your actual page is starting */ body { background-color: #000033; } .header { background-color: #FF9933; border-bottom: 2px solid white; } h1 { font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 25px; color: white; padding-left: 57px; padding-top: 15px; padding-bottom: 10px; } .leftedge { background-color: #666699; } h3 { font-family: "Tahoma", sans-serif; font-size: 15px; color: white; padding-top: 20px; } .date { padding-left: 20px; padding-bottom: 2px; border-bottom: 2px solid #666699; } blockquote, p { font-family: "Tahoma", sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: white; line-height: 18px; } .postinfo { font-size: 10px; font-style: italic; padding-bottom: 7px; padding-left: 15px; } .rightbar { background-color: #666699; border-left: 2px solid white; border-bottom: 2px solid white; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 5px; padding-bottom: 30px; padding-top: 20px; } .blogarchive { color: #FF9933; } a:link { color: white; } a:visited { color: #ffcc99; } a:hover { color: #FF9933; } /* end of the style definition */

Wendy takes on...

...the blopic of the day and wins! (or just muses)

     

Thursday, June 26, 2003

 
The US Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas

Okay, the outcome is favorable. In short, they ruled for more liberty -- of thee we sing, remember?

They repeated the refrain that the Supreme Court's "obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

The thing is they delved so deep into the moral history of homosexuality and sodomy, that it seems as if they are ruling on Texan moral code. AND they relied HEAVILY on the whole construct of a Constitutionally guaranteed privacy, which has yet to be firmly established. It's understandable, I rely on it mighty heavily myself.

Too bad the US Congress has seen fit to do away completely with amendments to the Constitution (you can't get one ratified within a two-year election cycle, after all). If the process for Constitutional Amendments still existed (in practice, I mean), we could just take care of that right now.

Pause to shed a tear for the death of the amendment process (which was the closest thing to a true democracy the forefathers allowed for).

I am glad they saw fit to argue that the Texas statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

I'm just wondering why there was no refuting the State's compelling interest in the personal, private relationships of consenting adults. Did I fail to download the compelling interest language? Or did they fail to include it? I guess that's our problem.

Resolved: Going forward, we need to focus more on the State's compelling interest and less on privacy.

Is the general thinking really that the State has a compelling interest to involve itself in every aspect of my life? Because I find that, quite frankly, deplorable.

My sexual behavior in no way infringes upon the rights of others, ergo the state has no compelling interest to regulate my sexual behavior in any way. The Equal Protection clause extends that rationale to each of my fellow Americans (uh, and my Czech boyfriend).

I'm a little bit country, I'm a little bit R&B, I'm a little bit of everywhere I've lived, I'm a lot of Don't Mess With Me, Don't know if you'll understand, But I know it's clear to me, I'm a little bit hip-hop, But it's ALL about Liberty. (Thank you, Tracey Ullman and Donny & Marie).

Archives

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?