Texas sodomy ruling likely to ruffle feathers

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...15/MN184416.DTL

 

Landmark gay ruling may put Bush in bind

 

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

 

Washington -- The Supreme Court will decide within the next two weeks one of the most important cases in the history of civil rights for lesbian and gay Americans, reigniting a battle in the Republican Party that President Bush has delicately sought to avoid.

 

At issue in Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas is a state sodomy law that strikes the most fundamental chords within the GOP and threatens to split two party blocs pivotal to Bush's re-election.

 

The case involves two gay men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were arrested Sept. 17, 1998, in their home in Harris County, Texas, for having consensual sex after a neighbor falsely reported a "weapons disturbance." Police entered their home, discovered them "engaged in deviate sexual intercourse" and jailed them under the Texas homosexual conduct statute.

 

A decision for the plaintiffs would -- for the first time -- guarantee equal protection for gays and lesbians under the 14th Amendment, much as Brown vs. Board of Education did for African Americans nearly a half-century ago. Depending on its decision, the court could also guarantee for lesbians and gays a constitutional right to privacy.

 

Gay Republicans contend that not just equality but the decriminalization of their existence is at stake. Allied with Republican moderates who want to reach out to socially tolerant swing voters, they contend that the case concerns violations of core American values of privacy and equal protection.

 

 

WARY OF GAY MARRIAGE

On the other side are those who back the Texas law based on their religious and moral convictions. Members of these groups, which make up a big chunk of the conservative GOP base, warn that equal protection for sodomy is a giant step toward gay marriage -- still unacceptable to most Americans -- and that no politician, including Bush, a former Texas governor, will be allowed to abide it.

 

Republicans generally, and the White House specifically, largely avoid the topic for fear of alienating either side. But that tactic may not work when the Supreme Court issues its ruling either this Monday or next.

 

"The implications of this case are difficult to overestimate," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group. "It would be a grave mistake for the White House to say in the year 2003 that laws should allow police to enter homes of consensual adults. . . . It's out of the mainstream, it's a politically losing point and would only cater to the fringe, radical-right elements of our party."

 

Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, insisted that if the high court rules against Texas, Republicans will be expected to muster a vigorous defense of heterosexual marriage and traditional family values.

 

"Regardless of their desires to the contrary, Republicans will not be able to duck-and-cover on this issue," Connor said. "The debate will elevate to a white-hot temperature about what the role of marriage is in society."

 

If the court rules against Texas, Connor said, the precedent will open the door to gay marriage, destroy the foundation of heterosexual marriage and "all policy-makers at every level, from the White House to the statehouse, will be called upon to register their views."

 

 

'LIVE AND LET LIVE' HAS LIMITS

Whatever the high court decision, both sides predict it will further inflame the fight over Bush judicial nominees, particularly to potential Supreme Court vacancies, adding gay rights to an already explosive political mix.

 

"Most Americans have gotten to the point where they're willing to live and let live, but they're a long way from the point where they will accept gay marriage," said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, noting that former President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which forbids federal recognition of gay unions. "Given that fact, it's dangerous for any political party to do anything that sounds like they're endorsing gay marriage."

 

The administration has not weighed in on Lawrence and Garner, which is not unusual. The case has been overshadowed by an imminent University of Michigan affirmative action decision. But its potential to split the party was made clear by the firestorm over Sen. Rick Santorum's remarks in late April.

 

The Pennsylvania Republican and member of the Senate leadership said that a ruling favorable to gays would threaten the right of states to prohibit bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, or "man on child, man on dog or whatever the case may be."

 

The comments sparked calls for Santorum's resignation but Bush defended him as "an inclusive man," and Republicans rallied to his defense.

 

 

TAKEN TO TASK

Mary Matalin, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and a close ally of the Republican Unity Coalition, a group aiming to make the party more inclusive of gays, went so far as to rebuke the RUC's condemnation of Santorum, shocking RUC officials and publicly embarrassing the group.

 

Matalin said the RUC was "parroting" Democrats, adding that calling Santorum a bigot would be like calling "the pope a bigot."

 

Social conservatives raised another storm when Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot met in March with the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay lobbying group. Nearly a dozen top conservative leaders later held a stormy private meeting with Racicot in which they warned that Bush was endangering his re-election by "flirting" with gay activists.

