WASHINGTON, February 20, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) – More than a dozen briefs were filed at the United States Supreme Court in support of Texas’s sodomy law. The briefs oppose the declaration of a new constitutional right in the case Lawrence v. Texas, arguments for which are scheduled for March 26. “These briefs were filed because we all support the unique stabilizing influence of marriage in our society,” said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, who co-authored a brief with the Center for Original Intent of the Constitution. The Alliance Defense Fund is a national legal non-profit organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, serving people of faith. “Contrary to what’s been reported in the mainstream news media, there is a lot of opposition to the cultural drift toward condoning same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage,” Lorence said. Lawrence v. Texas is a direct challenge by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund to the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. Bowers said that individuals do not have a federal constitutional right to practice homosexual sex, known as sodomy. Seventeen years later, thirteen states, including Texas, still clearly proscribe sodomy. At one time, every state in the union proscribed sodomy. Lambda basically uses two arguments for its case. It argues in favour of an expanded right to privacy, building upon the court’s controversial 1973 abortion decision, Roe v. Wade. It also argues that same-sex behavior is entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexual behavior.
“Advocates of homosexual behavior would like to use this case to advance their agenda. They want to legalize same-sex ‘marriage,’ to lift restrictions on homosexual conduct in the military, to legalize adoption by same sex couples, and to restrict free speech rights of individuals who have faith-based objections to endorsing, funding, or supporting homosexual behavior,” Lorence said. Below is a list of organizations that submitted briefs with web addresses for their briefs. Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah (State Attorneys General) https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_StatesAmicus_USSCT_20030218.pdf American Center for Law and Justice https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_ACLJ_USSCT_20030218.pdf American Family Association https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_AFAAmicus_USSCT_20030218.pdf Center for Arizona Policy https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_CAPAmicus_USSCT_20030218.pdf Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_CtrforOriginalIntentAmicus_USSCT_20030218.pdf Concerned Women for America https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_ConcernedWomenforAmerica_USSCT_20030213.pdf Family Research Council & Focus on the Family https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_FRCAmicus_USSCT_20030218.pdf Legislators, State of Texas https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_TexasLegsilators_USSCT_20030218.pdf Liberty Counsel https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_LibertyCounselAmicus_USSCT_20030217.pdf Pro Family Law Center https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_USFJAmicus_USSCT_20020816.pdf Texas Eagle Forum; Daughters of Liberty Republican Women of Houston, Texas; Spirit of Freedom Republican Women’s Club https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_TexasEagleForumAmicus_USSCT_20020217.pdf Texas Physicians Resource Council, Christian Medical and Dental Association, Catholic Medical Association https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_ChristianMedAssoc_USSCT_20030218.pdf United Families International https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_UnitedFamiliesInternational_USSCT_20030218.pdf RESPONDENT’S BRIEF – Harris County, Texas https://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Lawrence_v_Texas/Lawrence_RespondentsBrf_USSCT_200301.pdf