That was my point. Those "rights" are made up out of whole cloth.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by Hunterb
The only one lying is you. I have relatives in the medical industry who told me this. I find this quite trustworthy.
You on the other hand have an agenda to push tyranny disguised as rightiousness (which it is not).
Wrong, muslim countries are so uptight that they have rules on which hand you can eat with and which hand you can wipe your butt with.
A child is not an adult, cannot consent to sexual activity, cannot enter into contracts. A child cannot, by definition, be a consenting adult. That is a completely separate issue from the government staying out of the sex lives of consenting adults.
On the Ginsberg article, got a cite? I've seen how these things get oversimplified in the retelling.
At the time of Lawrence, I wrote that the Supreme Court should have remanded the case to a lower court, where the government would have to demonstrate--if it could--that the men were acting without any reasonable expectation of privacy. Had the Supreme Court done that, then any questions of 'staging' could have been laid to rest.
One principle that IMHO should be codified into law is that a person should not be punished(*) for an act which they believe, and a reasonable person would believe, was legal either de jure or de facto.
(*)Other than, in some cases, being ordered to pay non-punitive restitution
As a simple example, if cops are observed to routinely ignore motorists travelling 60mph on a particular stretch of road, such observation should be a defense for someone pulled over going 56mph unless that motorist should have had some reason to expect the more stringent enforcement.
I would expect that it would probably be possible to prove that many cops in Texas routinely ignore cases where they would have probable cause to suspect that homosexual sodomy is going on. Therefore, people in Texas could reasonably have believed that homosexual sodomy was de facto legal provided they were discrete about it. The question in Lawrence would then be one for the trial court to determine whether the defendants in Lawrence were acting with a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it were to turn out that they had placed the burglary call themselves, there would be no expectation of privacy and they could not avail themselves of the defense available to those who did not try to get caught.
Lawrence should have been remanded to the trial courts. Depending upon the facts of the case, the people might or might not have been convicted. IMHO, if the facts of the case would support a conviction under the standard the Supreme Court should have suggested, there would have been little outrage.
Basically, I believe there is a right to privacy with such things; the question at hand should be whether the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If, as has been suggested, the defendants were responsible for the burglary call, then that would mean they had no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus should be convicted.
Things might get more interesting if one of the defendants placed the burglary call without the knowledge of the other. In that case, the one who placed the call should be convicted and the other one not.
In what ways were the laws enforced? If two people were discrete about their relations but someone telegraphed in an anonymous tip, would the police break down their door to try to catch them? Or were the laws enforced only against people who flaunted their homosexuality?
My expectation would be that the latter would more likely be the case, and the latter is the type of enforcement I would like to see.
Actually, in that case it might be better if the government turned a blind eye--to what would follow (once I found out about it).
LoL...
What part of 12 year old don't you understand?
Amen to that!
I am talking about "two consenting adults" having sex, which is allowed under the law and most forms of common sense. Which is not something you are talking about.
If you look at my first reply, you'll see it is to your post #123
To opine that the court''didn't have to take the case'' is to restate the obvious and adds nothing.
What *I* want to know is....what in blazes are "Homosexual rights" and how are they different than "rights" retained by all citizens?!
In your post #123 you quoted Khepera as follows:
people voted to have sodomy laws in place. To have judges overrule the will of the people is tyranny.
You said:
"So if people voted to make being of white race illegal, your would support it. There is such a thing about 'mob rule'/ as in majority rule, which is why we have a Electorial College, to prevent 'mob rule'."
With that statment you made a false analogy (strawman argument), you placed sodomy (behavior) in the same catagory as race (ethnicity).
And I replied:
So sexual perversion (behavior) is equal to racial ethnicity is it? What a Strawman...
Race is who you are, homosexual is what you do.
That was my point. Those "rights" are made up out of whole cloth.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
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.