The Supreme Court has done it again, striking down yet another state law over which it had no jurisdiction, claiming that, when the Constitution says "privileges or immunities" in Amendment XIV, it's really talking about sodomy.
The same Amendment, by the way, states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Not the Court, but the Congress...so even if "privileges or immunities" did mean "sodomy," the Supremes would still be out of line. I find it rather disturbing that the same Court that can find "sodomy" and "abortion" in the words "privileges or immunities" in Amendment XIV cannot see the words "shall not be infringed" in Amendment II.
At any rate, an aspiring college genetics major wrote a miserable excuse for an argument supporting the Court's decision. What follows is my response to the editor.
Perhaps Midhat Farooqi's opinion on the Supreme Court's sodomy ruling should have been kept private. His claim that heterosexuals may legally engage in sodomy is specious, because sodomy is by definition a homosexual act. Homosexuality is defined by actions; it is entirely different from the issue of race. The State of Texas does indeed have a legitimate purpose in prohibiting homosexual behavior, which is associated with a six thousand percent higher incidence of HIV and other STDs, as well as a significantly higher incidence of child molestation, than heterosexual behavior.
Mr. Farooqi also makes the claim that "States...cannot write laws based on morality." Every law is based on the premise that one thing is right, while another is wrong. That is morality; without it, we could have no laws. Mr. Farooqi does, in fact, ask the appropriate question: "Which morality code should the state follow?" The answer is, the "Christian" one--or, more accurately, the "Judeo-Christian" one--because that is the moral code upon which our foundational law is based.
Noah Webster, founder of the U.S. public education system, said, "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government."
I can say it no better than Mr. Webster. It is a pity that our Supreme Court has seen fit to despise, yet again, both the moral foundation of law and the right of states to govern themselves as they see fit. It may be a happy day for the sexually deviant, but it is a sad day indeed for America.
Posted by jon at July 3, 2003 03:29 PM