 

"We urged party leaders not to put President Bush's re-election at risk in 2004 by shrinking from the cultural wars now," said Gary Bauer, a former presidential candidate.

 

Attorney General John Ashcroft came under fire from the other side recently when gay organizations said the Justice Department had banned a gay pride event.

 

"I think right now the GOP is wrestling with how much to accommodate homosexual activists within the party," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, adding that social conservatives "will react strongly to an adverse decision" in Lawrence and Garner.

 

Gay Republicans and social conservatives alike predict the Bush administration will try to avoid comment on the high court's ruling, however it comes out.

 

"They are very disciplined in their message and in their priorities, and they would probably rather avoid getting mired in this issue, but I'm not certain they'll be able to avoid it," said a leading gay Republican close to the administration.

 

 

PLYING MIDDLE GROUND

So far, the administration has plied a middle course on gay issues generally.

 

"The president himself has been disciplined at not engaging in the marginalizing rhetoric of the radical right since he took office, and he has clearly not taken the steps backward that had been threatened by the left in the 2000 election," said Guerriero, the Log Cabin Republicans director.

 

Guerriero noted that Bush surprised the gay and lesbian community with his support for global AIDS funding, nondiscrimination against gays in federal employment and his appointment of Michael Guest as ambassador to Romania, a higher profile position than Clinton's controversial appointment of San Franciscan James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg.

 

Guerriero also cited Bush's support of lesbians and gay relationships in compensating victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks under the Mychael Judge Act.

 

But all agree the pending Supreme Court ruling and its legal aftermath will take the gay issue to a new level.

 

As a Republican or a Democrat, nothing would be better than the GOP telling the Fundies to take a hike, or the Fundies taking off, as they've threatened to do before. For Democrats, it means some of the most closed-minded people in terms of human rights and progress have lost their large mouth piece. For Republians, it means that middling voters will be more comfortable with their party and the Dems lose that "we like gay people, they want to stick 'em back in the closet" card that's been played for the past umpteen years.

 

The fact that the Fundie group is threatening that Bush could have his re-election chances screwed up (i.e. "We'll take our money elsewhere") if he pisses them off is hysterical. Whether or not you like the guy, you have to admit that his popularity is high enough that he stands a good chance even without the hardline social conservative vote.

[Guest JMA]

Man, I really hate the Religious Right. They are the cancer of the Republican party. Hopefully we can get them out of politics.

[Guest SP-1]

yes, because equal representation isn't something to be tolerated, no matter how much someone disagrees with a particular group.

 

At any rate, I'm not too keen on putting homosexuals in jail. It serves no purpose. Jesus never threw prostitutes in jail and used a killer named Saul to help spread the church to the Gentiles.

[Guest JMA]

yes, because equal representation isn't something to be tolerated, no matter how much someone disagrees with a particular group.

 

At any rate, I'm not too keen on putting homosexuals in jail. It serves no purpose. Jesus never threw prostitutes in jail and used a killer named Saul to help spread the church to the Gentiles.

They can have equally representaton. They just need to stop trying to shoehorn religion into goverment. This isn't a theocracy. At any rate, your Jesus example is a good one. He also ate dinner with tax-collectors. He's a good role-model. It's too bad the Religious Right doesn't follow his example.

[Guest SP-1]

Heck, Matthew was a tax collector before following Jesus. Jesus also saved a woman from being stoned for adultery by the Jewish authorities.

 

The Fundies aggravate alot of us normal Christians too. It just seemed as if you were on an anti-Christian kick about Christians having any say in things. Which, as a sizeable portion of the American population, I'd have to disagree.

[Guest JMA]

Heck, Matthew was a tax collector before following Jesus. Jesus also saved a woman from being stoned for adultery by the Jewish authorities.

 

The Fundies aggravate alot of us normal Christians too. It just seemed as if you were on an anti-Christian kick about Christians having any say in things. Which, as a sizeable portion of the American population, I'd have to disagree.

Did you forget that I used to be a Christian? I've seen the good side of it as well as the bad. I just don't like it when religion is shoe-horned into laws (like with Islam in the Middle East). I'm for strict separation of church and state, but am not against religion in general. On the contrary, I have great respect for many of the religious leaders of the past (Jesus, Buddha, ect).

