From the Family Research Council:
By extending legal protections to
homosexual behavior, the court majority not only struck
down the 1986 precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld
Georgia’s anti-sodomy law; the court also demolished the
legal foundation of marriage.
The ruling does not “protect” homosexual behavior; it states that the Constitution never gave state and federal governments the right to regulate private consensual behavior in the first place.
It is truly bizarre that the FRC would define sodomy laws as the legal foundation of marriage. With reasoning like that, it’s no wonder divorce rates in the Bible Belt are the highest in the nation.
As Justice Antonin Scalia
noted in his scathing opinion in dissent, “State laws
against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest,
prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication,
bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in
light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.
This is misleading. Several of the named offenses are non-consensual, violent, and harmful.
Indeed, the court opened the door to all of this under an
implicit “right to privacy” that appears nowhere in the
Constitution, but which the court invented in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
This is misleading, also. The Constitution has always reserved rights, both named and unnamed, to individuals unless assigned to state or federal governments. Scalia and FRC argue that Big Government holds the right to do anything it wants, unless a right is narrowly, specifically and explicitly reserved to individuals in the Constitution.
It’s the role of the people’s elected representatives, not unelected and
unaccountable judges, to address emerging issues….
The FRC seems to be implying that Supreme Court justices should be elected and therefore vulnerable to the public whims of the moment, not to mention wealthy special interest groups.
Nothing could more
dramatically illustrate how critical the next Supreme Court
appointment(s) will be. Nothing less than the people’s
right to self-government is at stake. Will we rule
ourselves, or be ruled by black-robed oligarchs who
disregard the law and the Constitution to impose their own
political agenda on the country? Or will we have judges of
humility and restraint, who respect the separation of
powers and the people’s unalienable right to govern
themselves?
It is odd that FRC appeals to popular mandate when that mandate is presently opposed to sodomy laws. In any event, Congress regularly passes laws that violate the wishes of the religious right. FRC’s opposition to “self-government” in these cases is a matter of public record.