In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court discovered a previously unknown right to homosexual sex in Lawrence v. Texas.

Justice Scalia in his dissent warned that this decision would open the door to repealing laws about many other laws including same sex marriage.

Contemporaneous commentary with the opinion called Scalia crazy (as usual) and said that the Lawrence decision had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage whatsoever.  The gay activists weren’t even calling for gay marriage, just a constitutionally protected right to have gay sex.  The gay activists even said that it had nothing to do with gay marriage and would not lead to gay marriage either.

Yesterday’s court opinion cited Lawrence eight times in justifying the opinion.  Wow.  For something that was absolutely not ever, ever going to lead to gay marriage it sure was used a lot.

Now we are being told that it is no big deal because churches don’t have to perform gay marriages if they don’t want to.  We’ll see. Stranger things have happened.

Justice O’Conner also mentioned in her concurring and non-binding opinion in Lawrence that there were still valid reasons the state would want to promote and defend traditional marriage.  No one else joined her in that opinion so the number of justices that did not agree with her but supported the majority opinion were five.  There is probably a majority of justices who would also support the district court’s opinion that there is no reason to support traditional marriage over gay marriage.

Maybe we’ll see the repeal of laws related to incest and polygamy too except that they don’t have as much popular support.

Comments Welcome