Read Lawrence v. Texas today - the supreme court case of 2003 deciding the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. Happily, the court overruled precedent and said the statute was no longer valid. Unhappily, Scalia wrote a nice long dissent arguing that "homosexual sodomy" is morally wrong and that invalidating a law against it would cause a "massive disruption of the current social order". Also, in his agreement with precedent Scalia makes note that prohibitions against homosexual sodomy do not implicate a fundamental right under due process since someone's right to engage in anal sex is not "deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition."
Can we just pause for a moment and realize how ridiculous that is. Honestly.
So, what do you think? Has the social order been massively disrupted since 2003? Now that people have a little more freedom in their sex lives I guess the apocalypse DOES seem nearer. Maybe that's just me.
Grahh. I hate arguments defending prejudice under the guise of morality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I wholly agree re Scalia and your view of "prejudice under the guise of morality".
Post a Comment