Buttfucking, Buttfucking, Buttfucking
While reading the reaction to the sodomy verdict by some conservative commentators, by Clarence Thomas himself, and by some possibly well-meaning people here and there on the web, I'm struck by one thing: they aren't responding to what actually happened.
Two arguments were available to strike down the same-sex sodomy laws, the due process argument used by the five-justice majority and the equal protection argument used by O'Connor. She was correct in thinking that the latter made a stronger case in its outright discrimination, even if neither she nor the other justices took the next step and realized that the same case could be extended to strike down all sodomy laws. (But I have no problem with the due process argument, that the states have no right to arbitrarily create laws that severely restrict private behavior.)
Regardless--accepting the fairly fundamental doctrine of equal protection (hey, it decided an election), the argument that sodomy laws are unconstitutional is absolutely unshakeable. Behavior cannot be permitted for some and forbidden for others, and the broad laws forbade any sexual activity whatsoever for gay people. There was a path lined with precedent open to the conservatives and they declined to take it.
This was not an instance of judicial activism--these were laws that had no constitutional basis and needed to be eliminated for the sake of the citizens whether or not the states were willing to do so. The charges that the court has overstepped its bounds are nothing more than part of a strategy to challenge the legitimacy of the ruling in the eyes of the public (which, frankly, pretty much likes the fact that it can now give and receive head without breaking the law).
One other thing: I'm damned tired of the "slippery slope" argument, because it's not an argument. If the full legalization of sodomy removes a significant obstacle for gay marriage, perhaps that's because you don't have a valid argument against gay marriage in the first place. (I'm frightened that so many people think that pederasty, incest, necrophilia and bestiality are the next logical step after sodomy, as it reveals their inability to think of a lot of valid reasons reasons they should be illegal.)
The conservatives are trying to have it both ways, drawing a line in the sand that they all but admit is arbitrary (in this case, at sodomy), then furiously defending it by claiming that they can't surrender that territory without compromising their really important position (in this case, at the really gross stuff). That's a crock--you have to either admit the arbitrariness of what you consider "good" and "bad" (and give up the slippery slope argument) or admit that there's a real distinction between the points on your scale (and, by extension, that the penalties don't belong where you've placed them).
The capacity of so many humans to behave inhumanely actually doesn't trouble me so much--it's their capacity to think illogically.
And then there's the hypocrisy of those conservatives who simultaneously decry the decision in Lawrence v. Texas as a usurpation of state's rights, and then want to amend the Constitution--the most extreme way to override the right of a state to pass its own laws--to prohibit gay marriage.
The thing that really bugs the shit out of me on the "slippery slope" argument is that it ignores the big difference between same-sex "sodomy" and pederasty, incest, necrophilia and bestiality-- the last four neither involve a fully comprehensive understanding of and consent to the action, nor guarantee the result would be at worst benign for society. You can't argue adult consent exists in necrophilia and bestiality, because I've never heard John Edward or Dr. Doolittle tell people that the dead bodies and puppies they talk to enjoy getting fucked by the living; even if they did, there is no legal precedent for verifying consent from animals and, unless they have a freaky will, the dead. Pederasty can't be consentual sex because of statutory rape laws, and because it usually involves fraud (I know of no pederasters that just ask little kids if they want to have anal sex; it's usually a story about a lost child, puppy, etc.). Finally, incest increases the probability of genetic deformaties in any offspring, and (along with pederasty) involves the risk of seriously messing up any kid; maybe there's a talk show waiting to occur here in which kids who've had these experiences prove to us that they're fine as can be, but until that day I'll say there's a big fucking difference.
Right -- the slippery slope argument depends on their being no significant difference between them, and to argue that they essentially have to say that the concept of consent is irrelevant. (I'll bet rape victims would have a little bit to say about that.) Public health, too.
These sexual acts are not illegal merely because society disapproves of them, but because they cause quantifiable harm. Sodomy does not, and now it is legal.
The obstacles to gay marriage are more like bowling pins now. I still don't expect it to be a reality nationwide for a long time (the constitutional amendment is extremely unlikely to pass, but there'll be a lot of unsuccessful court challenges in the near future), but this is closer than I ever thought we'd get.
Hey, I forgot to say thanks for making me learn a new word.