Posted on 05/12/2005 9:50:55 PM PDT by neverdem
Revolution Bump.
One solitary man, a lawyer, an unelected life-tenured activist federal judge, legislating his personal views of how society ought to be ordered in Nebraska, trumping the Nebraska hundred member legislature and negating the constitution of its million people.
There is nothing praiseworthy about that.
Beyond blowjobs, this kind of creeping degradation is his legacy......
What is the legal counterargument to the finding of the court?
Are you claiming everyone who is elected, is so fraudulently? You did forget your (/sarcasm), right?
In my state, yes. And in NY too, yes.
No, I did not forget my sarc tag.
I would argue that there is a difference between the sphere of personal autonomy that Lawerence sought to protect, and the demand that the state recognize that autonomy, which is what gay marriage is.
This federal judge made a ruling finding a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.
This just also elevated recreational sex as a social institution. IOW you have a constitutional right to achieve (not just pursue) orgasm via any fetish you feeeeeeel.
This is similar to a constitutional "right to have a job". (ussr)
Odd how the federal 1996 DMA did not pop up.
bump
and
ping
I think the legislature has compelling reasons for controlling certain sexual behaviors....rape, for example, and, disease, commerce, etc. MSM, when it doesn't mean MainStream Media, is the acronym used by CDC to designate Male Sex with Males. It is deadly in terms of its causative link to a host of communicable diseases.
In short, Lawrence is wrong
STD's aren't a compelling enough interest to regulate a fundamental liberty. Consensual sex between adults has been considered a fundamental liberty covered by the substance of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Your point has some logic behind it, but as a legal argument, it is a non-starter.
Lawrence may be wrong but it is now the law of the land.
The legal issue here is this judge is essentially saying that the right to orgasm must now supplant the institution of marriage.
There is a reason marriage as an institution is encouraged. Society rewards the institution of marriage because marriage provides for the future of society. NOT the individuals orgasm. This does not exclude childless couples since it is normal and concevable to have a childless couple in the role of mother and father via adoption or unexpected pregnancy.
This judge only proves that judges are quite often lawyers who did not know how to earn a living. This opinion flies in the face of the 11th's appelate opinion which upheld the homosexual adotion of children ban.
This judge is VERBATIM going for HRC talking points that somehow this was going to affect cohabitation contracts. THas is 100% bovine excrement in the strictest legal terms.
There is no contitutional right to adopt, no constitutional right to be a foster mother or foster father. Those are red herrings to this judge jumping through hoops to achieve result over intent.
I don't think the left is trying to poke the "nose" of the folks in flyover country.
This is just part of the whisper effort that state judges said they were going to simply bypass the amendments and force homosexual marriage without the "m" word.
Note how this judge refered to "rights" not marriage.
You can keep the word marriage as long as it is made meaningless by sanctioning "marriage by fetish".
I'm glad the people elected the judge to represent them. Oh, wait, he's not an elected representitive?
Any activity which causes a detrimental effect on society at large is a legimate target of reasonable regulation even under the strictest scrutiny. The right of consensual sex has been historically limited by every legislature in this country. Even Nevada has regulations regarding prostitution that are designed to protect its citizens from the contracting of STD's and street walkers in Nevada are often treated much worse than street walkers in Nebraska.
AIDS costs the country hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Illegitimate childbirth costs the country billions of dollars per year.
As long as someone's freedom infringes upon the rights of others, in this case the right not to have to pay the consequences of illicit sexual activity, then those whose rights are impacted have as much right to regulate that activity as those who engage in it to practice it.
The 14th amendment was never designed to protect the right of homosexuals to receive the benefits of marriage as homosexual marriage has absolutely no postive impact on society, whereas heterosexual marriage does and always has had a positive rather than a negative impact on society.
This twisting of the words of the constitution to mean things they were never intended to mean undermines the whole principle of constitutional government. We might as well tear the document to shreds and run the country based on what we all think feels right.
If you think the 14th amendment in any way prohibits the states from regulating sexual activity, then I dare say that you have been brainwashed by your law school professors. Don't believe anything any of them tell you. Keep your mind open and your Christian principles forefront. They are no smarter than you, indeed they are trying to make you as stupid as them. Don't let them do it.
ping
So they can have a different version to use as toilet paper?
Cordially,
Just more stench from the bench. The Will of the People must not be denied.
It's no accident that the oxmoronic concept of "homosexual marriage" was unheard of in the 1800's; it's about as legitimate a notion as a "square circle".
Cordially,
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.