Tom Van Dyke admonishes us not to criticize or work against whatever happens to be the latest, faddish pronouncement of the U.S. Supreme Court. He writes:
“For the record, the 2003 Supreme Court case
declared that bans on sodomy are unconstitutional. That decision will not be reversed, and no new legislation could pass constitutional muster.
That issue is over.”
Imagine if prior generations had shared his fatalism and capitulation to the Supreme Court of the United States' (SCOTUS) exercise of raw judicial power.
Like many Reformed men, Tom Van Dyke has joined the SCOTUS amen corner and this awful cloud of witnesses includes slaveholders, segregationists, eugenicists, usurpers, and grisly abortion profiteers. The common denominator in all these cases is the power of the oppressor to bend the Supreme Court to his will. The latest advance in oppression is nationalized healthcare and its takeover of 1/5 of the U.S. economy. But again, they tell us if the Supreme Court says something's constitutional, that settles it.
In each of these decisions we find some combination of fashionable opinion and pockets of popular support have arrayed themselves against the weak. Fashion is vaporous whether it emanates from American law schools and a Supreme Court opinion or struts down a Parisian catwalk.
The majority in Lawrence v. Texas passed off the following whimsical fabrications as bedrock constitutional principle:
“Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and in its more transcendent dimensions.” (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 562 (2003).)
“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” (Id. at 567.)
“‘These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.’” (Id. at 574 (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).)
The august Supreme Court proclaims the “transcendent” liberty of sodomy. But it’s only one element of a “personal bond” that is more enduring. The sexually immoral are free at last to “define the attributes of personhood” and their own “concept of the universe.” Sexual perversion, the slave master of immortal souls, was elevated to a cosmic constitutional right.
It’s clear to anyone who hasn’t served time in the suffocating straightjacket of university conformity that the Supreme Court perpetrated a gigantic fraud on the Constitution. Only an (anti-)intellectual could be taken in by such grandiloquent, vacuous rhetoric interspersed among strings of Supreme Court Case citations and the evil examples of other nations. The majority made no attempt to construe the U.S. Constitution and apply it to sodomy laws.
But there's more...
It is often said that bad facts make bad law. In Lawrence v. Texas, it turns out, fraudulent facts made fraudulent law. After the opinion was handed down (of course), researchers and journalists discovered that the two autonomous selves in Lawrence v. Texas had NOT engaged in “intimate conduct” with each other—spatially or transcendently. The case was altogether fictional from beginning to end, both the law and the facts.
The New Yorker describes how the lawyer-pioneers of the right to sodomy concocted the case:
“The legal opportunity depended, however, upon persuading the defendants to go along with an unusual strategy. High-powered lawyers would represent Lawrence and Garner, as long as they agreed to stop saying they weren’t guilty and instead entered a ‘no contest’ plea. By doing so, the two were promised relative personal privacy, and given a chance to become a part of gay-civil-rights history. The cause was greater than the facts themselves. Lawrence and Garner understood that they were being asked to keep the dirty secret that there was no dirty secret.
That’s the punch line: the case that affirmed the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private spaces seems to have involved two men who were neither a couple nor having sex. In order to appeal to the conservative Justices on the high court, the story of a booze-soaked quarrel was repackaged as a love story. Nobody had to know that the gay-rights case of the century was actually about three or four men getting drunk in front of a television in a Harris County apartment decorated with bad James Dean erotica.”
“Carpenter’s painstaking interviews establish that Garner and Lawrence not only weren’t having sex but were clothed (Lawrence was in his underwear, preparing for bed) and in separate rooms. . . . The litigation strategy, as the case made its way up through the trial courts and appeals courts, was deliberately framed to highlight the need to decriminalize homosexual conduct as a means of recognizing and legitimatizing same-sex ‘relationships’ and ‘families.’ In short, the legal issue was not that free societies must let drunken gay Texans have sex; it was that gay families around the country, in the words of one of the lawyers in the case, ‘are essentially just like everybody else.’” Dahlia Lithwick, Extreme Makeover: The Story Behind the Story of Lawrence v. Texas, The New Yorker, Mar. 12, 2012.
You can probably imagine that when I shared this article with Pastor Bayly a few months ago, he wasn’t surprised in the least. Well, actually, it was the other way around: he shared the article with me. It is just one more aspect of his work: calling souls to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ; exhorting civil magistrates in his church to be faithful to their God-delegated responsibility to punish the evil and reward the good; exposing the unfruitful deeds of darkness; and loving and rescuing the lost. He’s done his homework in this area and then some—not to score points on constitutional interpretation, but to warn souls to flee the wrath to come, in words strong and clear enough to rouse comatose consciences.
Tom Van Dyke deems the pastoral work here “carp[ing]” and a failure to demonstrate “some level of submission to laws you cannot change.” To the contrary, I say as an experienced attorney and civil magistrate that, if the New Yorker may expose Lawrence v. Texas as an utter sham, why ridicule Baylyblog for doing the same? In this work Baylyblog is submitting to the U.S. Constitution; but far more importantly, to Scripture. The Supreme Court used the Constitution as a cloak to issue its Lawrence v. Texas fiat and win encomia from The New York Times. The perversion activists and elites, in turn, have used Lawrence v. Texas to justify their rebellion against God’s created order and to gag pastors. Why?
So sodomites can destroy each other physically and spiritually in the bathhouses of New York and San Francisco.
And there are all these Reformed men who are cool with it.