Lawrence v. Texas: Another Perry Oops Moment.
Dec 29th, 2011 | 27 responses
When Texas Governor Rick Perry couldn’t remember the third government agency he would eliminate should he become president, one could chalk that up to “well, everybody has a mental freeze once-in-a-while.” When Perry couldn’t remember the name of a Supreme Court Justice or made a mistake in the number of judges on that Court, one could say “well, we all make mistakes.”
But what does one say when a presidential candidate, the Governor of Texas, does not remember an extremely important Supreme Court case that directly and profoundly affected the laws of his own state, while he was governor of that state?
Read, about the “Case that struck down Texas anti-sodomy law [that] doesn’t ring a bell with Perry” in the governor’s hometown newspaper — the Austin American-Statesman — here.
27 Responses to “Lawrence v. Texas: Another Perry Oops Moment.”
From the article:
Sounds like Rick Perry has a selective memory to go along with his selective opposition to big government.
To “conservatives” like Rick Perry, laws and regulations are completely anathema unless they’re laws that regulate what you do in the privacy of your own home, regulate who you marry, regulate who you have consensual sex with, regulate what sexual positions are acceptable, etc.
I completely understand that there are plenty of Americans who have very different ideas than myself with regards to what kinds of activities and lifestyles are morally acceptable.
What I find truly bewildering, however, is the cognitive dissonance/intellectual inconsistency of people who claim to support “smaller government” even as they advocate giving the state the power to arrest and punish individuals for engaging in consensual sexual activities in the privacy of their own homes.
It’s obvious why Perry called this a “gotcha” question. He simply doesn’t want to acknowledge the glaring intellectual inconsistencies within his political stances.
“cognitive dissonance/intellectual inconsistency” applies very well to this and similar government-peeping-tom issues, Nick. Well put.
In a broader sense, I recently came across the words of John Kenneth Galbraith that struck me as being also right on target:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
Well at least he is honest, he said he didn’t know. IMO, those of you whom disagree with the Governor on the subject, should be glad he don’t, because that would mean he is not actively working to overturn the ridiculous decision.
Allen wrote:
Allen, you’ve addressed the issue of homosexuality several times at TMV, and I understand that you have very different views than I do with regard to this subject.
I do wonder, however, how far you would have the government go in enforcing your view of moral conduct. The law in Texas that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, gave the government the power to arrest and jail individuals who enagaged in consensual sodomy (provided that the activity took place between individuals of the same sex).
What do you believe the government’s response should be to instances of sodomy? Should the government arrest and temporarily imprison such individuals as happened in Texas? Do you believe that the arrest and jailing of individuals is too harsh and that the government should instead impose some kind of fine? Or perhaps you believe that the Texas anti-sodomy law was too lenient and that individuals who engaged consensual sodomy should have instead been sentenced to one or two years in prison?
In short, just how much government-sanctioned violence do you believe is acceptable in enforcing your personal moral views, and upon what grounds do you justify the use of government-sanctioned violence in enforcing your personal moral views?
Sorry Nick, that’s an off topic discussion. Familiarize yourself with the commenting policy please.
He’s not a very good liar, er, I mean he can’t talk his way out of gaffs.
Why should Gov. Perry worry about a Supreme Court case? They are irrelevent in Texas as those attempts to ignore them, which are listed in his book, make plain.
Ohioan-
You read his book? How boring was that?
No offence but that has what to do with the article? Perry didn’t know what the case was when first mentioned. Nowhere does he say squat about his stand on the issue.
Allen
Goodness, no. But I often follow links to find out more information. In this case the quote from (not surprisingly) the AUSTIN-American-Statesman.
