A problem with the decision is that the Court based it on the Constitution’s “right to privacy,” which the Court itself invented years ago and is not in the Constitution. Such matters should be left to the states’ legislatures. The Supreme Court, by issuing this decision, has in effect taken the matter out of the hands of the people and their representatives and cut off debate, since it’s a lot harder to reverse a federal court decision than to change a state law. Here’s another example of the general rule that, even when the Court rules in a way that one might welcome, it’s important to know what its authority was to do so, for in the future it could use the same “principle” to rule in a way one would not welcome.

What is this peculiar “consistent moral libertarianism” to which Mr. Auster refers? “Consistent” and “libertarian” are mutually exclusive categories.

It’s interesting to compare the Texas decision with the affirmative action decisions.

The Constitution doesn’t mention sex, privacy, etc. Nonetheless, the Court finds a “right to privacy” which applies with respect to the Texas statute.

However, there is a section of the Constitution that does mention equal treatment. However, it doesn’t mandate equal treatment with respect to race.

Must be great being bound only by invisible sections of the law. Maybe I’ll try that defense next time I’m stopped for speeding.

Yes, indeed, Mr. Jackson. It’s all of those “penumbras and eminations” that only the annointed, with their special magic decoder rings and glasses, can see. Such is the internal logic of liberalism.

Yes, the “penumbras and emanations” of Griswold and Roe typify modern “liberal” jurisprudence. Liberals want what they want, and will say ANYTHING to get it. The intellectual obfuscations and outright contradictions of the Grutter affirmative action decision are at least as bad. I’ll have an article coming out on that soon.

The headline is wrong. The court could have found that heterosexual sodomy is not prosecuted but homosexual is, and therefore that kind of law is not permissible on equal protection grounds. But rather it relied on privacy, which is much broader and inclusive.

So to answer Bork’s famous question, “Privacy to do what?” The Court has answered, “Behind that door, ANYTHING”.

I hadn’t had time to read up on this when I posted the original item. All I saw was that lead sentence, which was for an AP article posted at Lucianne.com. I’ve just now read a not-very-informative article in the Washington Post which says the basis of the decision is privacy. It says nothing about unequal treatment of heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy being a factor in the decision. I don’t have time to do further research on this now, but if it turns out that the lead I posted is incorrect, I’ll remove or amend the item.

Here’s a quote from Fox news which backs up the privacy argument:

“Professor Paul Rothstein, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the justices did not strike down the Texas law because it treated gays differently from heterosexuals, but rather because of how much it violated people’s privacy.”

However, Fox News Channel’s lead sentence is similar to the one I quoted in the original post:

“The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas’ gay sex ban Thursday, ruling that a state law that punished homosexual couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.”

frieda, re: jurisdiction, I had a similar concern over the federal partial birth abortion ban. We of course oppose this outrageous procedure, but what authority did the federal govt. have to ban this?

All along we have criticized Roe v. Wade on legal grounds insisting correctly that the matter should never have been a federal issue. Now, those of us who are pro-life were insisting that the federal govt. outlaw ‘partial-birth abortion’, which from a legal standpoint effectively cedes authority to legislate in the whole abortion sphere.

Not only does this put us in contradiction with what previously was our strongest (and constitutionally sound) argument, but it also sets up a bigger problem down the road: What happens if/when we have a more liberal Congress in the next 1 or 2 decades?

They could then just make all forms of abortion a federally protected ‘right,’ rendering the Roe case academic, and their jurisdiction in doing so wouldn’t even be an issue — the pro-life people had agreed they had jurisdiction, when it looked like we could win a token victory.

We have in a sense affirmed Roe v. Wade by our end-justifieth-the-means approach; we walked right into a trap. We can partly blame ourselves for how the Roe ‘privacy’ basis is now spreading to every other area of filth and perversion. Pedophilia is next.

The phenomenon Joel is talking about is big government conservatism. It applies to many issues. Thus conservatives want to create additional rights to protect religious expression in schools, instead of REMOVING the unconstitutional interference of the federal courts in local schools. If you explain this problem to most movement conservatives, they will look as you as though you were speaking Urdu.

Federalism, constitutionalism, are virtually dead as issues. That doesn’t mean we give up on them, but the reality is that political people don’t care about them any more.

When the Clinton health care financing plan was being debated in ‘93 and ‘94, out of scores of articles I read about it, only one questioned its constitutionality.

