News

WASHINGTON, March 27, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The U.S. Supreme Court is about to strike down Texas’s anti-sodomy law. Justice David Souter captured the majority atmosphere when he said such a law requires more than “moral judgment” to justify it. Souter said, “There has to be harm to others. What harm is there to others” in homosexual sex, he wondered—either ignoring or unaware of substantial information and warnings about the follow-on effects of imposing homosexual equality.  Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that, “Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or conduct”. Rehnquist said rights need to have deeper roots and longer acceptance than the recent pro-homosexual trend in society warrants.  Justice Antonin Scalia joined Rehnquist in criticizing the idea that the Texas law violates “substantive due process” and “equal protection” under the Constitution. Scalia posited a hypothetical situation in which laws in many states against “flagpole-sitting” could be repealed. (Sitting on top of a flagpole as a stunt mostly died out around 1929.) Mocking the idea that everything is a right if someone merely says so, Scalia said: “Does that make flagpole-sitting a constitutional right?”  For newswire coverage:  https://biz.yahoo.com/law/030327/66f39a278f4b34a9b7ca01db5fceb5_1.html