[He wrote in the book, “Since I have been governor, a significant number of cases involving Texas or Texans have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. From posting the Ten Commandments in the public square to our right to execute a murdering rapist who happens to be a foreign national, we have had to kiss the ring of the Court and have done so, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Texans have long been involved in significant decisions before the Court, and often we have been told we can’t do something. To name a few: Roe v. Wade (legalizing abortion), Plyler v. Doe (requiring the education of children who are illegal immigrants), Lawrence v. Texas (outlawing anti-sodomy laws), Santa Fe Independent School District (prohibiting student-led prayer at football games), League of Latin American Citizens v. Perry (ordering the reconfiguration of a congressional district), and numerous others. It seems Texans have a different view of the world than do the nine oligarchs in robes.”]
“No offence [sic] but that has what to do with the article? Perry didn’t know what the case was when first mentioned. Nowhere does he say squat about his stand on the issue”
The article continues:
“Told that it was about the sodomy law, Perry said, ‘My position on traditional marriage is pretty clear. I don’t need a federal law case to explain it to me.’”
Then, the article delves into Perry’s recent (“almost every day) and earlier comments and positions on the sodomy and government “interference” issues:
Even Rick Santorum — or especially Rick Santorum –knows his anti-sodomy legal history:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/30/rick-santorum-rick-perry-lawrence-v-texas_n_1176522.html
Not defending Perry but the video clip doesn’t include the question itself. I followed the Lawrence v Texas case pretty closely at the time but would not have immediately recognized it by that name. It was much more commonly called something on the order of the “Texas anti-sodomy law” case. it would be helpful to hear how the question was posed.
Some more on this issue by the journalist (Ken Herman) who talked to Perry about it and published it this morning in Perry’s own hometown newspaper, the Austin American-Statesman:
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/perry-and-me-and-gods-will-2066245.html
“”Later, Perry and I had this exchange:
Me: “Governor, do you know what the Lawrence v. Texas case was, what the topic is?”
Perry: “I don’t. I think I explained that to him pretty good there, that I didn’t understand it. I made it very clear I’m not taking the bar exam.”
Me: “But you don’t know what that case involved?”
Perry: “I don’t. I don’t know what a lot of legal cases involve.”
As an aide said, “Thank you, we’ve got to go,” I told Perry it involved Texas’ so-called anti-sodomy law.
Me: “You say the government shouldn’t go into people’s homes, and there are people who think that law went into people’s homes. Were they incorrect?”
Perry: “Yeah, my position on traditional marriage is clear, so I don’t need a federal law case to explain it to me.”
Me: “That case wasn’t about marriage. It was about activity between consenting adults.”
And at that point, the aide said: “Got to go. Got to go. Got to go.”
Two footnotes: First, Perry was governor at the time of the Lawrence decision.
Second, he mentioned the case by name in his book “Fed Up,” writing that “Texans have long been involved in significant decisions before the (Supreme) Court, and often we have been told we can’t do something. … It seems Texans have a different view of the world than do the nine oligarchs in robes.”"”
EEllis wrote:
As Governor of Texas, Rick Perry has gone on record as saying that he supported the Texas anti-sodomy law that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, he specifically addressed this particular law and this particular U.S. Supreme Court ruling in his book, Fed Up, in which he wrote:
Therefore, given his public record as having supported the Texas anti-sodomy law and having opposed the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck it down, Perry’s claim that he does not “remember” this U.S. Supreme Court indicates that he is either a liar or has an extremely poor memory.
I suppose that it is possible that Mr. Perry could have forgotten about a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that he addressed in two places in his own book, but I think that is extremely unlikely to be the case. Much more likely is that he was simply caught off guard by an audience member who pointed out Perry’s intellectual inconsistency with regards to getting government out of our lives.
In this case, Rick Perry isn’t being criticized for his supposed ignorance. He is being criticized for his dishonesty or selective memory (take your pick). I addressed this point and went further in pointing out the cognitive dissonance/intellectual inconsistency of his views.
Rick Perry’s view on the Texas anti-sodomy law is yet another example of how selective he is in advocating that the government get out of our lives. No person who has public spoken out in favor of a law that grants the government the power to arrest and imprison an individual for consensual sodomy can credibly claim that he/she supports getting the government out of our lives.
Allen wrote:
I may very well be guilty of steering this discussion off topic.