One cheer for gay marriage. It plays like this: if gay sex is OK because of privacy and the “dignity” of gays(Supreme’s language, not mine) then it follows that any law against gay marriage ought to be unconstitutional. Go ahead, Supremes, make my day. Surely such a case as that is being filed as I type. Go ahead and dump marriage as we have known it. Then (I hope) an angry people will rise up with an power-stripping amendment to turn the Supremes back into a court. Outrage — that’s the only chance I see to fix our Supreme Legislature problem.

Gary is having the familiar conservative thought (I’ve had it many times) that “THIS TIME the left is going too far, NOW FINALLY people will wake up.” But it never happens. The assumption is that there’s a “normal” world out there, the true source of authority, which is maybe sleeping at the moment, but will stir itself when things get really really bad. But one’s experience of the last decade or two is that there is no such normal world in existence any more. In key respects our culture has died. That doesn’t mean it’s completely dead, but it no longer has the energy to defend itself. If there is to be such a culture again, it needs to be re-created or re-born.

And to follow up on Mr. Auster’s last point, I don’t see how the old culture could be reestablished short of very drastic, even violent measures. Not that I’m advocating violence — rather I’m echoing your point that the culture is dying. But there really would be no peaceful way to change it. Those who would bring it down are too entrenched. Those who are decent don’t have the means to reverse the tide, and even if they did where are the men with the mettle that we used to produce?

All we can really do at a site like this is accurately chronicle the inevitable downfall of a once great civilization. But I think most here would agree that it’s better to remain on the side of right even as the ship’s going down.

I would LOVE to be proven wrong. Perhaps a spiritual revival could sweep the nation, and like in the days of Whitfield or Finney or Moody turn hearts and minds around, for a while. But it seems to me that we have crossed the Rubicon, and it’s now just a matter of time.

That said, there remains one reason to be optimistic over the long term: There is Someone else who is watching, largely overlooked by most of us anymore; and He won’t allow this to go unaddressed forever.

Realistically, there are few if any examples in history of this kind of situation turning around. Empires of the past such as Rome, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish , the British and the Swedes, were able to sustain an “sick man” status for a long time, longer than anyone would have guessed. But in spite of all efforts to reform, they never made it back to anything like they were, but rather shrank to being ordinary second-rate countries. Meanwhile, other nations still possessing self-confidence arose to overshadow them and take their place. Thus far, the successor European nations overthrew their previous values and have gone drastically liberal.

The only nation in the world that I’m aware of to actually survive this kind of situation is China, which in spite of everything else, war and political instability, famine and uprising, managed to keep its culture intact. As such, it’s my odds on bet for next world power. We’re certainly doing everything we can to build up their nation at the expense of our own.

Only in Christianity is there some hope. There is increasingly little remaining in America, but in rising Third World nations, including China, there is a vibrant and faithful church. Real Protestants. Genuine Catholics. Even authentic Episcopalians. If the Lord will raise up his people, it will be from there they will come. Thanks for giving to missions.

Meanwhile, living in a nation that is slowly slip sliding away is not at all unpleasant if you do what you can without deluding yourself about what is possible. Like Diocletian, perhaps we also should cultivate a cabbage garden.

I think Gary is misunderestimating the still-existent moral health in America. A nation that, even in the midst of all our decadence, has military men as great as our guys in the Iraq war, is a country with tremendous resources. The good and the bad may all be mixed in together. But all kinds of things are still possible.

It’s encouraging to see the author of a book entitled “The Path To National Suicide” express this kind of optimism! I am unsure what the caliber of our soldiers has to do with this though. What resources are you referring to in that connection that would affect the outcome in this ‘war’ for the soul of our civilization? How do you see this situation being turned around? And where do I sign up?

I believe that most Americans still hold to traditional moral, essentially Christian values. I’m not saying that our downfall is imminent, only inevitable, and all we can do is slow it down for a time. God would have spared Sodom for the presence of 10 righteous. But as the Psalmist asks us, “if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

To whom much is given, much shall be required. We were given much at the beginning, and God blessed us abundantly. But if those who believe in the right allow these trends to continue, (and what are we to do?) then the Lord will have no choice but to judge — or else issue an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.

It seems the Supreme Court is a constitutional monarchy or a vestige of aristocracy or a feudal family. Because of its behavior, the Court seems an advertisement against a monarchial system that some think would be acceptable. Think of how horrific it would be to have Hillary Clinton as monarch, Henry VIII succeed Clinton, etc.

