By: Virginia C. Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman, Court Watch
Less than one month ago, on March 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the most
significant issues in American history--the attack on the Texas sodomy law by gay rights activists. In Lawrence v. Texas,
the Court was asked by pro-family and pro-morality groups to stand by its decision in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick.
Justices expressed concern about the effects of legalizing sodomy on a host of other laws and social structures. But since
U. S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) echoed those same questions earlier this week, he has been "mercilessly pilloried by
the thought/speech Gestapo" who are the "high priests of our postmodern culture" (apt comments today by David
The Narrow Picture: The Case:
Petitioners (two Texas gay men) argued that under the guarantee of "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause, they have the "fundamental right" to violate the Texas law against sodomy. But "fundamental
rights," as always defined by the courts are those which are "essential to ordered liberty" and are "deeply rooted in
the traditions of the people." All fifty states regulated sodomy until the 1960s. And yet this abhorrent conduct has
become "deeply rooted in our traditions" in less than 20 years since Bowers?
Gay activists also claim that Texas is discriminating against homosexuals in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and gay conduct is made equivalent to racial discrimination. Nothing could
be farther from the truth; and the good, decent Black community in America should be apologized to by gay
activists. What Texas regulates is conduct, and equal protection applies to classes of people.
Furthermore, if the law did apply to a class of people, that "class" (i.e., homosexuals) possess none of the
characteristics required by the courts for a group to be a "suspect class" under the law, deserving of special
The Bigger Picture: The GOP:
The silence of GOP leaders who should have been rushing to Sen. Santorum's defense has been deafening and
unconscionable so far. The White House has tap danced around the issue, defending Santorum personally but refusing to take a stand on the substance of what he said. GOP national
chairman Marc Racicot and Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist have done likewise. This posturing is only the latest
example of the struggle within the GOP between the true conservative core of the party and the "middle-of-the-road"
(but often wealthy) RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). The presentation of judicial nominees as being judicial
restraintists, but not as supportive of the right to life or laws against sodomy, is but another tip of the
same iceberg. Core Republicans around the country, however, have become increasingly disgusted and discouraged by
this waffling GOP leadership. And GOP leaders who wish to win the elections of 2004 are overdue for a course
correction in their moral wallowing.
The Biggest Picture: Our Country and Our Culture:
The dangers to our country if the Supremes decide against Santorum and America are incalculable. The "family" could be defined out of existence, rendering untold carnage to law and social arrangements. The morality upon which
this nation was founded and from which it grew to greatness would be further shattered. And public health and safety
would be more and more endangered by the legalizing of undeniably unhealthy conduct. The Constitution would be
even more in chaos, and Reconstructionists would have gained another huge victory against Judeo-Christian America.
In West Texas where I've been blessed to live so far, Republican strength is substantial and growing. But about
the only things we find in the "middle of the road" are a yellow stripe and a dead skunk. GOP leaders, take note!
CONTACT THE WHITE HOUSE AND YOUR SENATORS AND DEMAND
THAT THEY OPENLY SUPPORT SEN. SANTORUM. LET THEM KNOW
THAT WE WILL BE WATCHING THEM!