However, I strongly believe that if a commenter states his/her support for a controversial law, that commenter has an obligation to defend his/her position.
BS. You have not shown that he supported the law and his book indicated that the case went to SCOTUS where they overturned state law. It did not indicate a stance on the law. One dissenter on the court said something about it being on of the silliest laws ever but he still dissented on overturning the law. You have not shown nor has it been indicated what you claim.
Also as a commentor on here noted you don’t have to be a liar not to recognize the case by Lawrence v Texas. You can also disagree with the law and still believe the court should not of overturned it.
I don’t fault him for not remembering the name of the court case. Just because he put it in his book doesn’t mean he’s committed it to memory, and as has been mentioned often times court cases go by more common names. He’s never claimed to be a legal scholar.
But whether he supports anti-sodomy laws, and whether that is consistent with his stated views of small government, is a different matter. EEllis, while what you are saying is true, Perry doesn’t strike me as the kind of intellectual that would oppose a decision even though he likes the outcome. That’s just my view. In any case, he was given an opportunity to clarify his view and he apparently declined.
Isn’t one of the chief duties of the president to enforce laws passed by Congress? I would expect the president to have a familiarity with court cases, and the nuances different cases around the same issues.
Perry’s “Yeah, my position on traditional marriage is clear, so I don’t need a federal law case to explain it to me” is just sloppy thinking.
Furthermore, just because actual names of cases appear in his book doesn’t mean he knew those cases, as he clearly doesn’t when he talks in “real life”. Any editor would have made sure the names of the cases were mentioned. A research assistant could easily have dropped them in. It sure wasn’t Perry who put them in as he even admits he doesn’t know much about the legal cases.
At any rate…. someone who doesn’t care about federal law, bother to listen to distinctions in the law and does what he wants to do, regardless of what the law says is most definitely someone who should stay far FAR away from being president. We tried that with Bush and see how successful that was.
What is striking that the last two governors of the second largest state with the second largest population are both so intellectually… I guess lazy is the kindest description.
Makes me wonder about the reporters in Texas. Seems if they, like everything else in Texas, are the biggest and the best, we would know these things before they reach the national races.
These guys aren’t even cunning or crafty so it’s not that they’ve been hiding their cleverness from everyone.
Of course there was Molly Ivens, who always referred to Gov. Perry as Governor Goodhair or The Coiffure, but she’s gone now and I didn’t appreciate that she was all that serious when she was here.
It seems that these guys function well in Texas, but don’t do well in the national pool of political talent. Maybe that’s not so strange after all.
To The_Ohioan — try reading the Texas Monthly. Go back and read anything that Molly Ivins wrote (re Bush). Here’s one where she’s talking about Perry: http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?tag=molly-ivins
It’s not the fault of Texas watchdog journalists that their governors get national attention.
To those of you defending Perry’s memory — if he wrote the book, if he was involved with the case, he would remember it. The fact that he spun his answer to a talking point about marriage says he might be suffering from selective memory.
Here’s ABC News:
“In 2003, the Supreme Court deemed Texas’ anti-sodomy law to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, and the case nullified anti-sodomy laws in 13 other states at the same time. Perry, a strong opponent of gay marriage and the ability of homosexuals to serve openly in the military, served as governor when this case was decided.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/perry-draws-blank-on-landmark-texas-anti-sodomy-supreme-court-case/
Here’s some contemporary commentary on the case:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/30/findlaw.analysis.colb.bowers/
And from 2002:
The latest case, Lawrence v. Texas, arose when two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were arrested in a Houston-area apartment in 1998 by officers who were responding to a false report of an armed intruder. Instead, police arrested the men, and they were fined $200 for having sex.
The men were charged under Texas’ “homosexual conduct” law. The Texas law criminalizes “deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.”
Although only 13 states now criminalize consensual sodomy, a Texas state appeals court found the law “advances a legitimate state interest, namely, preserving public morals.”