It seems the problem is spiritual (lack of belief in Christianity, in culture, etc.) and nonspiritual forces. The nonspiritual (for example, big government, wealth, low birth rates) have tested and weakened the spiritual and, through a pervasive liberal media, continue to weaken the spiritual. The answer might be a spiritual renewal; but its seems a spiritual renewal is impossible unless the spiritual kindred have their own media and shun other media. The capitalist system of competition seems fertile ground for media competition.

I didn’t have any particular plan in mind when I said that, just a sense that life in general, and America in particular, have more positive forces and potentialities in them than we sometimes give them credit for. I’m not denying all the things that surround us that portend doom of our civilization. I’m just saying that’s not the whole picture.

To say that we’re on the path to national suicide is not a call to despair and surrender, but a call to resistance and truth and hope.

I appreciate your answer, (and I hope I was not disrespectful in the way I proffered my question.) From the moment my wife informed me of the Court’s decision today I have been thinking about what could be done and and what it would take to change our course.

The attitude that you evince here is what I desire to hold myself. I’m just trying to understand how to see that greater picture, and how I can do my small part to stand for what is right. I may have partially answered my own question when I suggested above that it’s best to be on cause of right, even if that cause is losing.

I certainly don’t believe we should ever give up, even as we trust in God on the final outcome. How to take an effective stand is not so clear, but I don’t mean to be critical of anyone for not having the answers I don’t have either.

Thanks. :-)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

Justice Kennedy:
“As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

But will the Constitution endure very long under these conditions?

If there is a silver lining
Justice Scalia:
“Today’s approach to stare decisis invites us to overrule an erroneously decided precedent (including an “intensely divisive” decision) if: (1) its foundations have been “eroded” by subsequent decisions, ante, at 15; (2) it has been subject to “substantial and continuing” criticism, ibid.; and (3) it has not induced “individual or societal reliance” that counsels against overturning, ante, at 16. The problem is that Roe itself—which today’s majority surely has no disposition to overrule—satisfies these conditions to at least the same degree as Bowers.”

Justice Kennedy:

“As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

In other words, each being is free to interpret reality and the past in a way that will best enhance its life and power. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, has become a Nietzschean.

Joel wrote in his post of June 26, 5:19 p.m.: “frieda, re: jurisdiction, I had a similar concern over the federal partial birth abortion ban. We of course oppose this outrageous procedure, but what authority did the federal govt. have to ban this?” I’d quote the entire post, but it’s too long. However, I endorse every word of it zealously—especially since I’ve been saying the same thing for decades. I’ve always opposed federalizing the abortion question. One of several reasons is that I regard abortion as homicide, and most homicides (other than those committed on federal property or the high seas, or in other exceptional circumstances) are state crimes. Compromises on principle always come back and bite the compromisers.

If there’s hope for us, we need two things: first, the spiritual reawakening that several posters have mentioned (as a Jew I can’t call it a Christian reawakening, of course); and second, a vastly increased understanding of why this is happening to us.

It’s helpful to point out, as I’ve tried a few times, that one reason for the victories won by the black-privileges movement is sheer fear: moral fear of being called racist, and physical fear of riots and vandalism. In the case of the homosexual-privileges movement, the physical fear is absent. The moral fear is very much present. But WHY are so many members of the ninety-seven percent of the population who are heterosexual scared out of their wits of being called “homophobes”? (That’s a solecism, of course; etymologically it means “afraid of the same.”) What is the appeal to rational people of the cult of “nonjudgmentalism” and why don’t they ever notice that the most judgmental people in the world are the preachers of nonjudgmentalism—when it comes to sexual practices?

Frieda, the attempt to answer your questions is a big part of what VFR has been about.

Frieda asks:
“But WHY are so many members of the ninety-seven percent of the population who are heterosexual scared out of their wits of being called “homophobes”?”

Ten years ago or so, during the controversy over gays in the military in Clinton’s first term, I was involved in some discussions on that issue. My position then was far less traditionalist than my position now: being primarily a libertarian at the time my expressed view was that to integrate gays without complete integration of heteros, up to and including shared showers, etc, would be discrimination against heteros. If the military had the perogative to keep heteros from showering together then it certainly had the perogative to keep gays from so doing, and the military can solve the dilemma only by physically excluding gays much as it does the handicapped, blah blah blah. As I said, my position was essentially libertarian.

