IGF CultureWatch

As we approach the long Independence Day weekend, let's give a nod to Great Britain. Tony Blair's Labor government proposes to create a civil partnership register for same-sex couples, and Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith has given his members of parliament a "free vote" on the matter, rather than whipping them into opposition. As one conservative MP writes in the Daily Telegraph, Tories must stop pretending that gay couples don't exist. Bill Frist take note.

Writing in the Washington Post, liberal Harold Meyerson takes aim at what he terms the Grand Old Gay Bashers,
but more thoughtfully than most Bush-bashers. He notes:

Of course, plenty of Republicans welcomed last week's decision (beginning, I suspect, with Vice President Cheney). -- Plenty of Republicans sicken at the hatreds expressed by their legislative leaders. But plenty or not, try to find a national Republican who speaks out for equality of sexual orientation or condemns the expressions of bias.

Let's see how big a hole Republicans are willing to dig themselves into, or whether they'll realize that appeals to fear and prejudice aren't going to be a winning strategy in the long run.

On the other hand, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act and then bragged about it on radio spots airing in conservative markets.

The AP reports in a story headlined Bush: Gay Marriage Ban May Be Too Soon that the White House is pulling back from the support given to the anti-gay amendment by the Senate majority leader. A welcome development, if you're into reading tea leaves and making guesses about what's being talked about in the (real) West Wing.

Finally, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown writes Gay marriage is in our future, like it or not. He opines:

Most people are still opposed to giving a same-sex couple the same legal rights as a marriage between a man and a woman, but those beliefs are evolving. It won't happen quickly, and if anyone tries to move too quickly, there will be a backlash. There already is a backlash. "

Even as I pulled my kids out of the Boy Scouts for discriminating against gays, I couldn't accept the concept of gay marriage. It was the gut reaction of a recovering homophobe. But as time keeps passing, I no longer see any reason to be afraid. Gay and lesbian couples already have loving partnerships that qualify as marriage by every standard other than the one we have codified into law. They deserve the legal protections the rest of expect from marriage as it relates to property rights, health care and other issues.

And that's how progress gets made, one pundit at a time. Happy 4th of July!

Johah Goldberg has an engaging piece at the National Review site titled Springfield vs. Shelbyville: Gay marriage, incest, and The Simpsons. In the end, he endorses a federalist approach -- don't bar states from recognizing gay marriages, but don't force them to recognize them, either, or risk a huge backlash that will reinvigorate the religious right. It's a compromise that Andrew Sullivan says he'd be happy to live with.

Past or Future?

A Reuters story, headlined "White House Mum on Amendment Banning Gay Marriage," reports President Bush has stopped short of endorsing the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he "absolutely" supports altering the Constitution to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages. In the words of White House spokesman Ari Fleischer:

"The president believes that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman," Fleischer told reporters. "We have a law on the books right now that ... passed with massive, overwhelming bipartisan majorities in 1996. The president supports that legislation and that's where he stands right now."

Who knows if this is a coordinated strategy to have Frist placate the religious right while Bush stands back, but it apparently signals that the prestige of the presidency won't be deployed to rewrite the Constitution to please the "wingnuts" (at least for now).

According to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll:
55% of American said same-sex marriages should NOT be recognized with the same rights as traditional marriages between a man and a woman, while 39% said they should be valid. When the same question was asked in March 1996, 68% said homosexual marriages should not be recognized by law, while 27% believed they should.

But significantly, 61% ofAmericans 18 to 29 years old said same-sex marriages should be valid. So tying the party to a constitutional amendment that cements a gay-marriage ban for the remainder of our lifetimes could push away the upcoming generation of voters that the GOP needs to attract. Once again, the choice is a politics of the past that appeals to the most reactionary forces in the GOP, or to embrace a future-directed politics built upon the foundation of individual liberty that we'll celebrate this July 4th weekend.

Safire's Sure-Fire Advice.

New York Times columnist William Safire, who has a conservative foreign policy bent but leans libertarian on social issues, writes:

Rather than wring our hands and cry "abomination!", believers in family values should take up the challenge and repair our own house. Why do too many Americans derogate as losers those parents who put family ahead of career, or smack their lips reading about celebrities who switch spouses for fun? Why do we turn to the government for succor, to movie porn and violence for sex and thrills, to the Internet for companionship, to the restaurant for Thanksgiving dinner -- when those functions are the ties that bind families?

I used to fret about same-sex marriage. Maybe competition from responsible gays would revive opposite-sex marriage.