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-02/justice/scotus.sodomy_1_colorado-amendment-homosexual-conduct-law-ruth-harlow?_s=PM:LAW
At that time, Bush was Governor and Perry was Lt Gov. The anti-sodomy law predates both of them.
In his 2008 book, Perry compared homosexuality with alcoholism:
http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/24/perry-compared-homosexuality-to-alcoholism-in-2008-book/
Nick-
The only “obligation” we have here is to respect the commenting policy. Maybe you would like to breach the subject within your own article?
Ohioan-
-[It seems that these guys function well in Texas, but don’t do well in the national pool of political talent]-
Lets not forget the Chimp’n Chief, twice elected. Trying to think, when was the last Ohioan President…..hmmmm….not doing to well nationally are ya? Surely you’ve got a monkey or two of your own?
Allen
Ya, we have the most Presidents elected, but two were shot and one died of a heart attack (and was considered the worst President ever, even at the time) and no one elected for nearly 100 years, so we’re not doing so well.
I was thinking of their apparent competency by Texas standards vs the requirements at the national level. Sorry I wasn’t clear.
Kathy G.
I’ve wandered through TM and they seem to not like his politics but think he’s a great campaigner. A paean to his campaigning abiliies from Sept. of this year – even his opponents think he’s hot stuff on the campaign trail. How does that square with what we’ve seen?
From Texas Monthly:
[Forget about death and taxes. Today, there are only two sure things in life: Every few years Rick Perry will run for office, and every few years Rick Perry will grind his opponents into dust. Since 1984, the man once derided as “Governor Good Hair” has participated in ten contested elections and won all of them.
A few were against relatively weak opposition, but many were against prominent figures who were expected to give Perry a run for his money. Jim Hightower, John Sharp, Tony Sanchez, Chris Bell, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Bill White—you could competently govern a medium-sized republic with political talent like that.
But all of them fell to Perry’s deep coffers, disciplined campaign style, occasional refusal to debate, and (semi-) popularity among Texans.
What is it like to run against the man who may well be the most successful state politician in Texas history? To find out, we spoke to eleven people with intimate knowledge of what is, after dying and paying taxes, the most unpleasant experience a politician can endure. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama: Read closely.]
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2011-09-01/feature7.php
It isn’t surprising that Pretty Boy Rick Perry doesn’t remember the case even though it is in his book. He probably didn’t write the book or read it (unless one of his aids pointed a section of the book out). I’m not defending Rick but the case wasn’t a big issue in Texas. The law was old and I’m not even sure it is the Texas Governor’s job to decide what cases to fight (might be the attorney General’s responsibility).
Anyway, as a teabagger and someone that has never voted for Perry, I’m disappointed in field of candidates. I already stated why I would support Romney.
I’m also disappointed that someone didn’t run against Barack. He seems unclear in what he has done in the past and his future plans. The very first issue he tackled was closing down Gitmo and having the trials in NYC. Where is he on that issue? Where is he on open government?
I’m also disappointed in the leadership of Congress (both parties). It is time to shut the welfare state down because it seems that all it has done is make more Americans dependent of government.
I listed to Rush’s show yesterday and he was on vacation so he had a guest commentator (I forgot his name) and he made some very good points. He was saying that the middle class isn’t disappearing.
There was a big increase in consumption and in Americans standard of living the past few decades. I will have to agree with him. Look at what the average family has today versus what the family had in 1980.
Also there in income mobility, meaning that people climb up in income as they aged. I know that is certainty true for me.
Anyway, my point is there is too much doom and gloom in today’s media. Sure there are people like the OWS protesters that are protesting because they spent $100,000 on a worthless college degree (and that is their fault for majoring in an area that had no future). And there are people who didn’t apply themselves in high school and have no real job skills other than competing against the illegals. I don’t feel sorry for those people. They made their choice and they need to live with the consequences (just like the banks, if they make bad loans, then the bank needs to fail).
Ohioan and IronMike…Folks…
Politicians are like a box of chocolates. You don’t know what you are going to get until you bite one in the ass.