Massive: TX AG Promises to Bring Back Anti-Sodomy Law if SCOTUS Revisits Lawrence v Texas

In a Friday interview with News Nation’s Leland Vittert, Texas Attorney General Paxton said that he would defend Texas’ laws against sodomy if the Supreme Court were to reverse a 2003 court case that barred their enforcement. In his opinion overruling Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should also revisit cases such as Lawrence v. Texas and Obergfell v. Hodges. Thirteen American states had laws on the books which criminalized sodomy before the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. They were barred from enforcing them after the 2003 Supreme Court case. Vittert asked Paxton if he’d be willing to defend Texas’ anti-sodomy laws in court in the event that the Supreme Court nullified Lawrence v. Texas. “Obviously the Lawrence case came from Texas — that was what outlawed sodomy.” “Would you as Attorney General be comfortable defending a law that outlawed sodomy … to put to test what Justice Thomas said?” “Yeah, there’s all kinds of issues here… But, certainly, the Supreme Court has stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional provision dealing with, they were legislative issues.” “This is one of those issues, and there may be more. It would depend on the issue, and depend on what state law says at the time.” Paxton continued by referencing state law, explaining that it was his responsibility to enforce and defend the laws of Texas before the Supreme Court or anywhere else. “Look, my job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that.” Paxton has pledged to vigorously enforce Texas’ laws against abortion after Roe’s demise. Paxton declined to express a preference for the legislature’s approach to Texas’ sodomy law, explaining that a Supreme Court overruling of the law would put the state in new legal territory. Obergfell v. Hodges required every state in the Union to legally recognize same-sex marriages, doing away with a multitude of differing policies. In his opinion, Justice Thomas mentioned Lawrence, Obergfell and Griswold v. Connecticut by name. Thomas took aim at the “substantive due process” legal theory behind the progressive rulings, attacking an argument used by the court’s proponents of a “living constitution” for decades. This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Related Articles

Support His Glory

His Glory Newsletter

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.