In a blog post on the AFA website, Bryan Fischer displays the typical right-wing ignorance of how the constitution works. The post is about Lawrence v Texas, the case that overturned state anti-sodomy laws in 2003. There’s a lot of ignorance here, beginning with this:
Anthony Kennedy wrote the infamous Lawrence v. Texas decision that made laws against sodomy unenforceable in America. The Court issued this egregious display of arrogant and immoral judicial activism despite the fact that sodomy had been a criminal offense in all 50 States until 1961 and was still against the law in 24 States and the District of Columbia when the Lawrence decision was issued.
So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country. And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill.
For Fischer, and for many conservatives, rights belong to groups of people, not individuals. Individuals don’t have a right to live their own life according to the dictates of their conscience as long as they don’t harm another person or deprive them of their equal rights, which is the Jeffersonian view; groups of people — local communities or the majority of state and federal voters — have the “right” to tell individuals what to do even if the actions of those individuals don’t affect them in any way.
No, you can read the Constitution from front to back, back to front, upside down, from right to left and hanging from a chandelier and you will find no mention whatsoever of any right to engage in sodomy. You won’t find it because it’s not there. It simply does not exist as a constitutional right, no matter what the fevered brains of six black-robed tyrants said in 2003.
You know what else you won’t find? Lots of rights that Bryan Fischer would scream bloody murder if the government did away with them. Does Fischer think he has the right to travel freely within the country, to visit family or make speeches? You can read the constitution from front to back, upside down, from right to left and hanging from a chandelier and you will find no mention whatsoever of any right to travel freely within the country. Corfield v. Coryell and Paul v Virginia were obviously “egregious displays of arrogant and immoral judicial activism,” right?
Does he think parents have the right to send their children to a private religious school or homeschool them? You can read the constitution from front to back, upside down, from right to left and hanging from a chandelier and you will find no mention whatsoever of any right to do so. Pierce v Society of Sisters must have been wrong then, right? Of course not. Because Fischer is engaged in special pleading. He only applies his argument, and states it with such outrage and passion, when it involves results he doesn’t like.
He’s not really opposed to the court protecting unenumerated rights in general, only when they prevent him from imposing his religious beliefs on others. But his argument is not specific to such cases, it pretends to be against the very idea of protecting such rights. To be slightly less technical, he’s full of shit.