Posted on 07/20/2006 10:13:56 AM PDT by SmithL
Raleigh, N.C. -- A state judge has ruled that North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued last year to overturn the rarely enforced law on behalf of a former sheriff's dispatcher who says she had to quit her job because she wouldn't marry her live-in boyfriend.
Deborah Hobbs, 40, says her boss, Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, near Wilmington, told her to get married, move out or find another job after he found out she and her boyfriend had been living together for three years. The couple did not want to get married, so Hobbs quit in 2004.
State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs' constitutional right to liberty. He cited the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case titled Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law.
"The Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas stands for the proposition that the government has no business regulating relationships between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home," Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Instead of repeating your talking points after you get caught, why don't you try addressing what others write?
You 'caught' me? Doing what?
I was the one who pointed out that it's you libertine wackos that wanted judges to retain power, instead of the people through their elected representatives.
Whatever. You are so positive that everyone but you is a 'wacko', and that you can say anything to make a point, -- that there is little or no point in attempting to reason with you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scalia's quote is copied as it appears in Findlaw, ellipses & all. Your personal attacks are unwarranted.
No, Unedited Scalia's comment is thus: In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all Men … are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage." The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.
How odd. That's exactly as I quoted him.
Now, I understand that it's really hard for you to understand what Scalia is saying. But his comment completely destroys your position.
Not at all. You misunderstand Scalia. --- His 'bold' position is that he has no power to "deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right." -- Quite true, he has no power to so deny.. He only has the job to make decisions on the constitutionality of such laws. The other branches have the power to change or enforce such laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no "rewrite" of the 9th. -- -- Our rights to life, liberty, or property [substantive rights] can not be infringed upon, -- they can only reasonably regulated with due process of law.
There absolutely is a rewrite of the 9th.
Where? In your mind?
The 9th itself does not confer substantive rights, it's merely a rule of construction.
"-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.. --"
Like the right to breath air, which is substantive enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" -- `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . "
"Fornication" laws are the epitome of "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --"
In the VERY OPINION THAT YOU ARE QUOTING, JUSTICE HARLAN STATES THAT LAWS AGAINST ADULTERY, FORNICATION, AND HOMOSEXUALITY are valid.
Nope, not valid.. -- They are "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --" unless they can be shown to meet reasonable standards that do not violate due process, depriving people of life, liberty, or property.
You invoked him, he stated it, your stuck with his opinion.
I'm quite happy with his opinion.
He can't be any more clear. I realize that you don't have a law degree, and that you probably just cut and pasted a small portion of Justice Harlan's opinion that some libertine buddy gave you, but if you read what Justice Harlan actually wrote You will see that he would have upheld the Fornication laws in question here.
I don't 'see' that at all. You see it because you want States to have the power to prohibit. Our liberties cannot be prohibited:
" -- `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . "
Lying. BTW: How's Liberty Post?
Whatever. You are so positive that everyone but you is a 'wacko', and that you can say anything to make a point, -- that there is little or no point in attempting to reason with you.
No, I am postive that certain kinds of folks are wacko. And you don't have a reputation for "reasoning" anyway. Either here or on other boards.
How odd. That's exactly as I quoted him.
NOPE, you cut him off, trying to make it appear as if he endorses the Libertarian position on the 9th Amendment. He absolutely does not. And he makes it clear.
What's even more laughable, is that you don't even understand what he is saying when it the portion you bolded. At issue in Troxel was a Statute in Washington State which allowed any person to petition for a court-ordered right to see a child over a custodial parent's objection, provided that such visitation is found to be in the child's best interest, unconstitutionally interfere with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children.
The majority opinion struck down that statute. Scalia dissented. Scalia would have UPHELD the statute, as he understood properly that the 9th Amendment does not grant substantive rights, and that the libertine view of the 9th would empower judges, not the people through their elected representatives.
