Printer Friendly

Lawrence's immoral consequences.

In his dissenting opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas decision overturning a Texas anti-sodomy law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia presciently warned that the reasoning applied in that decision imperils all state laws against obscenity, incest, adultery, and other evils. The ink was hardly dry on the decision before Scalia's warning was vindicated.

In late July, attorney H. Louis Sirkin, who often represents pornographer Larry Flynt, demanded that a Cincinnati judge overturn a city anti-pornography law. "The case involves the sale of a video so explicit that some members of the jury had to avert their eyes," reports Focus on the Family's Family News in Focus. Sirkin told the publication that the Lawrence decision brings "into question obscenity laws, prostitution laws and such things as that.... Legislative bodies are not to legislate morality."

Lawrence has also been invoked by polygamist Rodney Holm of Hilldale, Utah. Holm has had 21 children with three wives and has been charged with bigamy and two counts of unlawful sex with a 16-year-old girl whom he claims as a "spiritual" wife. In the motion to dismiss, Holm's attorney, Rodney Parker, cites the Lawrence opinion to buttress the claim that "the national social order in the United States does not compel a conclusion that plural marriage [e.g., polygamy] is against public policy, especially when considered in light of emerging lifestyles."

The legitimate issue is whether states and local governments will continue to exercise their reserved constitutional powers to legislate on moral issues.
COPYRIGHT 2003 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Insider Report
Publication:The New American
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U7TX
Date:Aug 25, 2003
Previous Article:Grand Canyon safe for atheists?
Next Article:Congress approves Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements.

Related Articles
New study analyzes AIDS cases, identifies trends.
Will Bush weigh in on sodomy? (Supreme Court).
Reigning Supreme: the Supreme Court decision striking down state anti-sodomy laws seriously escalates the culture war--and grievously undermines our...
Courting immorality: contrary to the Supreme Court's revolutionary claim in Lawrence v. Texas, state governments have a compelling interest to...
Sodomy criminals no more: the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas may clear the records of those convicted under sodomy laws--including the...
Once again, UCG leads the pack in Journalism Awards competition.
Logical advice doesn't always work.
From Chris Seatliff re the Supreme Court.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters