Sodomy Law Struck Down

By a 6-3 margin, the Supreme Court struck a mighty blow (that pun was unintentional but upon re-reading, well, it's staying) for freedom and equal rights in overturning the Texas sodomy law. The Axis Powers - Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas - were predictably in the minority, and Scalia teetered on the edge of apoplexy at the decision, taking the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. Witness Judge Tony trying to unwad his judicial panties:

Bowers’ conclusion that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” is utterly unassailable.

Well, gee, Your Honor, if our nation's history and tradition is the yardstick, then I'll bet you're still pissed that broads can vote and those uppity colored folks count as more than 3/5 of a person.

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda [...] It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home.

Many Americans don't want Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Muslims, Catholics, and/or Jews doing those things either. Not quite a winning point there. Hell, I'd prefer my son not have to encounter evangelical Christians or crypto-fascist justices, but I still recognize the rights of each to indulge their filthy, disgusting habits. Hell, I even support letting them do it in public! And I can't believe that anybody would even need to point this out, but it was a foregone conclusion that the Court was going to take a side in the "culture war" one way or the other as soon as they agreed to hear the case. Neutral observer of the democratic rules of engagement, my ass. Tell it to Al Gore, you pompous hack.

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals

In fact, some of my best friends are abominations in the eyes of God!

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

Again, that (not in the least entertaining) belief was resoundingly affirmed during the last election, Mr. Justice. So, putting aside the usual rationale for right-wing huffing and puffing over homosexuality, why exactly is Justice Scalia so unduly alarmed at this decision? Because despite the voluminous legal sophistry that permeates his dissent, he's completely right about one thing - this decision does knock down the last legal barriers to same-sex marriage, as Daily Kos explains:

The majority ruled that the Texas sodomy law "furthered no legitimate state interest." That is a "rational interest" standard -- much more lax than "compelling state interest," or "strict scrutiny." [...] Any use of consistency and logic would force the court sanction same-sex marriages, and invalidate any attempt to limit the definition of "marriage" to unions between man and woman.

I suspect this just moved up several notches in the rankings of significant issues for the 2004 campaign. Conventional wisdom would say that this is a loser for the Democrats, but that is last century's logic. This is an issue of basic fairness and young people, at least, know it. The economic/libertarian wing of the GOP just wants this issue to go away, because nothing exercises Jesus' shock troops quite like homosexuality, and let's face it: those people put forth an ugly, hateful face for the Republican Party, one far more knuckle-dragging and mouth-breathing than Trent Lott.

Aside from the militant Christers (and Dems have no real shot at their vote anyhow), anti-homosexual hysteria is largely a generational issue. Everybody below the age of 45 has openly gay relatives, friends, co-workers, et cetera, and once you replace the abstracts of the issue with real human beings, it gets much more difficult to keep spitting venom. Scalia is on the wrong side of history, and the histrionics in his dissent show that he knows it.