My reward for expressing that view was to have gay activists anonymously contact my employer and attempt to have me fired. They very nearly succeeded, and indeed may well have affected my career there: that was my first introduction to the senior management of the rather large corporation for which I worked at the time.

So frieda is wrong about the physical threat aspects of homo-fascism. My family could have been deprived of its livelihood, and indeed many families have been deprived of their livelihood over this issue. If my fear is of rioting then I can always buy a shotgun, keep clear of the bad areas, etc. Most people cannot keep clear of the need to make a living. Race riots in the 1960’s were far less of a (physical) threat to people of good will in the 1960’s than homo-fascism is now.

I accept Matt’s amendment. Then maybe I should amend my question to “How did it sneak up on us?”—“it” meaning the situation where over a hundred million income-earners could be complicitous in their own silencing by a few million other people? After all, if we outvote them by 97-to-3, how did they gain such ascendancy over us?

I know that this sort of question is what vfr is all about, which is why I value this site; but I believe lots more probing is called for. For example, I suspect it could be enlightening to probe the sources of the notion that it’s arrogant to claim to know the truth about some question of social policy; it’s properly modest to say “Who’s to judge?”—meaning, “not me, certainly!”

To Mr. Auster: Justice Kennedy didn’t become a Nietzschean, he just continued to be a moron. That’s part of his job — the progressive majority on the Court habitually picks either its most shameless member (Justice Douglas) or its stupidest (Justice Blackmun or Kennedy) to write its groundbreaking right-of-privacy opinions.

Elite lawyers like Supreme Court Justices are extremely snooty about the intellectual quality of what they write. So when the situation demands intellectual garbage the job goes either to room-temperature-IQ types like Kennedy who can’t tell the difference or a character like Douglas who really doesn’t care. Say what you like about Kennedy, he serves a function.

To Frieda: we live in a managed consumer society in which the highest standards are organization, efficiency, expertise, equality, and consumer choice. That being the case there’s no place for moral judgements other than those related to the efficient functioning of the machine (e.g., don’t embezzle corporate funds) and those that express devotion to the principles on which the machine is based (PC and the patriotism of the Universal Nation).

In such a setting, what grounds could anyone possibly put forward to justify a moral judgement adverse to another person’s consumer choices (e.g., sodomy) that don’t directly impinge on the functioning of the public institutions recognized as legitimate and authoritative?

Modern “democracy” is not about rule by the majority. It’s about the equal right of each individual to make his own rules. As a practical matter that means that politics have to be abolished and a sort of custodial arrangement substituted. If we weren’t all in the custody of disinterested functionaries we’d just oppress each other. We have to be treated as radically separate individuals whose only legitimate decisions are career and consumer choices. So “judgmentalism” is out as fundamentally opposed to the principles of the regime.

Frieda asks: “What is the appeal to rational people of the cult of “nonjudgmentalism” and why don’t they ever notice that the most judgmental people in the world are the preachers of nonjudgmentalism—when it comes to sexual practices?”

One theory I have seen is that the baby-boomer generation, the first to experience the ‘joys and freedom’ of the sexual revolution, have overwhelmingly embraced moral relativism, especially in regard to sexual matters. During the Clinton-Lewinsky impeachment scandal, it was observed that a plurality of the crucial voting public supported Clinton and bought into the Democrat line that Ken Starr was leading some sort of sexual inquisition. Thomas Sowell touched upon this issue in a scathing article about “baby-boomer virtues.” This was borne out in the 1998 mid-term election and the subsequent Republican surrender. In traditional Christian (and probably in traditional Jewish) teaching, the believer is warned that one of the dangers of constant willful sin is ending up with a conscience that has been “seared (or cauterized) with a hot iron.” People in such a state are morally paralyzed and unable to resist evil. If the great swath of ‘Joe Six-Packs’ and ‘Sally Soccer-Moms’ in Suburbia have indeed been induging themselves in the lifestyle advocated by American popular culture for at least 3 decades, it would at least somewhat explain the apparent moral paralysis that we are suffering from.

This can add to or maybe expand on Matt’s 01:43 p.m. reason. It seems clear a major reason people fear calling homosexuals sinful sodomites, calling black culture defective, calling union zealots thugs, calling illegal aliens invaders, calling Hollywood producers filthy, calling liberals evil, calling Supreme Court justices shameful, calling Europeans preferred-immigrants etc. is people would have to do something about it and people don’t want to endure the enormous sacrifice that doing something probably would require. People intuitively recognize the enormity of the problem and know that, in most cases, worthwhile things don’t come cheap. An example that comes to mind often is the fate of most signatories to the American Declaration of Independence. Their fates were death or poverty directly related to their signatures.

