The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marriage

[pjlikesporn]

Palin may have scored some points with moderates when she implied in Thursday night's debate that a McCain/Palin administration would be tolerant of homosexuals. But the most serious (and certainly most overlooked) issue for gays in this election is not federal benefits or anything related to gay marriage or civil unions. The issue is, simply, freedom.

While civil rights for gays are important topics, we must not lose sight of the fact that a McCain/Palin ticket would appoint judges who would allow for the criminalization of homosexuality. That is, McCain would appoint to the Supreme Court justices with the so-called original intent judicial philosophy. With only two appointments of such justices, the Court would have the majority necessary to overturn the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the case where the Court made it unconstitutional for states to criminalize homosexual sodomy.

While playing offense on the civil unions issue, the gay rights movement seems dangerously lax on its defense of more basic freedoms. In this relatively enlightened era, it would be an enormous step back if states were allowed to lock gays up for having consensual sex.

 

[Horschallen]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Scary, isn't it?

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

LMAO. There's laws that make Oral Sex illegal. This is just more crap to smear the right. I highly doubt thats their main reason for wanting the Oval office.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

lol. I've never heard it put like that. Hey, some people think it's a decision/choice, others don't. I don't judge anyone based on what their opinion on it is. I've heard pretty much everything so far in my lifetime, and just because she thinks that, doesn't stray me from their ticket. Yeah, I think that's an idiot point of view since its been proven to be genetic, but still, some people just haven't been around it enough to know better, which I most likely assume is her case. You can't always convince people to think that way. I'm all about gay rights, don't get me wrong when I talked about gay marriage in my previous post in the VP thread, but it just isn't of the utmost importance going into this Presidency. Not to me, anyway, and if that offends anyone, I apologize.

 

[NickCole]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Palin may have scored some points with moderates when she implied in Thursday night's debate that a McCain/Palin administration would be tolerant of homosexuals. But the most serious (and certainly most overlooked) issue for gays in this election is not federal benefits or anything related to gay marriage or civil unions. The issue is, simply, freedom.

While civil rights for gays are important topics, we must not lose sight of the fact that a McCain/Palin ticket would appoint judges who would allow for the criminalization of homosexuality. That is, McCain would appoint to the Supreme Court justices with the so-called original intent judicial philosophy. With only two appointments of such justices, the Court would have the majority necessary to overturn the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the case where the Court made it unconstitutional for states to criminalize homosexual sodomy.

While playing offense on the civil unions issue, the gay rights movement seems dangerously lax on its defense of more basic freedoms. In this relatively enlightened era, it would be an enormous step back if states were allowed to lock gays up for having consensual sex.

Maybe if you guys had to face a genuine crisis of liberty and rights for gays you'd know what it looks like.

This isn't it.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Nice dodge.

Is it a Viper?

How so? They asked a question, and I gave my honest answer. And if it wasn't obvious, I don't think it's a disease, if that's what you were wanting. My mom sure does still think that, though. "Its not normal, see a psychiatrist!"

 

[khushibagh]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Maybe if you guys had to face a genuine crisis of liberty and rights for gays you'd know what it looks like.

This isn't it.

Oh please, no more of the older and wiser BS We've read enough of your posts to know you're older than most of the kids on this board but don't have the maturity to accept that Hillary lost with any kind of grace. If you want to vote for McCain (and clearly you are itching do so since you go out of your way to trash Obama and praise McCain at every opportunity), even out of spite for the ungrateful Democrats who wouldn't vote for Hillary, go ahead and do so - it's your right as an American - and spare us the drama.

PJ brought up one of the most important issues in this election - the composition of the Supreme Court and the fact that McCain/Palin would appoint highly conservative judges who are likely to uphold any state laws the social conservatives pass against gays. I know its fashionable for marriage obsessed gays to treat Lawrence as a non-event, but it was a landmark recognition of the right of gay people to privacy and a direct repudiation of the Court's 1986 Hardwick decision. Chances are that sodomy laws are not about to make a big comeback in the next few years (although never say never) but you may have the odd state. More importantly, thanks to the phenomenal success the marriage lobby has had in getting anti-gay constitutional amendments passed in more than a handful states, any progress for gay marriage, civil unions and equal benefits outside a couple of very liberal states is going to depend on the Supreme Court and Obama's judicial appointees are likely to be much more sympathetic.

Maybe you'll get your wet dream and McCain will win and HRC will make a triumphant comeback in 2012 but McCain's legacy will still live on in the Supreme Court and that is something every gay person should be concerned about.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

LMAO. There's laws that make Oral Sex illegal.

Which were effectively all stuck down by Lawrence.

 

[spiderhead]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Maybe if you guys had to face a genuine crisis of liberty and rights for gays you'd know what it looks like.

This isn't it.

A genuine crisis wouldn't be jailtime for sodomy would it? The Lawrence V Texas case was only won by a 6-3 margin. It really isn't a far cry to believe that we can be discriminated against and face jail time simply for partaking in acts of sodomy.

 

[construct]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

A genuine crisis wouldn't be jailtime for sodomy would it? The Lawrence V Texas case was only won by a 6-3 margin. It really isn't a far cry to believe that we can be discriminated against and face jail time simply for partaking in acts of sodomy.

You know, the principle holding (sodomy laws violate the 14th amendment due process clause) was only a 5-4 split. O'Connor concurred in the judgment but would have preferred an equal protection argument striking down only those statutes which singled out same-sex behavior for punishment. Either way, two of the four who didn't join the Court's opinion have been replaced by fairly young men, and most of the five who did are moving towards elderly. We could easily see a turnover in the court, and if they strike down Lawrence, the old laws that haven't been repealed will simply spring back into force.