Not at all. You misunderstand Scalia. --- His 'bold' position is that he has no power to "deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right." -- Quite true, he has no power to so deny.. He only has the job to make decisions on the constitutionality of such laws. The other branches have the power to change or enforce such laws.
Sorry, I don't misunderstand Scalia at all, and I am not the one trying to make him out to be saying something that he isn't. But I do understand where you are coming from. Libertine ideology doesn't mesh well with reading comprehension.
You libertines do this all the time, you bold one portion of a lengthy passage in the Constitution, or judicial opinion, and try to ignore what immediately preceeds and follows it. That doesn't work.
As I said above, Scalia DISSENTED from the majority holding which established an "unenumerated parental right". Scalia stated that while he personally held the view that such a right existed, the 9th Amendment did not affirm ANY unenumerated rights, and that judges had no right trying to identify what "rights" were unenumerated in the 9th in the 1st Place.
Scalia went on to say:
Judicial vindication of “parental rights” under a Constitution that does not even mention them requires (as Justice Kennedy’s opinion rightly points out) not only a judicially crafted definition of parents, but also–unless, as no one believes, the parental rights are to be absolute–judicially approved assessments of “harm to the child” and judicially defined gradations of other persons (grandparents, extended family, adoptive family in an adoption later found to be invalid, long-term guardians, etc.) who may have some claim against the wishes of the parents. If we embrace this unenumerated right, I think it obvious–whether we affirm or reverse the judgment here, or remand as Justice Stevens or Justice Kennedy would do–that we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.2
Where? In your mind?
Nope, in yours.
"-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.. --" Like the right to breath air, which is substantive enough.
[T]he Constitution’s refusal to “deny or disparage” other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.
"In contrast to the first eight amendments, the Ninth Amendment does not specify any rights of the people, rather it serves as a savings clause to keep from lowering, degrading or rejecting any rights which are not specifically mentioned in the document itself. The Ninth Amendment does not raise those unmentioned rights to constitutional stature; it simply takes cognizance of their general existence. This is not to say that no unenumerated rights are constitutional in nature, for some of them may be found in the penumbras of the first eight amendments or in the liberty concept of the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, rise to constitutional magnitude. It is only to say, however, that unenumerated rights do not rise to constitutional magnitude by reason of the Ninth Amendment. The foregoing interpretation of the Ninth Amendment is supported by the history of that provision, which reflects that the Ninth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. 1 Annals of Congress 438-40 (1789); II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 626-27 & 651 (5th ed. 1891). Therefore, this court is of the opinion that there is nothing in the Ninth Amendment to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment as the Ninth Amendment is merely a rule of construction. The alternative interpretation, which is unacceptable to this court, would be to construe the Ninth Amendment as incorporating all fundamental rights into the Constitution, although they were never intended to be rights of constitutional magnitude." CHARLES v. BROWN, 495 F. Supp. 862 (N.D. Ala. 1980)
"Fornication" laws are the epitome of "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --"
I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced. So much [367 U.S. 497, 553] has been explicitly recognized in acknowledging the State's rightful concern for its people's moral welfare. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) (Harlan, J Dissenting).
Nope, not valid.. -- They are "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --" unless they can be shown to meet reasonable standards that do not violate due process, depriving people of life, liberty, or property.
You demonstrate my point about retardation. You invoked Justice Harlan, and cite his own words ""-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --"
Then you try to ignore the fact that he lays out that traditional laws that protect morality ARE NOT "arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints". He explicitly holds that Fornication, Adultery and Laws Criminalizing Homosexuality are perfectly acceptable.
The right of privacy most manifestly is not an absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced. So much [367 U.S. 497, 553] has been explicitly recognized in acknowledging the State's rightful concern for its people's moral welfare. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) (Harlan, J Dissenting).
Can you read? Can Justice Harlan be any more clear? He makes clear that the right of privacy is NOT absolute, and that adultery, homosexuality, incest and fornication ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL LAWS, no matter HOW PRIVATE each may be practiced. He expressly stated that the State has a rightful concern in the moral welfare of the people in such cases.