[Guest SP-1]

I'm not very big on religion getting into the government either. Government's pretty earthly and gets in the way of me serving my King. I much prefer the simpler view.

 

Just been a rough day man. No harm done.

[Guest Ripper]

The problem with the Religious Right in government is that they want people to have all the freedoms of America...as long as they do EVERYTHING the way they want it. That "You can have whatever you want for dinner as long as you say roast chicken" type of freedom that they are fighting for and they have WAY to much control now.

 

Government should not be available to the highest bidder.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

At any rate, I'm not too keen on putting homosexuals in jail

Well isn't that a fucking relief.

 

It serves no purpose

Grand. How about the fact that it would also be unconstitutional, immoral, and fucking stupid. But then, most religious beliefs share those characteristics.

[Guest Vyce]

Nearly a dozen top conservative leaders later held a stormy private meeting with Racicot in which they warned that Bush was endangering his re-election by "flirting" with gay activists.

 

I'm sorry, but WHAT?!?!?!

 

If Bush loses the election, I hardly think it will be because he was kind towards them there homosexuals and their friends.

 

Please, this is the PERFECT opportunity for Republicans to break out of this anti-gay / homophobic mindset that's been stereotypical of the party for years now. If it pisses off a few of the hardline right, so be it. What are those people going to do? They ain't gonna go over to the Democrats, that's for sure.

 

BTW, SpiderPoet, good analogy by using Paul (aka Saul, the Mad Dog of Tarsis). Jesus was somehow able to overlook Paul's murderous, extremely anti-Christian background and made him an apostle (the greatest of the Apostles, in my opinion). You'd think (or would like to) that some people, especially people who view themselves as Christians, would get the message. Goddamn, some people sure do seem to forget that whole "love thy neighbor like though wouldst love thyself" portion of the scripture.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If I'm not mistaken, much of the Republican monetary support -- and a surprising number of voters, vis a vis the Christian Coalition -- come from the Religious Right. Considering Bush has been pandering to them in the last few years (Faith Based Initiatives, support of Santorum), I have a feeling he will continue to seek their support... and will probably get it, unless the hard-line right wingers run a candidate of their own.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I predict Bush avoids this issue like the plauge.

[Guest JMA]

I agree. The Republicans need to get rid of supports like Falwell and Robertson. True, they give a lot of money to the GOP, but they also hurt it. Their support make the GOP look a bunch of "good old boys."

[Guest SP-1]

At any rate, I'm not too keen on putting homosexuals in jail

Well isn't that a fucking relief.

 

It serves no purpose

Grand. How about the fact that it would also be unconstitutional, immoral, and fucking stupid. But then, most religious beliefs share those characteristics.

Um, and I did what to warrant this kind of reaction, Marney? Would you rather I lie and give the Rightie propaganda that Homosexuals are more evil than everyone else and need to be burned at the stake?

 

Or would you rather I tell the truth and say that I don't agree with Chrstian extremists (as a Christian myself). It does not serve a purpose under Christian mrorals or any other morals, it does not serve a purpose in what is supposed to be a country of Freedom. It is wrong to jail them because of that. I'm sorry that I trusted some people to understand that based on my previous views and actions around the board instead of having to spell it out for everyone. My horrid, horrid mistake, good ma'am.

 

Think what you want, attack if you will. The people that will have intelligent conversation and not make assumptions are the people I will make sure to respond to in the future.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Spell out your views. Explicitly and in detail. Don't assume I know you like you're the most goddamn important person in my life or something. You compared homosexuality to prostitution and murder in your very first post:

Jesus never threw prostitutes in jail and used a killer named Saul to help spread the church to the Gentiles.

Even if you aren't saying that the three acts in question are morally identical, you're strongly implying that homosexuality is something that can be overlooked or forgiven, which in turn implies that homosexuality is wrong.

