District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal and Assistant DA Bill Delmore head for Washington, D.C., to defend the Texas anti-sodomy statute this week. I have read the state's brief and believe that solid arguments have been made for upholding the law and maintaining a system of government that permits citizens to express moral judgments through their laws. We should wish our fellow prosecutors well and support their advocacy. For details on the case, see Houston Chronicle article.

Like the old story about seeing your hated ex-wife driving over a cliff, behind the wheel of your new Mercedes, I'd have serious mixed emotions about arguing this particular case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I remember the Bowers case from law school, and thinking what a rather quaint antiquity our own law was, and that it would never be an issue. When I saw Harris County in the story I was surprised, then when I saw Pasadena, not so much. I wish the prosecutors good luck and hope they put on a good show, but can't say with 100 per cent conviction that I wish they prevail. As to the argument about allowing the will of the people to be expressed through their legislature, I think maybe there are some issues that shouldn't be up for a popular vote, and this might just be one of them. Not saying I am strongly in the reform camp either, just that I hope wiser heads than mine would resolve the issue.

For a report of the oral argument, go to argument.

Thanks for the post site, John. Looking at the map, and seeing Texas, in this case, aligned with the hard-core remnants of the old Confederacy, plus Utah and Idaho, doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies. Nor does this excerpt from the story:

'A knot of protesters stood apart, holding signs that read "AIDS is God's revenge," "God sent the sniper" and other messages.'

Thus reinforcing my earlier thought: Hateful morons like these would have their vote count just as much as mine or yours in a popular contest.

I look forward to the Court's opinion.

For more details on the oral arguments, go to A Straight Answer.

I sure hope no one thinks I'm less than 100% PC, but I think the state has every right to prohibit sodomy.

Two arguments that come immediately to mind are: 1) In addition to being a morally repugnant practice, it is also extremely dangerous. It is the chief way AIDS is passed, which is a major social problem as well as costing the states many millions in dollars every year.
2) It makes a statement--it says that the people of the state consider this practice wrong. It is good to have clear statements of what is wrong and what is right, which may in some cases encourage heterosexuality over homosexuality.

Much of the fabric of our criminal law expresses a moral stance. If the court says criminal laws cannot be too expressive of morals, then I do not know where that leads. The case, of course, also involves the inquiry of balancing state's rights (police power) against federal protection of individual freedom (privacy). The real problem is where 21.06 must be enforced- primarily in private residences, since 21.07 presumably applies most of the rest of the time. It is hard to imagine what the Supreme Court will find wrong in the logic of the Houston Court of Appeals majority, but it certainly appears at least 5 of the members will find something. Logically, however, they must find the statute is "same-gender" based rather than discriminatory based on gender and is related to things other than animosity against the persons it affects.

For a local report on the oral arguments, go to Houston Chronicle article.

Terry, as a friend, I think I can state that no one who knows you thinks you are 100% Politically Correct. LOL! As evidence thereof, I would point to the French Foreign Legion applications you "allegedly" used to keep in your office for "customers" when you worked in Fort Bend. I'm pretty sure that would offend a liberal somewhere.

And besides, I've never liked that term, or at least since Bill Maher used to have the show by the same name.

I may not be 100% PC, but I'm sure I'm in the high 90s percentile.

As for the French Foreign Legion applications that I "allegedly" kept in my desk drawer: I in fact did keep them handy. I find they cut down on whining when I refuse to drop charges to let a cut-throat join the U.S. Forces. If they are that gung-ho to be a soldier, I reckon they can join the Legion, which makes a specialty of recruiting criminals. So far no one's taken me up on my offer. Ce la guerre.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Bill Maher's show was called Politically INcorrect.

Terry:

Could you send a Foreign Legion application to me? I have three high school seniors who planned and committed Aggravated Robbery of a local grocery store (one was an employee). One defense attorney is already whining "let's not ruin their future since they've never been in trouble before."

I'd love to have that application in my desk drawer!!

To enlist in the Legion you must go to France, at your own expense, and enlist there. The requirements for enlistment can be found at www.br-legion.com. You can down-load the page with the requirements, and use the hard copy to pacify your defense attorneys.

If a defense attorney tells you, "but my crook doesn't speak French!" tell him you've got some good news: recruits are not required to speak French! Indeed, a five year enlistment in the Legion is an excellent way to learn the language.

Good luck.

Back in Colonial times, ("old europe") a British Officer was asked by his French counterpart why the British chose to wear the bright red jackets that made them such an easy battlefield target. The response? "So that if we are shot, our troops won't see the blood and lose confidence." The idea quickly caught on in France, their officers all switching to brown pants.

This thread has drifted a bit from its original subject of sodomy--but that is just as well.

The French reputation for being panseys on the battlefield is quite misplaced. The English and the French have over the centuries been at each other's throats many times, and the English always had a fight on their hands. No one accuses the Brits of being panseys.

In Aug. 1914, the Germans surprised everyone by disregarding Belgian nuetrality, and swept into France on her undefended flank. For over a mo. the Germans routed the French. Then, at the 1st Battle of the Marne, the French exploited a gap in 2 German Army Groups, and rushed troops into the breach, where they fought like tigers. A German general who was there later wrote that they knew that tough, well trained troops, after a month of being defeated, and even tho they were exhasted and hungery, would if they were well led take a defensive position and hold it. But, he said, they didn't know it was possible that such troops could take the offensive, like the French troops did. He was extremely respectful of the French fighting man.

In WW II, British Field Marshall Alexander, who commanded troops from more nations than perhaps any other theater commander, said that the troops he had that were best at exploiting a break-out were, in order: 1) The Free French, 2) The New Zealanders, 3) The Americans.

My father was an armoured cav. plt. leader in the Battle of the Bulge, and beyond. He told me of a Free French unit in their sector that charged a German position on horseback. It was a crazy military tactic, but no one doubted their courage.