I don't 'see' that at all. You see it because you want States to have the power to prohibit. Our liberties cannot be prohibited:
If you can't see the clear writing of the very person you invoked, then your either an idiot, or your a dishonest hack. Which is it?
Yet the very inclusion of the category of morality among state concerns indicates that society is not limited in its objects only to the physical well-being of the community, [367 U.S. 497, 546] but has traditionally concerned itself with the moral soundness of its people as well. Indeed to attempt a line between public behavior and that which is purely consensual or solitary would be to withdraw from community concern a range of subjects with which every society in civilized times has found it necessary to deal. The laws regarding marriage which provide both when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices which express the negative of the proposition, confining sexuality to lawful marriage, form a pattern so deeply pressed into the substance of our social life that any Constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that basis. Compare McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 . Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids altogether, but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extra-marital sexuality altogether, or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy. ... The right of privacy most manifestly is not an absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced. So much [367 U.S. 497, 553] has been explicitly recognized in acknowledging the State's rightful concern for its people's moral welfare. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) (Harlan, J Dissenting).
Why do you feel it necessary to lie about the person you invoked?
Our rights are not granted by documents. They are sometimes confirmed in them, or enshrined in them, but they are not granted by them. And the absence of a right from the text of a documents does not mean, in the least, that the right does not exist and is not fundamental.
-lugsoul
Beautiful. Immediately stolen for re-use, not necessarily with attribution! Thanks for saying this.
Lying.
Any one that disagrees with you is a wacko liar? You need rest, monkey.
BTW: How's Liberty Post? I am postive that certain kinds of folks are wacko. And you don't have a reputation for "reasoning" anyway. Either here or on other boards.
LP? -- Thanks for the clue.. -- I think I see the pattern here. You're a disgruntled lawyer I've 'outed' before at FR, and then at LP. -- That you OPH? -- Just couldn't stay away without some kind of 'payback', eh?
You misunderstand Scalia. --- His 'bold' position is that he has no power to "deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right." -- Quite true, he has no power to so deny.. He only has the job to make decisions on the constitutionality of such laws. The other branches have the power to change or enforce such laws.
Sorry, I don't misunderstand Scalia at all, and I am not the one trying to make him out to be saying something that he isn't. But I do understand where you are coming from. Libertine ideology doesn't mesh well with reading comprehension. You libertines do this all the time, you bold one portion of a lengthy passage in the Constitution, or judicial opinion, and try to ignore what immediately preceeds and follows it. That doesn't work.
It worked. All you can do is sputter about "libertines".
"-- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.. --" Like the right to breath air, which is substantive enough.
"-- This is not to say that no unenumerated rights are constitutional in nature, for some of them may be found in the penumbras of the first eight amendments or in the liberty concept of the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, rise to constitutional magnitude.
1 Annals of Congress 438-40 (1789); II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 626-27 & 651 (5th ed. 1891).
Therefore, this court is of the opinion that there is nothing in the Ninth Amendment to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment as the Ninth Amendment is merely a rule of construction. The alternative interpretation, which is unacceptable to this court, would be to construe the Ninth Amendment as incorporating all fundamental rights into the Constitution, although they were never intended to be rights of constitutional magnitude." CHARLES v. BROWN, 495 F. Supp. 862 (N.D. Ala. 1980)
You cite 'penumbras' and incorporation doctrine to support your belief that the 9th is "unsubstantive"? Dream on.
Fornication" laws are the epitome of "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --" unless they can be shown to meet reasonable standards that do not violate due process, depriving people of life, liberty, or property.
Can Justice Harlan be any more clear? He makes clear that the right of privacy is NOT absolute, and that adultery, homosexuality, incest and fornication ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL LAWS, no matter HOW PRIVATE each may be practiced.
