The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Courting Disaster

6.30.03 @ 12:01AM

JUSTICE OPRAH
Re: George Neumayr's Sodomy in the Age of Oprah:

Bravo George Neumayr for the best lead of any column about the Supreme Court's week off from sanity. Supreme Court opinions (if these are Supreme opinions, what can the so-so ones be like?) indeed do read like transcripts of the Oprah show.

You could find legal "reasoning" as sound Sandra Day O'Connor's affirmative discrimination opinion under most any hairdryer in any beauty salon in the republic. If we're going to get rulings of this quality from the U.S. Supreme Court, why not save some money by doing away with it and getting our judicial rulings from Americans pulled randomly out of super market checkout lines? How could these draftees do worse than The Supremes did last week?

What an interesting week for the rights industry. While we learn that Americans -- if they are white or Asian -- have no protection against being sent to the end of the line because of their skin color, we can at least take some consolation in knowing that we have a previously undiscovered but inalienable right to buggery. (A bumper strip for the with-it, postmodern Supreme Court justice: "Who am I to say?") Can lap dancers and sheep fanciers be far behind? (And what other exotic enthusiasms we haven't even thought of -- sheltered as our lives have been -- may now be slouching toward Washington to be blessed?)

The week should remind those who have a tendency to forget, given the solemnity the media and political types afford the Supreme Court (ruffles and flourishes here), that Supreme Court justices (like all judges) are no more than lawyers in muumuus. In the case of O'Connor, Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, the somnolent David Souter, and John Paul (no relation) Stevens, pretty sorry lawyers at that.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this week's legal and political vandalism is that George W. Bush has pronounced himself pleased with the affirmative discrimination hustle. (Compassionate conservatism strikes again, nicht?) Perhaps the concept of equal protection under the law, and the idea that Americans enjoy rights as individuals, not groups, are just a couple of the stuffy ideas found in the footnotes of those "500-page books of philosophy" that Dubya said during the 2000 campaign that he couldn't be bothered to read.
-- Larry Thornberry
Tampa, FL

Thank you for your very excellent article on the very tragic decision of the Supreme Court.

I have been ex-gay for 16 years. I have felt like someone let out of prison everyday since I left the lifestyle. If I had not been submerged in a culture that encouraged me from every angle to act on my homosexual feelings, if I had had the rare good fortune to have confided in someone who understood what I needed (to be nurtured and held by a mature Christian woman whom I could trust over a period of years) instead of what I thought I needed/wanted (sex) before I chose to act on my feelings, it probably would have saved me years of painful work to find my lost soul. I have no doubt that thousands of young suicides and otherwise depressed and miserable people are so today for the same reason.

You spoke with authority and the wisdom of the ages. It is the best article I have read on the tragic situation in the world on this issue, by far. It seems like more conservative (morally) journalists are starting to write about this issue. I am very glad about this. You are so right that the sodomy laws protect human dignity. You are so very very right. Our leaders should have had the wisdom and courage not to give in to the loud voices of those who are the most lost, angry, and hurting among us. Thousands suffer and thousands will continue to suffer as a result of their decision. Their decision is evil. If they could feel what it feels like to be homosexual for one moment, they would not have made the decision they did. Anyone who tells you it feels good is a liar.

It is frightening, truly frightening, that our Supreme Court no longer possesses the wisdom necessary for its responsibilities. We are truly in danger. I think the time is much later than we realize.

Again, thanks, you really "nailed it" as they say. Have you read Kierkegaard? The irony in your writing reminds me of him. It makes me laugh in the same way. I think the title is brilliant. It says so much so clearly with so few words.

My greatest respect and gratitude to you,
-- Mary Grace Miller
Tacoma, WA

While I might have agreed with every word in this piece some years ago, I can't do so since learning that two of my children are gay. As a Republican, a conservative, and a long-time Baptist, I have changed my position with regard to homosexuality because of my children. They are intelligent, attractive, fun, loving, hard-working, tax-paying and law-abiding(!) citizens and I don't believe for one single minute that they "chose" the homosexual lifestyle. To believe that anyone other than a few very perverse souls would "choose" a lifestyle which causes them to be feared, shunned, despised and at risk of arrest defies logic. One of the most fundamental things we seek as humans is to be accepted by others.

The Supreme Court should have skipped the editorializing and embroidering and simply stated that all individuals have the right to privacy in their own homes.
-- Jenny Woodward
Bloomington, IN

In response to George Neumayr's "Sodomy in the Age of Oprah" article, while I totally agree with Neumayr's opinions, I offer another thought. Why can't "sodomy," at least the anal sex part of it, be banned using a public health law? We have laws which force us to wear seat belts in our cars and wear helmets when riding a motorcycle. I support such public health laws because sometimes adults are simply not mature and not responsible enough to make the right choices. I would think that anal sex falls into this category. With overwhelming evidence that sex involving the anus is directly linked with the AIDS disease (and other problems), I think it's irresponsible not to ban this dangerous practice! The secret is, we have to make sure this is not an "anti-homosexual" law. Anal sex should be banned whether it is practiced by gays or by a consenting married couple. It's just plain dangerous! Furthermore, there are enough pleasurable sex alternatives for both straights and gays to make this hideous practice unnecessary.
-- Allen Nyhuis

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO, Conservatism