At last

At last
: I’m not a lawyer (thank God) and there are plenty of smart lawyers commenting on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Texas sodomy laws, but from a moral perspective — Scalia be damned! — is thank God for this decision. The moral decision is to treat people as people and not to discriminate — or worse, for Christ’s sake, prosecute — one group of people because of who they are. I do not buy arguments that say the voters of Texas have some greater right on this matter. By that logic, then Brown v. Board of Education was wrong; by that logic, the racist laws of Southern states and the racist regimes of such governors as George Wallace and Lester Maddox would have gone unchallenged. No, Scalia et al, the moral issue here is not homosexuality; the moral issue is bigotry.

  • http://www.utterwonder.com cmonks

    Amen to that.

  • AST

    You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but I see this decision as a disaster for federaliswm and the most basic rights we have, the rights to decide what kind of society we will live in. I was not worried about what homosexuals do with each other in private, but I find the behavior of many gays in public to be offensive. And that of many straights as well. There are worse sins than being a bigot. And this rush to abandon all moralitiy will end badly. It will weaken our society and make us pushovers for whatever barbarians will assail our gates.

  • http://www.biocom-jp.com/weblog/ zachary braverman

    I can’t comment on your personal opinions of homosexuals, etc., but I think that your worry about weakening the gates can be objectively refuted.
    After all, in terms of permissiveness of morality, America is one of the loosest countries there is in the world. And yet, those countries with the strictest laws regarding morality and behavior (the Middle East comes to mind) are among the least successful, at least materially.
    I won’t say there is a causal connection between looseness of morality and to success (I don’t think you and I have remotely similary views of morality), but looking at the world today we can see objectively that loosening of morality in the traditional/conservative/fundamentalist sense you seem to adhere to can hardly be said to weaken countries materially. Indeed, the more we tend to “abandon all morality” (although I think of it as just switching over to a truer morality), the stronger we seem to become militarily and economically.

  • Dark Avenger

    The law that was under consideration was unenforceable, unless you could plant a video camera in every bedroom and connect them to a state-run monitoring room.
    The state of Nevada at one time decided that it wanted to be a society
    that forbid Caucasians and Asians to intermarry. I’m sure the people behind this law had the same concerns that you raised in your comment.
    There are a lot of sins that are worse than being a bigot. Could I then say that I feel it’s okay to be a thief, as the sin of murder is clearly worse than the sin of thievery?

  • http://www.utterwonder.com cmonks

    I’m disappointed that someone leaves a comment equating being gay with being a barbarian and says that “There are worse sins than being a bigot”, and they’re only taken to task by a couple of voices. When others question the policies of the Bush Admin. or the media’s coverage of the war in Iraq a raging debate typically ensues on this blog. Is it worse to speak out against the White House than it is to be a bigot?

  • John Thacker

    Of course, one difference is that amendments had alerady been added to the Constitution largely promising equal treatment of different races.
    Yes, I agree that morally, these laws should go. However, I do worry somewhat about your apparent willingness to sweep aside any petty niceties of law, Constitution, or democracy in order to do the moral thing.
    Presumably in your full view, you actually believe that there should be some restraint in the ability to unilaterally get your moral vision across. Presumably you are willing to accept that sometimes the moral thing cannot be done because of legality or democracy.
    If not, then I find you little different than the most extreme rejectionist fundamentalist member of the religious right. I may agree somewhat more with your moral view, but your methods and views would otherwise be the same– to damn law, democracy, and the Constitution in an effort impose your moral view.

  • http://hackjammer.com/weblogs/bc/ cheezwiz

    What consenting adults do in private is none of my business, or the government’s. (Or the Southern Baptists’.) I don’t consider homosexuals to be “immoral,” but even if I did, morality should not be a consideration. There’s a reason why the statue of Justice wears a blindfold–and occasionally goes topless, until a certain Attorney General orders a few thousand dollars’ worth of drapes on the taxpayers’ tab because he’s offended by breasts.