This is a thread about the CONSTITUTIONAL implications of the Supreme Court's overturning of the Texas anti-sodomy law.
Justice Scalia dissented, as follows:
Quote:
|
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.
|
No less a personality than Robert Bork once said, "Lawyers live on a slippery slope. We are not expected to ski it to the bottom."
And yet, that happens daily.
A good place to start is, where does it end?
An historical example: Brigham Young, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, (aka the Mormon Church) was a proponent and practitioner of polygamy. In 1857, the US Army was dispatched to establish control over Utah due to the practice of polygamy. Brigham Young was tried for polygamy in 1871. The Church renounced the practice in 1890 and Utah was admitted to the Union shortly thereafter.
Isn't the prohibition of polygamy a law based on moral choices?
What about the marriage practices of other cultures?
You can leave home the invective, the homophobia-calling and the dogma for this thread: what is intended is a mature discussion about whether laws should be based on moral principles, and the possible consequences if they are not.