 

You also sarcastically said that

equal representation isn't something to be tolerated, no matter how much someone disagrees with a particular group

in reference to the fundamentalist Christian terrorists who exercise a grossly disproportionate influence on American politics, through such methods as firebombings, assassinations, intimidation, and more mundanely character assassination and slander. No, such people have no place in politics. Newsflash: you give up your right to equal representation when you break the law. And criminal actions remain criminal no matter how many people share your beliefs.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I predict Bush avoids this issue like the plauge.

I predict this isn't even an issue. The Christian right knows leaving the Republican party would increased the likelyhood of the Democratic party winning back the White House, and the Congress.

[Guest SP-1]

Hey look everyone, Marney attacks the Christian!

 

I was not implying the Homosexuality is on par with a murderer. In any way, shape, or form.

 

Do I believe it's wrong? Yes. Yes I do. I don't buy the explanation that it's genetics because genetics work on the general basis of the advancements of the best of the species. Homosexuality does not result in reproduction and thus goes against any scientific or other order in nature.

 

Here's the fun part: I have wrestled with it. I have several friends who have wrestled with it and one of my best friends and strongest Christians on this Earth is a former lesbian. I believe it's rooted in a lack of sexual identity and/or personal affirmation and is an emotional and psychological problem. On a similar level as normal psychological problems that afflict billions of people, myself included.

 

Not liking my views on things is fine, but I take deep offense to YOU comparing ME to the Christian extremists who WOULD bomb, murder, and jail homosexuals. Never, ever, would I promote or want such a thing. It is NOT the message of Christianity and it never has been., thank you very much. Jesus himself said that there will be those who cried, 'Lord, Lord' and cast demons out in His name but He would not entertain them in the end. It's a matter of the heart and I don't believe their hearts are in the right place. But your beloved constitution gives them the right to have a say as well. My statements to JMA were geared towards him alone on the interperetation that he meant that ALL Christians should have no say. He and I cleared it up, he doesn't need you to carry it any further.

 

I've answered your foolish accusations two times too many now, and won't be drawn into a stupid flame war with you to find myself banned. You may disagree with me, that's your right. But you will not railroad me as you've done so many others on this board.

[Guest JMA]

I'd like to say that I could care less who people have sex with. It's not my problem and it doesn't bother me. I really don't care whether homosexuality is a choice or is an inborn trait. I don't think sex with a member of the same gender is morally wrong just because their union will not result in any offspring. Heck, most of the people in the world have sex for the sheer pleasure of it. BTW, this post is not directed towards any one poster, it's just a statement and my opinion.

 

That's all I have to say about that.

[Guest JMA]

I predict this isn't even an issue. The Christian right knows leaving the Republican party would increased the likelyhood of the Democratic party winning back the White House, and the Congress.

Sure, in '04. But keep in mind the Republicans also have the Fiscal Right on their side. If the Christian Right did leave the GOP, they would likely support fundamentalist Independant candidates (like Pat Buchanan).

[Guest SP-1]

It generally doesn't bother myself either as the people I know have struggled and dealt with it or are in the process of that right now. I know my own struggles and all my other problems with other sins, I sure as hell have no room to go stoning people.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I was not implying the Homosexuality is on par with a murderer.  In any way, shape, or form.

Good.

 

Do I believe it's wrong?  Yes.

As long as you don't try to force that belief on others I couldn't care less.

 

I take deep offense to YOU comparing ME to the Christian extremists who WOULD bomb, murder, and jail homosexuals

Cry me a river. Next time, you'll be clearer in the first place. You're welcome.

 

My statements to JMA were geared towards him alone on the interperetation that he meant that ALL Christians should have no say.  He and I cleared it up, he doesn't need you to carry it any further.

If you wanted to have a private conversation you should have taken it to PMs or email. If you post a message on the board, try not to whine like a little sissy-boy when someone responds.

 

But you will not railroad me as you've done so many others on this board.

I think you're taking the "serving my King" nonsense a bit too far. Please put down the nails and step away from the cross - at least until you find something better than a message board exchange to martyr yourself over.

[Guest SP-1]

Yes . . . because the aim of Christianity is to nail Him to the cross again. I'll keep my convictions, thank you very much. An argument that I should have made myself so abundantly clearer before is a tad weak considering you're the only one trying your damndest to nail me for something.

