Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by Hunterb
This line from your post led me to the conclusion I reached: "Not as lawyers or carpenters or bartenders, but as homoSEXUALS first and foremost."
I'm as straight as an arrow, but have lived and worked and played amongst many gays, and this has NEVER been my experience.
Your comments sound like talking points provided to you in lieu of actual experience with them yourself.
Please point us in the general direction to the Constitution (or any other official U.S document) preferably one that specifically states that citizens are exempt from any state criminal law. Precisely, the states laws that criminalize homosexual sodomy.
Article and section please.
So you think the 10th amendment can shield prohibit these laws?
No, as I have said above I think the Ninth Amendment prohibits these laws.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
As I have said before, I believe rights trump powers.
This is (I believe) the central conflict in our Republic - when the state's power to regulate conflicts with the innate rights retained by the people.
I believe in individual freedom over government control of persons, so I side with rights over powers. Even when the right involved is the right to do something I don't want to do - I don't belive that the Constitution only protects my own personal likes.
Why don't you go back to DU.
Ah, name calling. Hardly a substitute for a valid argument.
Did you even read the article? You did? Well how do you feel about the guy that was killed to cover this up?
In post 217 of this thread you said the 10th amendment. Now you are saying you are talking about the 9th amendment They may fall for that at DU but not here.
Now as far as The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
it was the people who made the law by voting for representatives who would pass that law so the people in doing so had retained their right to have a law. Just because some Judge didn't like the law did not make the law unconstitutional any more than the Roe v. Wade decision was based on constitutional grounds. \
Only a Liberal belives this type of shit. Liberals hang out on DU. Go back to DU.
In post 217 of this thread you said the 10th amendment. Now you are saying you are talking about the 9th amendment They may fall for that at DU but not here.
And in 222, I discussed the Ninth. If you are having trouble following a conversation, I would suggest actually reading the posts in a thread.
So these guys were like Rosa Parks, but with anal sex. I get it. /sarc
Perversion (sodomarriage) is not a civil right.
My effort is to stand up for decency, morality and ethical standards, and I do so simply by providing the reality of truth, ethics and the morals which founded this country.
If you are adverse to these morals, I recommend you move to a more "liberal" locale, such as Canada, France, Netherlands, Norway, Spain or Sweden. I'm told that their Socialistic permissive governments are quite willing to tolerate the various psychosis inherent in both sexual psychotics and the lower forms of life which grant them credence.
I applaud you for that.
My effort is to stand up for the Constitution.
See post #242
Please point us in the general direction to the Constitution (or any other official U.S document) preferably one that specifically states that citizens are exempt from any state criminal law. Precisely, the states laws that criminalize homosexual sodomy.
I have never contended that citizens are exempt from any state criminal law. I contend that the states are limited in what they can criminalize. There's a major distinction there.
The 14th Amendment says, in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
That phrase, part of the "Due Process" clause, applied the Bill of Rights to the states. That's a good thing, or else the Bill of Rights would be meaningless. Who cares if the federal government can't ban gun ownership if states can ban gun ownership? Either it's a right retained by the people or it isn't.
Now, that hasn't stopped states from constantly pushing against the Bill of Rights (the 2nd Amendment is a good example of a right under constant threat from some states). But just because they try to do it doesn't mean they have the authority to do it - our government is replete with examples of extra-Constitutional authority seized and unchallenged.
Now, this is complicated. As I've said before, there is a great conflict between the powers reserved for states in the Tenth Amendment (which are not listed) and the rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment (which are not listed). We all must try to resolve this conflict in accordance with our principles. I am a lover of liberty, therefore I always default to restricting the power of the state, so I favor the personal protections of the Ninth Amendment.
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sexual perversion, same sex "sodomarriage", are not "privileges" or "immunities"
They're criminal acts and have been deemed as such through legislation in state laws for over two centuries. That is a fact!
There's no magic or secret phrase anywhere in any official U.S. document that will prove otherwise. That is a fact!
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You've still got it backwards - the Constitution is a list of the things the government can get involved in. Criminalizing morality isn't among them.
Once the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states, the states lost the authority to legislate most personal morality. That is a fact.
The choice is simple - you're either for less government, or more. Bigger or smaller. Smaller government means that people will make choices you don't like - that's the nature of freedom.
That's the only part of your misconstrued drivel that's correct.
You're dead wrong! States have every right to legislate moral issues otherwise there would be no reason for states to have their own judicial systems. IOW we'd all have to go to Federal court when we broke the law for any reason- which would be listed as criminal acts mandated by the federal government. Can you produce such a list? NO! Because The states have jurisdiction.
The states have jurisdiction, but only within the limits of the Bill of Rights. Wich, as we have seen, paints with a very broad brush the scope of our individual rights.
So long as the expression of those rights does not conflict with the rights of others (and no, the "right not to be offended" doesn't count), the states are on shaky ground when they try to legislate one particular morality.
>sigh<
That should, of course, be "Which, as we have seen,"
Nobody has a right to engage in sexual perversion (HOMOSEXUAL SODOMY), every citizen is forbidden by state law to do so. There's no special group that has the right to do so and another group forbidded, we're all equally forbidden by "due prosses"- state legislation!
In this case, it appears they were INVITED into the bedroom.
This is one instance where I would have supported the officers beating the snot out of both of them, ensuring permanent damage to their tools, then claiming the pervs were resisting arrest and attempting sexual assault.
All law is based on someone's morals.
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.