was pressed by the media on whether she supported her husband's constitutional ban on gay marriage, her innocuous answer was that the issue was "something people should talk about and debate." Rather than welcome the invitation, HRC's then-leader Cheryl Jacques released a letter criticizing the first lady, saying there were more important issues-like the economy!-for Americans to discuss.
Sad, but all too typical, and still ongoing.