Right to Privacy

The following statement may be the most shocking one that I've ever heard from Keyes. Again from WGCI:

MCGEE: Dr. Keyes, what are your thoughts on gays? KEYES: Well, I think that the issue that's confronting us is really not about gays or not gays. It's about whether or not we're going to defend marriage and the right understanding that underlies marriage. I believe that everybody has a right to their privacy, and invading that sphere is not something government ought to be doing.

It appears that Keyes has stated his support of the right to privacy (that is, beyond the right to privacy that informs his opposition to the income tax) before:

One final point, though, about sodomy laws. I have a serious problem with them. I do. Because I have a serious problem with any laws that can't be enforced without destroying privacy. And I don't see how sodomy laws can be enforced without destroying privacy. What is going on in private between consenting adults--even if I believe it is deeply immoral--if it does not have consequences that affect the public weal, then I don't think should be in the business of going in and interrupting people's privacy to enforce laws against what they do. C-Span, 2000

But Texas v. Lawrence (pdf), the case that struck down the Texas sodomy law, was based on the right to privacy:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

But, of course, perhaps knowing his constituency, Keyes has spoken out again Texas v. Lawrence:

I wonder how many of you folks who are fighting that battle understand that if you read Lawrence [vs. Texas] and other decisions here, but guess what they are based on? That same notion that it is not legitimate to apply the moral convictions and consequences of faith to law and politics. "You can't do this! The fact that this religion or that one says that homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean you can legislate against it!" that's what we are told. April 3, 2004

KEYES: . . . That is actually a signal, as well, that these courts are in a complete assault against the God-given, natural basis of family life in this country. They mean to destroy it--and that is what their decisions have portended, with Lawrence [vs. Texas] and other things like this. April 7, 2001

HANNITY: You know, Ambassador, you've got to give liberals credit. They're not total fools. I mean, one of the things you see happening with this gay marriage issue, there was a reason why they went to a court in Massachusetts--the timing of the marriages that took place in San Francisco, in my mind were not coincidental. It was all part of a strategy. You tell me if you think I'm wrong, but . . . KEYES: Oh, no. Absolutely. They're moving nationwide on a number of fronts. First, they moved with the ACLU to undermine the idea that you could reflect the moral and institutional belief that is a part of our Judeo-Christian heritage in the law. You'll notice that in Lawrence [vs. Texas] arguments were made that it's inappropriate now to apply a biblical understanding of marriage, and so forth and so on. That was part of it, it's been going on for decades, and now we're seeing the consummation of it, the wholesale assault throughout the country, on traditional marriage that will get rid of monogamous marriage, that will introduce polygamy. We're opening the floodgates to the destruction of our basic institution of the family. March 30, 2004

And during the Ten Commandments debate:

KEYES: And I don't think it's an accident that this is happening on the eve of this battle over homosexual marriage. Because they want to establish in the public square the notion that any reference to God, any reference to morality grounded in faith, is inappropriate and irrelevant to political discussion. And they know full well that, historically, that assumption of the nature of our culture and of our moral and religious roots, has in fact been the bulwark of our legislation on marriage, of our legislation against adultery, of our legislation with respect to sodomy, and so forth. Once they get rid of that moral foundation, they will be able to say, "Well, it's inappropriate to apply these moral standards in the political arena. That's not allowed here because of separation." August 25, 2003

So, I wonder which it is? Does Keyes support the holding in Texas v. Lawrence? Or does Keyes think, given his theory that should not be a separation of church and state, that the state can regulate what goes on in the bedroom? Update: By constituency, I meant Keyes' media constituency, not his voter constitutency. He has no idea what his voter constitutency thinks.