Oooookay! Very understated and sly, but okay.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by Hunterb
I live in the state of Georgia. We had a case go to state court of homosexuality long before the above case and even the conservative state supreme court of Georgia said that government should stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.
Farah is only good for entertainment.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Just because it's WND doesn't mean it's wrong. Read the article - we who keep track of such things on FR knew this was a set up at the time it went before the SCOTUS; now here are more facts.
Rick Santorum was right. Just because you've heard the words "slippery slope" gazillions of times doesn't mean they're not true.
We're living in perilous times.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
I'd have to say that 6-3 decision in the Supreme Court was a come from behind victory for the homosexual agenda.
What was Roe vs Wade?
Only if I could sell tickets.
Oooookay! Very understated and sly, but okay.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Maybe I should go on a bank robbing spree, and call the cops myself while I am robbing the place. Then, if I get caught, I can say "hey, I staged the whole thing, therefore you can't arrest me for it!".
Think that will work?
So all incest laws should be overturned?
Brothers and/or sisters should be allowed to marry each other, if they so desire?
But why do you limit this right to unfettered and unregulated sexual acts to "two consenting adults". Shouldn't laws against polygamy also be abolished?
Yes, certain liberal government officials would surly like too.
So you like having a leftist lies determine laws and policy?
Test cases are nothing new, they have existed in virtually every area of civil rights doctrine, from integrated lunch counters, Florida beaches off-limits to blacks in the segregation era, to MLK's disobedience to an ostensibly lawful, if clearly unconstitutional court order in Birmingham. So what?
The court had a record before it and four justices chose to take the case either on appeal from the highest court of the state or by certiorari. There was the required ''case or controversy'' that forms the foundation for jurisdiction of any court. Had the state not charged these men there would have been no jurisdictionally mandated ''case or controversy''that was, in the parlance of the courts, ''ripe for adjudication.''
This judge should choose; either be a journalist or a judge. The story may be of interest to some purient minds or some self-righteous fans of FR on the political fringe. But it certainly misses the mark as an important story.
Governments do not have rights; governments have powers. But never mind that. You are saying that "government" does not have this power. I assume you mean state governments. On what do you base this opinion?
Now, if you said that government should not regulate these activities, I might agree with you. But that is a separate argument.
What a novel idea, let the people and the legislatures of the states decide if they want to outlaw such an activity or not. Or would you prefer that the Nevada model be forced on the rest of the country by the courts?
Talk about a frindly venue!
At least part of the theory in each case was that the court system needed to step in to protect some new, previously unrecognized right. The theory being that the court needed to incorporate changing social morals into a "living constitution".
But the fact that both cases had to be manufactured because nobody was prosecuting that conduct demonstrates that the system was taking into account changing values via the legislative/ececutive process. Nobody enforced those laws because the people didn't care to have them enforced. When there truly is a shift in public morals/values, there's no need for the courts to step in because those changed beliefs will be reflected in the other branches of government.
Both cases were cures for which there was no disease. Unfortunately, as happens far too often, the cures were worse than the disease because they advanced the cause of judicial activism.
Who cares if the cops where set up???
Who cares if the phone call was a set-up???
Who cares if the gay men planned the whole feakin thing???
What does that have to do with whether or not gay sex sould be legal?
Well there is that little thing about deformed children that you need to work out first.
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.