He's absolutely right. -- But the State has no power to write laws that are "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --" unless they can be shown to meet reasonable standards that do not violate due process, depriving people of life, liberty, or property.
Why do you feel it necessary to lie about the person you invoked?
Why do you feel it necessary to lie about the person you disagree with?
You've been using this same ploy since the first time you registered at FR, years ago. -- Pretty sad when a hot shot lawyer is reduced to pointing the liar-liar finger. Grow up.
Exactly. I just read the article on the 16 year old Iranian girl who was hung from a crane for having sex. She claimed she was raped, but that only infuriated the judge who personally put the noose around her neck. All this based solely on religion. While we don't hang children here for such "crimes" as being raped, we must continually guard against the same mindset by religious fanatics who want their Biblical moral code as the basis for the laws in our Country. Mullahs and ministers need to keep their religions out of the Constitution and the laws of this Nation.
No people who tell lies are wacko liars.
LP? -- Thanks for the clue.. -- I think I see the pattern here. You're a disgruntled lawyer I've 'outed' before at FR, and then at LP. -- That you OPH? -- Just couldn't stay away without some kind of 'payback', eh?
LOL. You really think too highly of yourself. I doubt that you have ever "outed" anyone. And no, I'm not "OPH".
It worked. All you can do is sputter about "libertines".
It doesn't work, other than to prove that you are a liar. You can't cut a small sentence out of a paragraph and ignore everything that preceeds and follows it.
You cite 'penumbras' and incorporation doctrine to support your belief that the 9th is "unsubstantive"? Dream on.
You really can't read can you?
He's absolutely right. -- But the State has no power to write laws that are "-- arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints --" unless they can be shown to meet reasonable standards that do not violate due process, depriving people of life, liberty, or property.
And Justice Harlan belived that Forincation, Adultery, Homosexuality, and Incest were all reasonable and necessary.
Yet the very inclusion of the category of morality among state concerns indicates that society is not limited in its objects only to the physical well-being of the community, [367 U.S. 497, 546] but has traditionally concerned itself with the moral soundness of its people as well. Indeed to attempt a line between public behavior and that which is purely consensual or solitary would be to withdraw from community concern a range of subjects with which every society in civilized times has found it necessary to deal. The laws regarding marriage which provide both when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up, as well as laws forbidding adultery, fornication and homosexual practices which express the negative of the proposition, confining sexuality to lawful marriage, form a pattern so deeply pressed into the substance of our social life that any Constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that basis. Compare McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 . Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids altogether, but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extra-marital sexuality altogether, or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy. ..."[T]he family . . . is not beyond regulation," Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, and it would be an absurdity to suggest either that offenses may not be committed in the bosom of the family or that the home can be made a sanctuary for crime. The right of privacy most manifestly is not an absolute. Thus, I would not suggest that adultery, homosexuality, fornication and incest are immune from criminal enquiry, however privately practiced. So much [367 U.S. 497, 553] has been explicitly recognized in acknowledging the State's rightful concern for its people's moral welfare. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) (Harlan, J Dissenting).
So, since you conceed that he is absolutely right, you by default conceed that laws against Fornication, Adultery, Homosexuality and Incest are all Constitutional.
Why do you feel it necessary to lie about the person you disagree with?
I am only pointing out facts. And you have a reputation which follows you to other boards, boards other than LP I might add.
You've been using this same ploy since the first time you registered at FR, years ago. -- Pretty sad when a hot shot lawyer is reduced to pointing the liar-liar finger. Grow up.
You think you know who I am, but you couldn't be further off. Keep trying, you'll get it some day. LOL!
"It's just that the libertine rewrite of the 9th Amendment as actually granting substantive rights is patently flawed."
Remarkably enough, you're right... the Ninth Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution for the United States) does not GRANT rights. The whole document is a recognition of PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS, granted by our Creator (or by Nature if you are not a believer). However, your correctness in the specific is NOT your intent, as I note with lugout's quote:
"Our rights are not granted by documents. They are sometimes confirmed in them, or enshrined in them, but they are not granted by them. And the absence of a right from the text of a documents does not mean, in the least, that the right does not exist and is not fundamental."
