Dear colleagues Please pardon me for asking a couple of questions so late, but I was extremely busy when you were engaged in the email discussions of Lawrence v. Texas. I have been reviewing all of the email sent to the listserve on Lawrence, and I have been given much valuable information and food for thought by your discussion.
I may have missed a couple of things, however. If so, please forgive me for raising them again. First, you engaged in an intense discussion of the "gay agenda", but I missed it if there was a separate discussion as to what people mean when they speak of the "gay lifestyle." I was prompted to make this inquiry after witnessing the Congressman from Oklahoma's First Congressional District make an impassioned attack on the gay lifestyle at his recent townhall meeting. Like many people who use this term, he never defined what it meant to him. In fact, he refused to elaborate on the term despite being asked to do so. My guess is that the term is code for the stereotype of gay and lesbian persons routinely engaging in bath house orgies. Often, people bandying about the term gay lifestyle are those who have not spoken out against the sexually libertine philosophy offered up in such publications as Playboy or Penthouse, such movies as Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and such TV programs as Sex in the City. For me, this raises the issue of whether fornication laws and other laws designed to punish promiscuity are still constitutional, given that they are rarely enforced and that the predominant media portrayal of sexual mores in America is that of promiscuity. It also raises the question of why promiscuity seems to be more objectionable if gays engage in it than if it involves heterosexual participants. Isn't it ironic that the prospect of gay marriage, which might be a moderating influence on sexual promiscuity, has become more controversial constitutionally and legally than has sexual promiscuity? I also have a question about the so-called rational basis analysis used in J. Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence. It is premised on J. Kennedy's belief that sodomy laws do not further any legitimate government interest because they do not advance any government interest in promoting the health and safety of the people as opposed to the moral sentiments of the majority. My understanding of the rational basis test is that any purpose that could be rationally viewed as related to protecting someone from a potential health or safety problem is a legitimate government purpose, and any law that could rationally be viewed as providing some health or safety benefit meets the rational basis SDP analysis test. It is also my understanding that the mechanics of sexual activity defined as sodomy subject persons who regularly engage in sodomy to potential health risks. I failed to find any discussion of this in any of the opinions in Lawrence, but maybe I missed it somehow. Again, sorry to bring up an "old" subject about which you have provided a comprehensive discussion. But, I would greatly appreciate some feed back on these matters. Gary D. Allison -- Gary D. Allison Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 E. 4th Place Tulsa, Ok 74104 (918) 631-3052 (O); (918) 631-2194 (F) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
