Divorcing Gay Rights from the “Right to Privacy”
BoiFromTroy hits it out of the park arguing that John Roberts’ potential rulings on the alleged “right to privacy” or his rulings on abortion (based on that “right to privacy”) have nothing to do with the issues that should be important to homosexuals (like his potential rulings on the First and Fourteenth Amendments).
For the longest time, I have never understood why gays care about abortion, other than it is a Democrat wedge issue and gays are predominantly Democrat. If the tables were turned–let’s say the GOP were the Abortion Party, and Democrats were the gay rights party, would any of us care? I don’t plan on knocking any chicks up any time soon.
Henry Lewis makes a good case that the rationale in Lawrence v. Texas was built upon the same privacy argument as Roe, and therefore the two are linked.
Accepting that as the rationale for gay rights, however, is self-loathing. You’re buying into a logic that being gay is a personal choice that you should be ashamed about, and keep hidden from government intrusion. This isn’t a legal opinion, but that’s bullsh*t.
The courts have yet to find it (outside of Massachussets at least), but the real argument for gay rights can be found in the Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment. We’re here, we’re queer, we’re Americans, and no State shall deprive us of life, liberty or property without due process nor deny us equal protection under the law. We, the gays, are full citizens of the United States. Be proud of it.
BoiFromTroy: So it’s talking points you want, eh?
He then goes on to make an interesting argument (although he admits it is only partially formulated) about how the key to legitimizing homosexual marriage/unions might be in the establishment clause of the First Ammendment
