An NLT reader asks, “if soliciting sodomy from a member of the same sex is freedom of expression, then what about other forms of sex from any gender? How could the Lawrence decision become this broad?” Indeed, it would seem only logical under Judge Proctor’s ruling that solicitation from any gender would also be a protected form of speech or expression—in fact, if his ruling only applied to sodomy solicitation, it would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause. How could Lawrence become this broad? Simple. Lawrence has no limits. In taking “transcendent liberty” with the Constitution, the Supreme Court, to borrow from David Currie, may have finally found a decision that allows it to strike down any law it doesn’t like.
While certainly not on the same structural and legal plane as the Taney Court’s Dred Scott decision in 1857, Lawrence is quite capable of becoming every bit as inflammatory and destructive.
I am reminded of the great red/blue zone divide in this country. And while this didvide is not geographically the same as the North/South divide of the Civil War era, it seems, to me at least, bitterly divided over cultural matters that Lawrence has so eagerly trounced upon.
I don’t consider myself an alarmist, but this thing really does scare me.
Right now, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is considering the SCOTUS Court Lawrence decision, in light of a "gay marriage" case before them. Suppose, as is expected, they deliever a strong 7-0 decision in favor of gay marriage, thereby setting an important precident.
A gay couple, somewhere in the south, then files suit in a state court based on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court precident. The case ends up before the state Supremes, who then reject it ala the recent Nevada Court rebellion (or salvation depending on one’s politics).
The case then goes back to SCOTUS, who rule the state in contempt of court. Said state erupts in a passionate furor, secession talk among the benighted runs wild.
Am I getting wacky here?