Chief Justice Warren Burger concurred with Justice White that «to establish a fundamental right to
homosexual sodomy would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.»
Logically, it is difficult to see why the gay rights agenda should stop at the door of the church; churches have already been sued for violating the civil rights of members censured for practicing
homosexual sodomy.
Not exact matches
He demanded not just the repeal of the
sodomy law, but the opening of government jobs to known
homosexuals - a radical idea at the time, and one that would remain far out of reach for many decades.
This, I'm told, is the kind of humor that people who watch Stephen Colbert, who is a self - identified faithful member of a Church that teaches that
homosexual inclinations are intrinsically disordered and that
sodomy is a mortal sin, relish.
There are dozens of these in the city, mainly male
homosexual, and people go there to engage in, or to watch, group fellatio,
sodomy, and sundry other perversities.
Ten years earlier, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court had upheld the power of a state to make
sodomy a crime; but now, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the Court was willing to strike down a law merely for «disfavoring
homosexual conduct.»
Moreover, the radical separation of the procreative and unitive aspects of intercourse, and its widespread acceptance in the community has provided, in turn, the moral justification for masturbation and for
homosexual acts, including
sodomy.
Whereas «
sodomy» had long identified a class of actions, suddenly for the first time, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the term «
homosexual» appeared alongside it.
It is true, of course, that women have a federal right to have abortions, while
homosexuals do not (as yet) have a federal right to perform acts of
sodomy.
«Sodomite» and «
sodomy» are terms used to describe gay people for troglodytes who derive their «knowledge» from the bible, and if you want to define
homosexuals as being sodomites you are clearly using your religion to enact your opinion.
In its decision, one of the judges referred to the claim for equal human rights protection as an effort to seek «the validation of
homosexual relations, including
sodomy, as a protected and fundamental right... rebutting a millennia of moral teaching» and then shockingly went on to liken the protection of sexual orientation in human rights legislation with the «violently aberrant sexual configurations» of mass murderers Jeffrey Dahmer, Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen.