Where in the Constitution is unlawful to be homosexual or where does it allow an elected official to refuse to their job for religious reasons?
COTUS doesn't have to say "boo" about it, since the federales are supposed to stay out of the area of common law crime, that being a sphere reserved to the states. The better question is, "Where in the COTUS does it say that the federales can interfere with the states' common law systems?"
FTR, homosexual activity has been subject to sanction in the common law since the beginnings of common law:
BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to underscore my view that, in constitutional terms, there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.
As the Court notes, ante at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.
This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.
One thing that continually fascinates me is how detailed the descriptions of LGBT sex acts used by the opponents of LGBT are.
What continually fascinates me is how the proponents of unreason avoid dealing with the facts of the matter at hand, from the distasteful facts of homosexual sodomy, to the increased rate of sexual assault of minors by the LGBTBBQ sorts, to the deleterious effects of that lifestyle on its practitioners.
Wow. I suppose that's why constitutional rights are important - so we can't treat people like that.
We have a COTUS to reign in the power of fed.gov. All else is secondary and left to the states.