 

Simply because I don't cater to your needs is no grounds for the way this thread has gone. I'll continue to operate my way, thank you. If you can't deal with that, don't read my posts. And I'd LOVE an example of where I've tried to push my beliefs on someone else. Unless discussing them has suddenly become pushing them. In which case, nobody told me that the general understanding of the terms had massively changed. I never have done that and I never will. Find something else to accuse me of because that one's a little flat.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I predict this isn't even an issue. The Christian right knows leaving the Republican party would increased the likelyhood of the Democratic party winning back the White House, and the Congress.

Sure, in '04. But keep in mind the Republicans also have the Fiscal Right on their side. If the Christian Right did leave the GOP, they would likely support fundamentalist Independant candidates (like Pat Buchanan).

The Repubilcan party has no time for Pat Buchanan. This includes the religious right, who are know very pro-Isreal, something Buchanan is not. I probably read more about the inside rumblings of the Republican party than anyone here. These issues are brought up all the time, and nothing becomes of it. People might be looking to find a shink in the armor of the party, but honestly there isn't one at this point. It's a much more unified party than the Democrats.

[Guest JMA]

These issues are brought up all the time, and nothing becomes of it. People might be looking to find a shink in the armor of the party, but honestly there isn't one at this point. It's a much more unified party than the Democrats.

Agreed. Republicans, as of right now, are much more unified than Democrats (obviously). But, as time goes by, acceptance of homosexuals and homsexuality will only increase. Thus, sooner or later, the GOP WILL have to cut the Religious Right loose (or else be left behind).

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I predict this isn't even an issue. The Christian right knows leaving the Republican party would increased the likelyhood of the Democratic party winning back the White House, and the Congress.

Uh, what? The Republicans could be HELPED by the Fundies leaving. They turn off the middling voters who swing either way, just like the article mentioned.

 

Meanwhile, SpiderPoet calls for attention with:

Hey look everyone, Marney attacks the Christian!

 

That's the first time I've ever seen someone use their religion as a shield.

[Guest SP-1]

A shield? Hardly. I've never used it as a shield here before and I don't believe in using it as a shield against other people's viewpoints. But I do feel that most of her mud-slinging in my direction has been based on her assumptions about what my beliefs are. I thought it was stupid and childish and to my own agitation responded with a childish lead-off myself. My "shield", my defense has been in my counter explanations.

 

But a shield? Ha. Never.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You implied that it was somehow shocking that Marney would flame you simply because you're a Christian. I don't think that's ever stopped her from flaming people before.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

you're the only one trying your damndest to nail me for something

Eh. Really, I don't have any interest in "nailing" you to anything. You clarified your earlier statements and I now don't disagree with them quite as much. You seem to be slightly confused about the nature of hypotheses, however: I haven't said that you do push your beliefs on others, yet you're defending yourself against the nonexistent charge anyway. Take a few language courses and open a dictionary or two; it'll save your keyboard some wear and tear.

 

And your continued attempts to portray yourself as an online Jesus, falsely accused and unfairly persecuted, provide only minor amusement.

 

If you can't deal with that, don't read my posts

I can deal with your posts just fine. On the other hand, you appear to have major issues with mine: fearing you'd be banned for responding to me, prissily declaring that you would not be "railroaded," loudly shouting that I was attacking you, a Christian <gasp!>, &c.

 

Calm down. I won't hurt you. Promise.

[Guest SP-1]

That depends on how I view myself as a Christian. If I viewed myself as a higher than the rest of the world Christian then perhaps it might seem that way. But I don't, and I've never demonstrated that train of thought. I don't think it's a Christian way to think of myself.

 

I did find her vicious attacks, based on pure speculation, surprising. Normally when she goes on a crusade she's found some kind of valid complaint against someone's argument other than, "Just because." I find it strange that others have to do all the work instead of Marney breaking down and asking for clarification on a subject before she breaks out the verbal flamethrower.

 

But a shield? Not at all. I always find that a bit funny when someone thinks that a true Christian would try to place themselves above everyone else somehow. We're told that persecution is part of it and is to be rejoiced in. I WILL defend myself and my faith, however.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

We're told that persecution is part of it and is to be rejoiced in.

Explains a lot.

 

I WILL defend myself and my faith, however.

Wonderful. Y'all have Joan of Arc beat by a country mile.