Audio Recording of Lawrence v. Texas

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

Interesting stuff. Is it wrong that I want to punch Scalia in the face?

 

Humm. This takes me back. I remember getting into a rather heated argument with my dad regarding Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm curious what he position on the topic would be now that I am out. Though I am not curious enough to ask. That elephant matches the sofa very nicely so plan to leave it there.

 

No. But it is better for your psychological well-being if you just sit back and laugh at his sarcastic belligerence. Getting you to hate him is in fact his goal, you see; don't give in

 

Scalia has been chosen to receive an honorary degree from my college at commencement this May...I'm graduating this May...

Another action by my school that I will never understand.

 

Should lady justice be someone who weighs the merits and fairness of a situation on a metaphorical scale, and then strive to deliver a fair ruling, or should she be someone who blindfolds herself and takes a sword to stab whomever the law states to stab?

That, I think, is the philosophical difference between people's understanding of what role an independent judiciary plays in a democratic nation.

 

Lawrence was an extremely important case. I read the opinion because I am kind of a geek. I think that even though the result was good (I like not being illegal), the case was correctly decided only by O'Connor.

I hate the sexual privacy defense, and I don't understand why it has so much currency. Certainly, our consensual sex lives should be private, but the problem is, America is a problematic country in which consensual sex lives are constantly under attack. That's why Roe v Wade is under attack: not because people care about fetuses (although they claim to care); it's that social conservatives can't stand the idea of women having sex "without consequences." Heck, it's why among some nut cases, we need to even overturn Griswold v Connecticut! My point is that if Americans decided that sexual privacy wasn't that important, then the legal basis for allowing people to have oral and anal sex completely goes away. And that's like a hell of a lot of sex, enjoyed by people who are lesbians, gays and bisexuals of all genders, and--yes I am going there--straight people as well.

The real reason the Texas law (and all the others) should have been struck down was because of its unfairness--its violation of equal protection. Whenever sexual acts are outlawed, it affects everyone differently. Cismen and Ciswomen who are straight have something to do--you know, standard sex. Sure, the laws at issue in Lawrence hurt everyone, but they let gay men do pretty much nothing. Except kiss and pet each other. Sounds exciting... Not...

Anyway, the TL;DR is O'Connor's a baws, and it should have been Equal Protection Claws, not Due Process Claws.

---------- Post added 28th Apr 2012 at 09:45 PM ----------

Oh, as long as we're going to trot out court cases, I am very proud of my state for this one, since we beat the Supreme Court of the United States by like six years: Gryczan v. State.

It was a very interesting case in that it arises not like Lawrence (with a humiliating arrest). The petitioner basically was like "yep, I am gay, and I am totally gonna fuck someone, and then I am going to be violating the law, which is really hurtful and unfair, so please decide this constitutional question."