Courts (Judicial Activism):
U.S. Supreme Court Must Not Overturn Sodomy Law

view the .pdf | note: all footnotes are included within the .pdf

By Toni Meyer, Sr. Research Analyst, NJ Family Policy Council

The Supreme Court is now debating whether to uphold Texas’ law against sodomy. New Jersey disposed of its sodomy prohibitions some time ago, but it would be in our best interest to reinstate them. Why? The retention of laws against sodomy is an issue of promoting public health, and of the need to set boundaries in our culture against such behavior.

Legalizing sodomy is not an issue of “privacy rights” or “civil rights.” What has, in the past 30 years, become legal in many states in private has now become a blatantly public issue, including a push for legalization of homosexual “marriage.” Furthermore, sodomy does not qualify as a civil rights issue because homosexuality has never been proven to be inborn or unchangeable; therefore the government is not bound to issue special rights based on a behavior.

Government authorities do, however, have an obligation to promote public health, and there are compelling health reasons as to why lawmakers have no business legitimizing (thereby encouraging) homosexual sex acts. Common sexual practices among gay men lead to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases. Diseases resulting from anal sex are found with extraordinary frequency among gays -- anal cancer, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C and other deadly viral infections, including AIDS.

Those who wish to strip away laws against sodomy argue that such laws violate their rights to privacy. Just because certain behaviors take place in the privacy of one’s bedroom does not make them worthy of legalization.

But the issue goes beyond individual privacy -- what is happening now affects the public, too. Prior to the repeal of sodomy laws and the weakening of other New Jersey laws on sexual behavior, newspapers did not carry a steady stream of reports on child sex abuse, men sodomizing boys, or men performing homosexual acts in public restrooms at malls frequented by families. Over the past six months, police in Paramus have made 25 lewdness arrests, most involving men engaging in sex acts with men in public restrooms (a website listed it as a good location). Because New Jersey no longer has a law with a specific penalty for sodomy requiring jail time, and the murky guidelines requiring intent for a child to view such acts, a typical sentence for such an offense would be just a combination of a fine, probation and counseling .

In public schools our pubescent young people are being taught that homosexual practices are acceptable and, in some cases, are provided with details on how to perform them. Is this the type of behavior we wish to promote through our laws?

Our laws and Constitution were never intended to be used to legitimize any sort of behavior, devoid of moral perception. Judge Hudson, the dissenting justice in the Texas appeals court ruling on the sodomy case currently before the Supreme Court, explained, “Most, if not all, of our law is based on ‘notions of morality.’ The legislature has outlawed behavior ranging from murder to prostitution precisely because it has deemed these activities to be moral transgressions. Even our civil law is based on concepts of fairness derived from a moral understanding of right and wrong… The legislature is charged with the responsibility of preserving the morals of civil society.”

 

back...