 

[khushibagh]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

You know, the principle holding (sodomy laws violate the 14th amendment due process clause) was only a 5-4 split. O'Connor concurred in the judgment but would have preferred an equal protection argument striking down only those statutes which singled out same-sex behavior for punishment. Either way, two of the four who didn't join the Court's opinion have been replaced by fairly young men, and most of the five who did are moving towards elderly. We could easily see a turnover in the court, and if they strike down Lawrence, the old laws that haven't been repealed will simply spring back into force.

I was going to say that Lawrence was 6-3 but I see you are putting O'Connor in a special category. I suspect she went for the concurrence because she was one of the 5 votes in Hardwick that didn't find a due process violation and she didn't want to say that she was flat wrong then. At any rate, she would have been a more likely ally than Alito. While I doubt that there is huge enthusiasm for bringing back the specific law that was struck down in Lawrence, Lawrence is deeply hated by social conservatives because it makes it virtually impossible to criminalize consensual sexual conduct among adults. And of course you are right, if Lawrence were overturned the old laws would spring back unless they were amended. Same with the abortion laws if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

As to appointing justices holding to "original intent", remember that that means interpreting the words as they are written, and only going to other writings in order to illuminate or clarify. Biden was correct in the debate when he referred to the Constitution as protecting equal rights for all. I truly doubt that there are any writings by the Founding Fathers or the Framers concerning homosexuality, so the words have to be interpreted as they stand.
So if McCain would truly appoint justices who believe in original intent, I'd have no problem. But his appointments wouldn't be on that basis, they'd be on the basis of the belief that this is supposed to be, as he had said, a "Christian nation" -- and not just a Christian one, but a fairly conservative, "evangelical" version, which ironically is something that didn't really exist at the time of the Revolution.

 

[NickCole]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

PJ brought up one of the most important issues in this election - the composition of the Supreme Court and the fact that McCain/Palin would appoint highly conservative judges who are likely to uphold any state laws the social conservatives pass against gays. I know its fashionable for marriage obsessed gays to treat Lawrence as a non-event, but it was a landmark recognition of the right of gay people to privacy and a direct repudiation of the Court's 1986 Hardwick decision. Chances are that sodomy laws are not about to make a big comeback in the next few years (although never say never) but you may have the odd state. More importantly, thanks to the phenomenal success the marriage lobby has had in getting anti-gay constitutional amendments passed in more than a handful states, any progress for gay marriage, civil unions and equal benefits outside a couple of very liberal states is going to depend on the Supreme Court and Obama's judicial appointees are likely to be much more sympathetic.

Obama wanted to vote to confirm Justice Roberts. The only reason he didn't was because it might damage his Presidential aspirations.

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446.html?nav=hcmodule

 

[Spensed]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Obama wanted to vote to confirm Justice Roberts. The only reason he didn't was because it might damage his Presidential aspirations.

Yet again, that simply isn't true.

The article you quote, even if it's correct, doesn't tell the whole story.

Obama's opposition to Roberts was the subject of an extensive press release at the time:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/

If Obama was trying to make political capital from opposing Roberts, he would hardly need to explain why it was a closer call for him than for others and his press release would have been completely different.

Many people recognized good qualities in Roberts, but, on balance, decided to oppose his nomination.

 

[NickCole]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Yet again, that simply isn't true.

The article you quote, even if it's correct, doesn't tell the whole story.

Obama's opposition to Roberts was the subject of an extensive press release at the time:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/

If Obama was trying to make political capital from opposing Roberts, he would hardly need to explain why it was a closer call for him than for others and his press release would have been completely different.

Yes I get that you're easily moved by what Obama says rather than taking stock of what he does and the process by which he gets there.

 

[NickCole]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

I agree. I think the OP is simply being alarmist. I think gays are better served with strict constitutional judges because gay rights will be protected on merit instead of on emotional grounds. Roe v. Wade, for instance, is bad law on it's merits but the emotional vacuum in which it was enacted made it almost demanded by the public. But law professors shudder at the means by which it became law. We really don't want to go down that road because someday someone may find the methodology of such "law" contrary and the arguments will move back into the Congress. You want the inherent rights we have to be protected. Gay don't need any additional rights they need their rights protected. The rights are there they are simply being subjugated.

Well said.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Who are these law professors who are shuddering, I'd be interested in reading that.

 

[construct]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Who are these law professors who are shuddering, I'd be interested in reading that.

It is certainly arguable that the holdings in Roe are broader than necessary to decide the case. So I have no doubt that there are shuddering law professors. Justice Ginsberg wrote an essay critical of Roe before she was appointed to the Supreme Court.

Now, I also supported Chief Justice Roberts' appointment. He was appointed to replace Rhenquit, and I didn't think we could reasonably expect to see a better nominee from Pres. Bush. As it turns out, I was right. We later got to consider Harriet Myers and Alito.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Obama wanted to vote to confirm Justice Roberts. The only reason he didn't was because it might damage his Presidential aspirations.

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

Wow -- he didn't vote "Present"!

 

[khushibagh]

Re: The Real Gay Issue in '08: Freedom, not Marria

Obama wanted to vote to confirm Justice Roberts. The only reason he didn't was because it might damage his Presidential aspirations.

What is your point? That he should have voted for Roberts? That he was right in voting against Roberts but wrong in finding him impressive? That if he is elected President, he will select justices like Roberts?