I'm gay. Thirty-one years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its decision to uphold a "sodomy" law in the case of
Bowers v. Hardwick. For about 4-5 years after that decision, I had a political desire to see that decision get overturned. I believed the Ninth Amendment would justify reversing that decision. I voted for Michael Dukakis because of that goal.
Some time in 1990-1991, I picked up Robert Bork's famous book, "The Tempting of America." I started learning a lot of things about Constitutional Law from that book, and I began reading more books about how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. I began reading lots of Supreme Court opinions themselves. I learned (from books other than "Tempting,") what is the historically correct interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. It wasn't long until I realized that I was wrong to want
Bowers to be overturned; the Court came to the correct conclusion, and gave an almost perfect explanation why the Court should not strike down "sodomy" laws.
It would take too much space here for me to discuss what has gone wrong, far too many times, with the Court's misinterpretation of the Due Process Clauses, as well as the fact that it would take some space to explain what I have learned is the correct interpretation of the Ninth -- the interpretation based on that amendment's original intent, not what it literally says. But by 1991, I was sure I had made a mistake to want and to hope for
Bowers to be overturned, and I was glad that Dukakis was not elected.
Nonetheless, twelve years later, in 2003,
Bowers got overturned anyway, and I am absolutely unhappy, and angry, about that. Misinterpretations of the Constitution, in the course of striking down laws, makes me angry; very angry indeed. (Did I just quote Marvin the Martian?)
