Ex-Gay Watch

From the Cato Institute:

In a 6-3 decision delivered today, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting consensual sex between partners of the same sex. The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in January in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that the Texas anti-sodomy law violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. The Court today cited Cato’s brief. …

Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs and director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies, released a statement after the ruling:

“I’m delighted that the Supreme Court did today what it should do in all cases — stand for liberty, against majoritarian tyranny. Today’s decision is not a victory for alternative lifestyles alone. Because it has far-reaching implications, it is a victory for liberty itself and hence for everyone, gay and straight alike.

“The state of Texas argued that its inherent police power authorized it to police morals. But the state has no such authority. State police power is meant to secure rights. Plaintiffs Lawrence and Garner were violating no one’s rights. What they were doing was no more the business of the state than it was of any neighbor.

“Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes rights against such state actions. In reaching that conclusion today, the Court may have taken the first step toward a Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence that is rooted at last in the amendment’s first principles.

“Taking the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, Justice Scalia claimed that ‘the Court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,’ adding that it has ‘taken sides in the culture war.’ That misses the point. The issue here is not the ‘homosexual agenda.’ It’s the Constitution. Ours is a Constitution of liberty. It restrains government. As with flag-burning and much else, one can with perfect consistency condemn what a person does yet defend his right to do it. As we prepare to celebrate our independence next week, let us celebrate now this victory for the pursuit of happiness.”

From Exodus, June 26, 2003

Exodus encourages fellow Christians to respond with compassion and reason on this historic turn in public policy regarding homosexuality. While many Christians and conservatives express shock and dismay over today’s ruling, ex-gays are not surprised. Executive Director Alan Chambers succinctly states, “We don’t live in 1953 Christian America anymore.”

Sodomy laws were drafted by political leaders in an effort to punish what they defined as immoral sexual acts. Ministry and Media Relations Manager Randy Thomas says, “States have every right to draft statements declaring what they deem appropriate moral behavior for the good of the society they govern. Where the creators of these laws missed the boat is that instead of denouncing sin and offering grace, they created a criminal law. It is completely understandable why the gay community, who does not share our moral values, would want these laws overturned. All they have to do is look around and see the permissiveness of our decadent sexualized society to feel unfairly singled out for punishment.”

As a result of today’s ruling, young people will be led into further confusion. Alan chambers states, “Our young people are not going to grow up under the same teachings about morality that we did. The school books will simply state that homosexuality was legitimized by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2003. We are risking the moral upbringing of all the generations to come. On the same note homosexuality wasn’t the first sin, just the result of it. Sin is sin and we are all susceptible to it. We must be vulnerable and extend the same love that we were given. Christ died for all of us or He died for none of us.”

Unfortunately, the political pendulum could swing harshly the other way. Americans of all conservative faiths are facing a serious problem; now that this decision damages the traditional view of sexuality and relationships, progay initiatives across the country will gain momentum. People of faith could potentially experience marginalization if we do not implement loving concern and active civic involvement.

The Church must lay down fear. Joe Dallas shares an important message in his excellent booklet from the Love Won Out series entitled How Should We Respond. Joe states, “It will not be enough to tell the homosexuals that they are wrong. We must be willing to say, ‘Come into our churches, and we will help you to do what is right.’”

I see an enormous amount of good will in Exodus’ statement. I object mainly to two small things:

• Chambers’ assertion that behavior is “legitimized” simply because it is legal (most sins and bad habits are perfectly legal), and
• the statement’s overall approach of spiritual paternalism.

This PowerPoint presentation file asks the question.

From the Family Research Council:

By extending legal protections to
homosexual behavior, the court majority not only struck
down the 1986 precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld
Georgia’s anti-sodomy law; the court also demolished the
legal foundation of marriage.

The ruling does not “protect” homosexual behavior; it states that the Constitution never gave state and federal governments the right to regulate private consensual behavior in the first place.

It is truly bizarre that the FRC would define sodomy laws as the legal foundation of marriage. With reasoning like that, it’s no wonder divorce rates in the Bible Belt are the highest in the nation.

As Justice Antonin Scalia
noted in his scathing opinion in dissent, “State laws
against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest,
prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication,
bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in
light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.

This is misleading. Several of the named offenses are non-consensual, violent, and harmful.

