why conservativism isn't everythingRamesh Ponnuru on Lawrence v. Texas: Let me go on to answer some hypothetical challenges that have been issued in other recent constitutional debates. If a courthouse in Alabama were to display excerpts from the Koran rather than the Decalogue, I would have no (federal) constitutional objection to that. And if, in some place where heterosexuals were a minority, the legislature outlawed heterosexual sex, I am not at all sure that there would be a valid (federal) constitutional objection to that, either. (There would, however, be a strong case for moving out of the jurisdiction.)What Ramesh doesn't seem to know, or doesn't seem to care about, is the finding in Griswold v. Conneticut directly contradicts the idea that any jurisdiction could outlaw heterosexual sex (and here I'm quoting Justice Douglas' majority opinion from a text book): The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon the relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unneccessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surronding the marriage relationship.Marriage is as old as humanity, and not something to be interfered with lightly. Conservatives lose their right to stand in front of people and be taken seriously when they reduce their arguments to such absurd standards, as Ramesh has done. No one wants to live in a society where heterosexual sex could be outlawed, nor would we believe such a thing is Constitutionally, nor can Ramesh prove that it is. If conservatives oppose gay marriage because, amongst many reasons, it can't be consumated, how can Ramesh argue the legality of a ban on heterosexual sex? If you accept those premises, doesn't this mean he's really arguing that heterosexual marriage can be outlawed? I can imagine that Ramesh's blood boils whenever someone mentions a "right to privacy" but it's here, and it's working on your side in this case Ramesh. If only you weren't so bent on being idelogocially in favor of sodomy laws you might recognize how your argument is a detriment to your overall cause. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
