|
|
The Prospect's got a pretty long (and really good) article up about the Texas Sodomy case. In fact, they've had the best coverage of it so far.With utter condescension, Breyer started in on Rosenthal, saying Bowers is harmful to thousands upon thousands of people and is an instrument of repression and oppression. This case is about government intrusion inside the bedroom, he said. Tell me why that's something the state has any business doing. Where else will you draw the line if not at the door to the bedroom? Whenever Rosenthal tried to use one of his stock answers, Breyer dragged him back to the edge, instructing the district attorney to "please give a straight answer to the question." Laughter and more laughter emanated from the audience as Rosenthal tried to argue that no one had proven that the two men's sexual act was consensual, and that besides, marriage was where the state should draw the line. Marital sex acts -- and those that might encourage people to get married and have babies eventually -- should be protected, he argued, and nothing else.
It was all downhill for the poor man from there. When Ginsburg asked whether Texas prohibited same-sex couples, or lesbians and gay men, from adopting, Rosenthal didn't know. She lectured him on this point, saying that if the state thinks lesbians and gay men could be proper guardians of children, surely they should be free to have intimate relations. Stevens grilled Rosenthal on whether Texas prohibited fornication for unmarried heterosexuals, and whether there was a criminal law against adultery. Rosenthal admitted that, no, Texas allows both. Breyer then demanded to know why the homosexual-conduct law exists, asking if the rational was little more than "I do not like this, Sam I Am?"
Honest. That's what he said. Shocked laughter ensued. So go read it.
posted by
Matthew Carroll-Schmidt at 12:07 PM
|
|