what I'm waiting for, if you're wondering
Apr. 19th, 2007 04:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdOne of the things I'm looking for in the theoconservative updates that I read for the Cultural Warfare Update is a statement that Gonzales v. Carhart/Planned Parenthood (2007) is a declaration of victory against not just Roe v. Wade, but also against Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which overturned the laws making gay people illegal in various states. These cases are closely tied, because one of the holdings of Lawrence v. Texas was that purely moral or religious laws with no demonstrably rational basis - e.g., the so-called sodomy laws - couldn't pass equal protection muster. You can't ban people just because you want to. It was one of the more libertarian parts of that finding. Justice Scalia was particularly virulent in his condemnation of that part of the opinion, as are the more legally-minded theoconservative leaders, because it shuts down huge swaths of their agenda.
This decision overturns that at least in part, because it appears to rest heavily on the idea that an argument of "we think this is icky, so we'll ban it" is okay - in other words, that a purely nonrational law, passed pretty much entirely on the basis of religious/moral belief, passes Constitutional muster.
That ruling undercuts a key tenant of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and hands a huge, huge win to the theoconservative movement, and a huge hit to the rights of minourities everywhere. Particularly suspect minourities, like, say, me.
This decision overturns that at least in part, because it appears to rest heavily on the idea that an argument of "we think this is icky, so we'll ban it" is okay - in other words, that a purely nonrational law, passed pretty much entirely on the basis of religious/moral belief, passes Constitutional muster.
That ruling undercuts a key tenant of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and hands a huge, huge win to the theoconservative movement, and a huge hit to the rights of minourities everywhere. Particularly suspect minourities, like, say, me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 03:52 am (UTC)Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
"respecting..."
passing laws based on relgious belief is unconstitutional
(but i think i am one of the few who think so.)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 07:07 am (UTC)Justice Scalia even wrote an opinion some time ago saying that religious practices could be outlawed for any or no reason as long as the law didn't state overtly and explicitly that the law was intended to prohibit a religious practice on the basis of it being a religious practice. This was in a ... 1989? drug war case I studied. It's probably in my notes somewhere still.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 10:23 pm (UTC)but, sigh, the world is going even more crazy...