Indeed, the court opened the door to all of this under an
implicit “right to privacy” that appears nowhere in the
Constitution, but which the court invented in Griswold v.
Connecticut.

This is misleading, also. The Constitution has always reserved rights, both named and unnamed, to individuals unless assigned to state or federal governments. Scalia and FRC argue that Big Government holds the right to do anything it wants, unless a right is narrowly, specifically and explicitly reserved to individuals in the Constitution.

It’s the role of the people’s elected representatives, not unelected and
unaccountable judges, to address emerging issues….

The FRC seems to be implying that Supreme Court justices should be elected and therefore vulnerable to the public whims of the moment, not to mention wealthy special interest groups.

Nothing could more
dramatically illustrate how critical the next Supreme Court
appointment(s) will be. Nothing less than the people’s
right to self-government is at stake. Will we rule
ourselves, or be ruled by black-robed oligarchs who
disregard the law and the Constitution to impose their own
political agenda on the country? Or will we have judges of
humility and restraint, who respect the separation of
powers and the people’s unalienable right to govern
themselves?

It is odd that FRC appeals to popular mandate when that mandate is presently opposed to sodomy laws. In any event, Congress regularly passes laws that violate the wishes of the religious right. FRC’s opposition to “self-government” in these cases is a matter of public record.

From Soulforce, a national interfaith organization:

“This is a fantastic day for all people because the Supreme Court has recognized that our government has no place in our bedrooms, nor a right to selectively single out people of minority sexual orientation for criminal punishment,” said Rev. Mel White, founder and director of Soulforce, Inc. “Maybe some churches that alienate and degrade us will see the light after today as well.” …

“I’m free, I’m free, I am no longer a criminal for who I love, I am free to be who God created me to be,” said Karen Weldin, Soulforce Director of Operations. “I hope this gives people hiding in the closet the sense of freedom and courage to come out and be proud of who they are and who they love.”

FRC’s Ken Connor describes the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, including no less than five conservatives, as “judicial activists” and “unelected warriors wearing black robes.”

“Once again judicial activists have used their fertile
imagination to create rights that simply don’t exist in the
Constitution. In doing so, they have imposed their own
moral judgments in place of state legislatures and have
thereby undermined the democratic process. Unelected
warriors wearing black robes become the chief architects of
public policy.

“If the hallmarks of the test are consent and privacy, then
that throws the door open to any sexual behavior. The
radical homosexual lobby will seek to apply the logic,
extending a blanket privacy protection over one’s choice of
sexual partner to one’s choice of marital partner as
well–regardless of sex.

“Private sexual acts have public consequences. The Court
has ignored that fact and the right of states to enact laws
in defense of public morals and public health.

“As Justice Scalia points out in his dissent and as Sen.
Rick Santorum, R-Pa., pointed out in his analysis of this
case a month ago, every state law that is based on moral
grounds is now called into question based on this ruling.”

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

I join JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today ‘is … uncommonly silly.’ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to ‘decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ‘ Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I ‘can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,’ ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the ‘liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,’ ante, at 1.

From the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

This court case epitomizes the sorry state of legal rights for gay people in this country. In 2003, it’s appalling that states would still argue that there’s nothing wrong with the police kicking down the bedroom doors of a gay or lesbian couple and arresting them for having intimate relations with the person they love.”

Does the NGLTF ever issue a press release without finding a way to insult the United States?

From the Family Pride Coalition:

“Today, the Supreme Court ruled for fairness for all Americans,” said
Aimee Gelnaw, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition. “After
years of this antiquated law being applied with prejudice to gay and
lesbian Americans, it can no longer serve as an unjust barrier to
lesbians and gay men maintaining custody of their own children or
becoming foster or adoptive parents.”

This year, the Family Pride Coalition was deeply involved in efforts to
defeat three anti-gay foster care and adoption bills in Texas. The
sodomy law was used as a reference point in arguments against allowing
lesbian and gay Texans the opportunity to serve as foster and adoptive
parents. Despite this opposition, all three measures were defeated.

From the Religious Action Council of Reform Judaism:

The Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the Central Conference of American Rabbis are committed to the belief that all
citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law and, therefore,
oppose discrimination against homosexuals in any form, including
discriminatory governmental statutes and practices of law enforcement
agencies.