Posted on 04/14/2004 6:30:36 AM PDT by WKB
It is constitutional, but stupid.
I swear, officer! It's a rubber model rocket!
But miss it you did.
I believe that a state banning PETA, hunting, Greenpeace, or logging might find themselves in a constitutional bind. (Thank you for not saying, "What if a state wanted slavery?")
"even though their actions do no direct harm"
(Picture me holding my right arm, fully extended over my head, hand bent at the wrist. Got that picture? Good.)
I have had it up to here with this "no direct harm" bull$hit. Who says our laws must be written to cover "direct harm" only? Why is this now the standard that must be met? Since friggin' when?
There is such a thing as indirect harm. There is such a thing as societal standards. There is such a thing as creating and maintaining an environment in which to raise the next generation.
Legislating morality? Sure it is. ALL of our laws legislate morality. If the majority of the people of a state wish to write a constitutional law that excludes something they believe causes indirect harm, or that is against their standards, or interferes with the raising of children, why can't they?
This article should be a dog-bites-man non-issue.
And if they didn't, they should have.
Yes, and you won't get much argument that a state *can* pass a law like this. The question is, *should* they? It appears that you think it's just fine for a state to regulate the private sex lives of consenting adults. This does not put you on the side of individual freedom and limited government.
Like this one?
Blast off! Which reminds me of the scene from the movie "Top Secret where they discuss the guy that plugs the U.S. 120 volt "device" into the European 220 volt?
WHAT?? Where did you come up with this little ditty? One, this isn't about me, this is about the people of the state of Mississippi and what they want. Two, who's regulating the "private sex lives of consenting adults"? The law bans the public sales of certain products. Period.
"This does not put you on the side of individual freedom and limited government."
Is that what you call it? Individual freedom? I can almost hear the patriotic music in the background.
Well, it appears that the citizens of the state of Mississippi call it selfish, self-centered, individualistic, immoral, and hedonistic behavior that goes against the way they wish to live.
How dare they decide how they want to live!
We don't even need direct harm these days to ban something that's unpopular. Look at the anti-smoking agenda. Societal standards and indirect harm are only smokescreens for the true agenda of people using the government to force others to act and believe just as they do.
You completely missed the PETA and Greenpeace points. This woman and other "conservative" activists are exactly like those liberal organizations. They state something does harm with no proof, then seek to stop it using their influence on the government. The only difference between them is what they want banned.
(It's obvious Ms. Nevels has not had sex since the 70's...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.