In the USCCB's statement on Lawrence v. Texas, counsel Mark Chopko seems to think it doesn't lay the basis for sweeping aside marriage law: "This case was decided on the narrowest grounds. Justice Kennedy took pains to insulate this case from broader conclusions."
Here in blogdom attorney Dale Price is skeptical, so he poses a challenge: can anybody devise an argument to keep anti-polygamy laws?
(Thanks, Mark and Dom.)
The decision in Lawrence is unique. It merely says that you cannot *criminalize* homosexual conduct. This has nothing to do with marriage laws. The state has broad discretion in this area of law. The decison in Lawrence means that the state cannot make homosexual behavior a crime. That is all. Period. It does not mean that a state must allow homosexual marriage.
Regarding the issue of polygamy, the very worst that can come out of the Lawrence decision would be a court ruling that polygamy cannot be criminalized. This does not mean that a state would have to allow a polygamous marriage.
A Stanford law professor distinguishes sodomy from prostitution and polygamy on the grounds that the latter are "degrading to women." Presumably "degrading to women" is as clear a constitutional concept as "diversity."
So this is the concept: (1) Sodomy is never "degrading"; and (2) Picking up someone at a singles bar without asking her name isn't "degrading" as long no money changes hands.
"Degrades women"? So in this case, their consent is not enough?