Fair-minded former critics of letting us wed are starting to come around, and more will do so. Their support will be needed.

Whoa! Canada!

The Washington Post reports that Canada's recognizing same-sex marriages and decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana has some U.S. conservatives singing (to the tune of South Park's "Blame Canada" song):

"It seems like everything went wrong / Since Canada came along."

Yes, it's disappointing that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, in an effort to firm up the support of the religious-right bloc, has come out in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban states from recognizing gay marriages. As I noted in yesterday's posting, so much for the right of states to pass their own legislation! It's unclear whether Frist and the Republican leadership genuinely intend to pursue such a divisive strategy, or whether it's just lip service. But it shows the GOP still believes it must kowtow to the most reactionary elements in America.

Of the six justices who voted to overturn the Texas law criminalizing sodomy, four were Republicans, appointed by Republican presidents. This is the other face of the GOP -- moderate, live-and-let live, opposed to government intrusion. At some point -- and it may well be the gay marriage fight -- it's possible the GOP coalition of the libertarian-minded and the religious-right theocrats will implode. Or maybe the theocratic faction will continue to decline as a bloc and the leadership will feel freer to ignore its threats. But abandoning the GOP to the "wingnuts," as some progressives argue, is just the kind of self-defeating politics that the left too often specializes in.

Addendum: The Federal Marriage Amendment was introduced in Congress by a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors, notes the Log Cabin Republicans, and "even liberal icons like Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) oppose gay marriage." True, but perhaps not the the degree of muddling up the Constitution (I hope!).

Changing Times.

A nice bit of analysis on why the Lawrence decision won't be a boon to the far right is provided by Jacob Levy over at The Volokh Conspiracy website. Surprise, the decision might even help the GOP since sodomy laws were:

the most absurd and embarrassing face of social-cultural conservatism -- absurd always, and embarrassingly for the past several years, and increasingly embarrassing as time went on. For social-cultural conservative Republicans to be able to appeal past their base, they couldn't defend the laws. For them to avoid alienating their base, they couldn't attack them. For social-cultural conservatism to avoid looking increasingly anachronistic and foolish, sodomy laws had to be taken off the table and the subject had to be changed to other fights.

Of course, it now appears that one of those "other fights" is gay marriage, and it won't be pretty.

Recent Postings

06/22/03 - 06/28/03

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!
Stephen H. Miller

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!

The Supreme Court strikes down sodomy laws! CNN reports on the 6-3 ruling:

The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, appears to cover similar laws in 12 other states and reverses a 1986 high court ruling upholding sodomy laws. Kennedy wrote that homosexuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention." ... "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," growled Justice Scalia, who wrote for the three dissenters who think the state should be allowed to barge into you bedroom in the middle of the night and drag you to prison for engaging in adult, consensual, noncommercial sexual relations. Scalia, AP reports, took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." How nice.

Added benefit: Rick Santorum and his ilk can't keep saying that they're just echoing the Supreme Court when mouthing their bigotry. The new interpretation of the law of the land:

"The central holding of Bowers [v. Hardwick] has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons. ... Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

Here's a wonderful observation from the New York Times discussion board. As you read it, keep in mind that Justice Kennedy was a Reagan appointee.

The Ruling.

The full decision is now online. Of the six justices ruling against the Texas sodomy law, five joined Justice Kennedy in overturning Bowers v. Hardwick outright, basing their decision on the Due Process Clause. As Kennedy wrote, "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions."

Justice O'Connor concurred in overturning the Texas law, which applied only to same-sex sodomy, but did not join the Court in overturning Bowers. Basing her concurring judgment instead on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, O'Connor would not have ruled on sodomy laws that apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals (if "neutral both in effect and application"), and instead would have only overturned statutes that targeted homosexuals exclusively. Given that she originally was part of the majority in the Bowers decision, that's not surprising.

O'Connor took pains to note that finding same-sex sodomy laws unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause "does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review," and -- in a nod to both military policy and marriage -- wrote: "Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage."

Those battles will continue to be waged on their own terms, but despite O'Connor's caveat today's ruling can't help but raise the legal bar for justifying discriminatory practices against gays and lesbians as "rational" rather than merely based on prejudice. This is a huge victory.

Scalia's Case for Same-Sex Marriage.

In his rage against the overturning of Bowers v. Hardwick, and thus state sodomy statutes, Justice Scalia has managed to deliver a series of strong arguments in favor of same-sex matrimony. He fumes in his dissent to Lawrence, a la Rick Santorum:

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bower's validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision [overturning Bowers]."