Hate to interupt such a great (not) rant, but did you even bother to read the article? It was a state judge, using the state constitution. No federal courts involved.
False. This particular decision took power away from the state and gave it back to the people where it belongs. You as an individual have (or should have) the right to live with whoever you damned well want, and the state should have no say in the matter at all.
I agreed with most of what you wrote, until you got to this, and this alone is why I could never truly agree with you. Laws don't encourage, they force. Law is the threat of force by the state. To call the use of governmental force "encouragement" is the euphamism of all euphamisms.
There can be no case made for two men "marrying", either, but that hasn't stopped a court from imposing it. Your consent argument doesn't hold up, either, in regards to human-animal "marriage" since animals aren't required to consent to anything we can legally do to them. We can kill them, ride them, hook them up to carts, steal their eggs, etc., all without their consent. Why would "marrying" them suddenly require their consent?
Tolerating a little judicial activism because it happened to result in something you approve of just leads to more such activism later. It's why government has grown so exponentially since the sexual/judicial/Great Society revolutions of the sixties. Swedish type socialist Nanny States are the end result.
No people who tell lies are wacko liars.
You're obsessed with calling people liars. Grow up.
LP? -- Thanks for the clue.. -- I think I see the pattern here. You're a disgruntled lawyer I've 'outed' before at FR, and then at LP. -- That you OPH? -- Just couldn't stay away without some kind of 'payback', eh?
LOL. You really think too highly of yourself. I doubt that you have ever "outed" anyone. And no, I'm not "OPH".
Well if you know about OPH, you know I 'outed' him.
Why do you feel it necessary to lie about the person you disagree with?
I am only pointing out facts. And you have a reputation which follows you to other boards, boards other than LP I might add.
Of course I have a 'reputation'. I've been arguing with prohibitionists like you for over eight years now, -- and outing you as anti-constitutional zealots.
You've been using this same ploy since the first time you registered at FR, years ago. -- Pretty sad when a hot shot lawyer is reduced to pointing the liar-liar finger. Grow up.
You think you know who I am, but you couldn't be further off. Keep trying, you'll get it some day. LOL!
You think I care who you are.. I don't. In a way all you anti-constitutionalists are the same.
You think its cute to 'LOL' at liberty.
Judicial activism is used to INCREASE the power, scope and authority of government. Strking down laws that keep improper power in the hands of government is NOT judicial ACTIVISM. It is the judiciary doing its proper job. ANYTHING which decreases the size and scope of goernment at all levels is jake with me. EVEN IF it decriminalizes a behavior of which I might disapprove. Because at THAT point, it becomes the business of SOCIETY to express disapproval, as distinct from government. SHUNNING is a common method.
Also bear in mind that neither you, I, nor anyone else has ANY right to be, or even a reasonable expectation of being, free from offensive or distasteful sights, sounds or behavior. Thus it behooves us to develop a thick skin with respect to such things or spend all our time shunning those whose behavior offends us.
Also, your animal thing is just plain wrong. We can own, ride, go hunting with, kill and eat, etcetera, our animals; however, it IS reasonable and proper to prohibit sexual relations between people and animals. Since "marriage" almost always involves sexual congress, that can also be prohibited inter species.
I think libertarians are usually sincere, but I think you badly underestimate the cunningness and the tactics used by liberals.
####ANYTHING which decreases the size and scope of goernment at all levels is jake with me.####
That's a nice general statement and IN GENERAL I agree with you, but I'm sure you don't mean it literally.
####Also bear in mind that neither you, I, nor anyone else has ANY right to be, or even a reasonable expectation of being, free from offensive or distasteful sights, sounds or behavior. Thus it behooves us to develop a thick skin with respect to such things or spend all our time shunning those whose behavior offends us.####
I won't argue with you on that since I'm a strong supporter of free speech, but I'm sure you know your statement can't be absolute.