(So let’s hear it for our daring Website sponsors.)

Mr. Murgos makes a valuable addition to the collection of reasons. To reluctance to fight the enemy without we might also add the enemy within. Most people don’t want to completely repent from the sexual revolution if it means that “if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex” applies even to married couples.

Personally I think it is a positive good (though certainly not morally required) for _all_ people to engage in significant periods (months, years?) of sexual abstinence, including married people who are perfectly within their rights in engaging in sex. Like most profound things critical to human life, sex (and all to which it relates) is far better when respected as a transcendent good rather than treated as a consumable commodity like potato chips or as a biological compulsion like using the toilet.

And by the way, I think the percentage of people in America who agree with my last comment is closer to 3% and the percentage who disagree is closer to 97%. That is the reversal that explains Frieda’s observed apparent disparity. The homo-fascist cause has the traditionalist cause outgunned not just in tactics or whatever, but in sheer numbers as well. Even those who oppose the homo-fascist agenda specifically make unprincipled exceptions for themselves, and so they cannot mount a consistent principled opposition.

It is my expectation that the number of Americans who really explicitly want to completely repent from the sexual revolution is quite small, perhaps smaller than the number of homosexuals.

I agree with Matt that this is central, that there can be no pulling back from liberalism without a return of traditional sexual morality. It’s not necessarily a pleasant thought when you realize that, but I don’t think there’s any getting around it. This is the key to whether people are placing themselves under an order of truth higher than themselves. This is the truly conservative and truly radical insight, but it’s utterly alien and weird from the point of view of modern people.

It’s worth noting that pre-marital abstinence campaigns such as True Love Waits have shown at least some encouraging results.

Hardly enough to stem the tide I’m afraid, but after this past week I’ll grasp at straws for any trace of good news.

And If I can think of anything else along those lines I’ll be sure to mention it.

I’m getting depressed.

We’re a nation that once was Christian—just read the last stanza of American the Beautiful—but is no longer. A former Christian nation.

I’m not sure any of us knows exactly what that means. The ramifications, I suspect, are more profound than even Mr. Auster can relate.

There’s anecdotal evidence from my neck of the woods of a whole group of people giving false testimony under oath in an aggravated homincide trial. Where’s the fear of G-d, which constitues the beginning of wisdom?

On down days I feel like a Platonist who is hiding behind a rock as we heedlessly enter a new Dark Age. On up days I read the Jewish bible, the Tanakh, watch my wife kindle the Sabbath lights, and put both hands over my sons’ heads, in the customary Jewish prayer for them to be like “Ephraim and Menashe.”

Is that an accurate choice: Platonist or Jew? Christian seems so…parched. The Roman Catholic Church seems set on autodestruct mode, what with its shallow Latin rite liturgy and wimpy homilies, among other shortcomings.

History is going to be ugly, I’m afraid, in the not-so-distant future.

I’m replying to Mr. Anderson’s thoughts with a new blog entry.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001571.html

Brent Anderson wrote: “History is going to be ugly, I’m afraid, in the not-so-distant future.”

It’s going to be ugly, for sure, but then it’s been ugly for the last three decades and more. This notion that we’ve just now gone over the edge seems kind of laughable to me in light of modern history.

What this actually does is speed up the process whereby people will turn away from contemporary sin and debauchery and back to God. True, it spells the end for the nation America, but that is only of concern for those who think America is what God loves and not people themselves. America, if it is corrupt, is not worth saving, since the nation exists for its citizens and not the other way around. Let the people turn their backs on Sodom, as they surely will once the consequences of the actions of the Sodomites are clear and the Sodomites have no one left to blame or use as a foil in their kindergarten-grade excuses.

Remember: people turned from the moral sicknesses of the ancients once the alternative and the Truth was made manifest to them. They will do it again. I’m pretty much with C.S. Lewis on this: while I detest the necessity of it, granting the current situation and the apparent trajectory of our political arrow, I say give the poision free rein. Let it kill the body, for only then will people finally be forced to confront the reality of how deadly it really is.

Bubba seems to be contradicting himself. He writes:

“This notion that we’ve just now gone over the edge seems kind of laughable to me …”

But then one sentence later he writes:

“True, it spells the end for the nation.”