Taking on Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion based on the Equal Protection Clause, he argues that the Texas sodomy statute:

"...does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women. But this cannot itself be a denial of equal protection, since it is precisely the same distinction regarding partner that is drawn in state laws prohibiting marriage with someone of the same sex while permitting marriage with someone of the opposite sex."

And, he adds for good measure, "This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples."

So Scalia thinks overturning Bowers opens the way to gay marriage. But could this be meant as ammunition in the right's push for a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage?

Recent Postings

06/15/03 - 06/21/03

The legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada, plus impending legal decisions from Massachusetts and New Jersey regarding same-sex couples seeking to wed, puts marriage front and center on the Culture War front -- even as we await the Supreme Court's ruling on whether state sodomy laws that outlaw mere sexual relations between gay partners are constitutionally permissible.

Peter Steinfels, who covers the religion beat for the New York Times, traces some of the fault lines in the marriage debate (at least among the non-wackos in the religious community) in A Too-Hot Topic. Among others, he quotes David Blankenhorn, director of the Institute for American Values, who remarks: "People who haven't had much positive to say about marriage are suddenly enthusiastic, as long
you put the words 'same sex' in front of it."

True, to some extent. But "Gay marriage isn't a repudiation of the values conservatives prize. It's an affirmation," writes syndicated columnist Steve Chapman in Embracing Age-Old Monogamy, via the Chicago Tribune.

Over at the libertarian-minded Reason magazine, Cathy Young opines in Gay Rights Go To Court that:

Until attitudes change, gays have a difficult road to travel. There will be clear-cut victories for human dignity, freedom, and privacy, such as the likely demise of sodomy laws. And there will be complicated and frustrating compromises on issues like marriage.

Well, no one ever said life was meant to be easy.

Equal Time.

Having noted a column over at Tech Central Station that defended the none-too gay friendly views of Sen. Rick Santorum, the Tech Central folks point out they've also run several pieces critical of Santorum, including Democratic Plant
("The only explanation") by James Pinkerton, and
Information Sexternalities ("It's not like incest at all") by James D. Miller. Plus lots of other interesting views on politics and culture with a pro-liberty streak make this site worth checking out.

Internally Conflicted

I missed this, but andrewsullivan.com pointed out a Washington Times op-ed by conservative commentator Jonah Golberg that offered this observation:

Earlier this month, Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly tried to cancel a scheduled Gay Pride Month celebration at the Department of Justice for lesbian and gay employees. He failed. Despite pressure from social conservative activists, DOJ reversed course in the face of protests from gay groups and a sympathetic media (and, probably, pressure from the White House).

When the most famous and powerful member of the Religious Right in the U.S. government can't stop a gay pride event in his own office building, held by his own employees, you know that social conservatives are losing this fight.

It's too soon to declare victory and the looming marriage battle is sure to be tumultuous -- but that the trend of history is toward greater freedom can't be denied.
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

06/15/03 - 06/21/03

The legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada, plus impending legal decisions from Massachusetts and New Jersey regarding same-sex couples seeking to wed, puts marriage front and center on the Culture War front -- even as we await the Supreme Court's ruling on whether state sodomy laws that outlaw mere sexual relations between gay partners are constitutionally permissible.

Peter Steinfels, who covers the religion beat for the New York Times, traces some of the fault lines in the marriage debate (at least among the non-wackos in the religious community) in A Too-Hot Topic. Among others, he quotes David Blankenhorn, director of the Institute for American Values, who remarks: "People who haven't had much positive to say about marriage are suddenly enthusiastic, as long
you put the words 'same sex' in front of it."

True, to some extent. But "Gay marriage isn't a repudiation of the values conservatives prize. It's an affirmation," writes syndicated columnist Steve Chapman in Embracing Age-Old Monogamy, via the Chicago Tribune.

Over at the libertarian-minded Reason magazine, Cathy Young opines in Gay Rights Go To Court that:

Until attitudes change, gays have a difficult road to travel. There will be clear-cut victories for human dignity, freedom, and privacy, such as the likely demise of sodomy laws. And there will be complicated and frustrating compromises on issues like marriage.

Well, no one ever said life was meant to be easy.

Equal Time.