####Also, your animal thing is just plain wrong. We can own, ride, go hunting with, kill and eat, etcetera, our animals; however, it IS reasonable and proper to prohibit sexual relations between people and animals. Since "marriage" almost always involves sexual congress, that can also be prohibited inter species.####
You're underestimating liberals again. If liberals operated using logic, we wouldn't be having this huge debate right now over gay "marriage" and we wouldn't be having to amend our state constitutions to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Not so long ago, everyone would have agreed that two men can't marry one another, because marriage requires a man and a woman. States didn't bother to define marriage in their state constitutions because common sense once told everyone that two people of the same sex can't marry. Then one day we woke up and found a few loonies howling for gay "marriage". Then a little later we woke up and found that a strategy was in place to use the court system to force gay "marriage" on the entire country. And then we saw gay "marriage" forced on the state of Massachusetts by their judiciary.
So when you say it's reasonable to prohibit "marriage" and sex between humans and animals, I agree with you. Most people agree with you. But that same thing could have been said for homosexual "marriage" and sex for the entirety of our history as a nation until fairly recently. But now we have a vocal and well-positioned minority demanding gay "marriage", and they may well succeed in using federal power to force it on the people of America against our will. And one of the precedents they'll use is Lawrence, which you libertarians all applauded at the time, but which we conservatives warned would, in the long run, lead to a net increase in government power. The bottom line is that your logical arguments against human-animal "marriage" will be tossed aside with impunity if that becomes a liberal cause a decade or two from now.
Your definition of rights isn't the same as liberals' definition of rights. How many libertarians are judges in the United States? Not many I'd wager. How many are liberals? A ton of them. So when you see these rulings coming down such as Lawrence and this North Carolina cohabitation ruling, that at first seem "libertarian", remember that they probably aren't, and that already there are forces at work which will turn that ruling into a net increase in government power. What starts as a seemingly reasonable request to mind our own business regarding other peoples' conduct can quickly become a requirement that we subsidize the conduct in question, that we be banned from "discriminating" against the conduct (even on our own property), that criticism of the conduct be stifled in public discourse, that private organizations be stripped of their right to exclude the conduct in question, etc.
And thus these seemingly libertarian rulings lead to more government in the long run, which explains the mystery of why leftists supported Lawrence and support other similar rulings.
Would you support passage of a law banning housing discrimination against cohabitors. This law would, for example, forbid a Christian landlord from refusing to rent an apartment he owns to a "shacking up" couple. Also, suppose a private organization refuses to admit people who are cohabiting because the group's by-laws teach that such behavior is immoral. Should such a group be banned from using public facilities unless they change their policy to one of acceptance of cohabitation?
Very quickly, since I have to work later this morning... I would NOT support such laws/policies as they are as much a violation of rights as outlawing cohabitation itself is. A property owner has every right to do with HIS OWN property as he wills, period. It may be short sighted and foolish in the long run, but that is the owner's choice.
ALSO... every individual has exactly the same rights as everyone else, no more and no less. Your previous comments on rights and the Ninth Amendment are as wrong and bogus as two left shoes. See also my comment and definition of what a RIGHT really is. Rights cannot conflict. I have a right to cohabit (if my wife would allow it) or smoke wacky-tobacky (ditto on the allow part). You have a right not to associate with me in any way, if you choose, which includes not renting me an apartment or admitting me to your group. Is that clear enough for you? (if not, there's tomorrow, 'cause I'm outta here for the rest of the night.)
I appreciate your comments. You're a true libertarian. As i'm sure you know, I'm not one, but I do respect true libertarians for their consistency.
You stated that you would oppose a law to force a landlord to rent to a cohabiting couple, and would also oppose forcing a private organization to accept cohabitation against their will, But now that cohabitation has been declared to be a right, isn't the door wide open for laws which force people to accept it?
