Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law
On the whole, I have to agree with the majority. If there is a right to privacy, and the Court holds that there is, then state laws regulating private sexual conduct between consenting adults are invalid. Joining Senator Santorum, however, I believe that today’s decision renders state criminal laws regulating adultery, polygamy, and incest also invalid, at least in part.
However, Justice Thomas has a sensible point:
I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is…uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Gay mariage may also be included on the above list, though the public policy reasons for governmental registration of marriages don’t have as much to do with sex as with property rights. A careful construction of marriage laws that provides equal protections for partners in marriage, and children from marriage, would certainly make gay marriage possible. Right now, no place that I know of has a set of laws addressing all of the property and custody issues that gay marriage, or polygamy for that matter, would create. And, adultery laws may have some place in here, as well, as the recognition of property rights by a spouse within a marriage.
Polygamy is probably first up for the next court challenge, given the number of Mormans and Moslems who practice this in semi-secret.