Having noted a column over at Tech Central Station that defended the none-too gay friendly views of Sen. Rick Santorum, the Tech Central folks point out they've also run several pieces critical of Santorum, including Democratic Plant
("The only explanation") by James Pinkerton, and
Information Sexternalities ("It's not like incest at all") by James D. Miller. Plus lots of other interesting views on politics and culture with a pro-liberty streak make this site worth checking out.

Internally Conflicted

I missed this, but andrewsullivan.com pointed out a Washington Times op-ed by conservative commentator Jonah Golberg that offered this observation:

Earlier this month, Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly tried to cancel a scheduled Gay Pride Month celebration at the Department of Justice for lesbian and gay employees. He failed. Despite pressure from social conservative activists, DOJ reversed course in the face of protests from gay groups and a sympathetic media (and, probably, pressure from the White House).

When the most famous and powerful member of the Religious Right in the U.S. government can't stop a gay pride event in his own office building, held by his own employees, you know that social conservatives are losing this fight.

It's too soon to declare victory and the looming marriage battle is sure to be tumultuous -- but that the trend of history is toward greater freedom can't be denied.
--Stephen H. Miller

Yet Still More Balancing by Bushies.

This headline from the Missoulian (of Montana) says it all: Racicot takes Bush campaign helm: GOP gays applaud, Christian right boos. As the story reports:

Rumors that [Marc] Racicot would lead the re-election campaign have already provoked much gnashing of teeth among Christian conservatives who oppose Racicot's efforts to bring homosexuals into the Republican family. "

"Marc Racicot is so out-of-touch with George W. Bush's most loyal and committed voters that his qualifications to serve as chairman of the president's re-election campaign must be seriously questioned," Family Research Council president Ken Connor wrote in a May 15 e-mail. "Mr. Racicot appears to be utterly tone deaf -- or openly hostile -- to the concerns of the GOP's pro-family voters."

Give a little to the religious right (by ending official sponsorship of the Dept. of Justice's gay pride), and take a little in the hope of widening your appeal to centrists and independents. That's the Rove (er, Bush) strategy.

Why the Right's Not Right.

The interesting Tech Central Station website has a column by a U of Texas at Arlington prof titled Why Liberals Think Conservatives Are Stoopid. Unfortunately, it's a pretty shallow piece that even seeks to defend Sen. Rick Santorum's pro-sodomy law comments. The column triggered some interesting online comments, though, and I think this fellow's remarks get it just about right:

Sen. Santorum did not merely say that if the Supreme Court held that states lack a right to pass sodomy laws, they would also lack a legal basis to pass laws against incest, bestiality, etc. (and, by the way, Texas abolished its laws against bestiality at the same time it PASSED a same-sex only sodomy law).

What Santorum went on to say was that he personally supported state sodomy laws, that states should have the right to enact them or not, but he favored enacting them. That is, he believes gay people should be treated as a criminal class. THAT's what created much (albeit not all) of the storm of protest. THAT's why you could mock the idea that Sen. Santorum is an 'inclusive' man. THAT's why he was called a bigot.

Right on.

Over at the conservative Frontpagemagazine.com website, my article Gay Activists and Religious Conservatives: Through the Looking Glass has triggered some heated online comments. A defender of my views, who posts under the name "Kansas," has taken on some of the more vehement religious rightists and even encouraged IGF's own John Corvino to enter the fray with this amusing posting that's well worth reading.

Waiting for the Supremes.

IGF contributing author Carolyn Lochhead writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that the upcoming Supreme Court sodomy decision may put Bush in a bind, if the religious right goes bonkers over a ruling that throws out same-sex sodomy laws (as is, in fact, widely anticipated). She quotes Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, who says:

"Regardless of their desires to the contrary, Republicans will not be able to duck-and-cover on this issue." -- "The debate will elevate to a white-hot temperature about what the role of marriage is in society."

Yet, writes Lochhead,

Gay Republicans and social conservatives alike predict the Bush administration will try to avoid comment on the high court's ruling, however it comes out. "They are very disciplined in their message and in their priorities, and they would probably rather avoid getting mired in this issue, but I'm not certain they'll be able to avoid it," said a leading gay Republican close to the administration.

Reality check time: I strongly suspect the religious right has wildly overestimated public interest in sodomy laws -- and, in fact, John and Jane Q. Public would for the most part be surprised to learn that these musty old statutes are even still on the books. Anti-gay activists can howl all they want that ruling against sodomy laws is somehow an assault on hetero marriage, but it's clearly a stretch. The fight over marriage rights will be controversial and bruising, but sodomy laws will go out with a whimper, not a bang.

Recent Postings

06/08/03 - 06/14/03

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