Once something is defined as a right, a hue and cry soon goes up to prohibit "discrimination" against its practitioners. Why should people be "discriminated" against for exercising their rights? Or so the argument goes.
The classic example of this is homosexuality. Libertarians joined liberals in taking homosexuality out of the closet. They thought they were promoting "freedom" and "rights" by doing so. They thought they were limiting the size of government. The original demand of the gay agenda crowd was to "get government out of our bedrooms". And so, sodomy laws were repealed. Local ordinances restricting gay bathhouses and clubs were removed. A decrease in the size of government, right?
Well, not quite. In many of those cases, the feds came in and violated local autonomy to accomplish these goals. Then, AIDS spread like wildfire in the bathhouse & club subcultures, which has cost the taxpayers an awful lot of money.
But that's just the beginning. Once homosexuality was out of the closet, it didn't practice the "live and let live" philosophy of the libertarians. Quite the opposite. The now liberated gay movement has pushed for more and more and more government at all levels. They've succeeded in passing anti-discrimination laws, forcing people to hire them and rent to them, even Christians whose property rights and religious liberty (actual rights from the actual Constitution, not one of these unenumerated fantasies) have to be restricted to accommodate the gays. Next, gays demanded that kids be taught homosexuality in school, and that any negative opinions about it be censored. They've pretty much got that one won. They came within a single vote on the Supreme Court of forcing the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. A Democrat president or two will overturn that ruling and that will be the end of freedom of association as far as homosexuality is concerned.
Let's see. We're having to amend all our state constitutions to limit marriage to one man and one woman as direct fallout of all this. We'll either have to amend the federal constitution as well, or have to sit limply and watch as federal judges order us to sanction gay "marriage" nationwide. And we haven't even got started yet. After all, we're still late bloomers on all this gay stuff. Look at Canada, and Sweden, and Britain, and other nations where they "liberated" homosexuals a few years before we did. In Sweden, they secretly tape church sermons to monitor for violations of the law against speaking negatively about homosexuality. In Canada, a school teacher who wrote a letter to the editor opposing gay "marriage" is in danger of being fired. In Britain, they just passed a law forcing pub owners to permit gay kissing in their establishments. And we can't throw up any legal barriers to stop any of this. In Romer, the court barred us from doing that.
All this is coming soon to an America near you. Oh, it'll take a little longer because we have that pesky 1st Amendment, but that didn't stop the IRS from stripping churches of their tax exemption if they don't perform interracial marriages, and the same will eventually happen to churches that don't "marry" gay couples.
So, we repealed the laws against sodomy and celebrated the "decrease" in the size of government. But look at the exponential growth of government that sprang out of it. And a decade from now it'll be even worse. Imagine being a business owner and hosting a Valentine's Day special for couples, and failing to include gays. See you in court! Imagine running a dating service that doesn't accommodate gays. See you in court again! The growth in government that has come (and will come, because we're still early into this) from repealing those little state laws that banned sodomy has been enormous.
Wait'll the FCC rules that a certain percentage of TV commercials must feature gay couples, or that TV and radio stations which "offend" gays lose their licenses.
So, this little decrease in the size of government in North Carolina stemming from repeal of that 201 year old anti-cohabitation law, could easily blossom in another direction. And if history is judge, it probably will.
Yes, I made an error, it WAS a State Judge using a Federal Court precedent to overturn the North Carolina State Statute.
The Federal Court decision concerned an anti-sodomy law.
In both cases, the courts were, in my opnion, wrong.
Any civilzed society has a right to ban behavior it deems offensive. The rights of the individaul have to be balance against the rights of society, but total disregard for society rights in favor of the rights of the individual results in an anarchistic society.
There are good solid moral reasons why fornication and sodomy have not been tolerated in the past and I see no reason - other than to please the ACLU, a handful of pernicious perverts, and a growing minority of irresponsible adults, to change them.
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.