Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: highball; JustSayNoToNannies; Canadian Lurker
I’m presuming that it wouldn’t actually be enforced against married couples, many of whom do these very things. If it is, that makes the law all the more tyrannical.

I don't agree that if anti-sodomy laws are less likely to be enforced against married couples (man-and-woman ones), that makes them tyrannical. Privacy happens. Married couples are entitled to a great deal of privacy, and unmarried couples, quite a bit less. Part of this has to do with public order, and the fact that you need to shield that order against scandalous behavior in order to protect nearby children and adults from its consequences. Unchaste or perverse acts have consequences—a kind of ripple effect of coarseness and recklessness that emanates from people whose lives revolve around gratification for its own sake.

Acts between people who aren't married are intrinsically more "public," because their relation to each other isn't permanent. A gay bar is a lot more public, and that's why the cops used to bust them. As they did non-gay bars that were essentially prostitution shopping centers.

Societies disappear and die without children. We have slipped below replacement level in our society, I think because our idea that various intoxicating substances and various acts against the natural law, because they can be gratifying to individuals, are a public right under all circumstances. They're not rights, but wrongs.

Locales always used to limit these activities and others such as loitering, by local codes, and under the U.S. Constitution, they have every right to do so. The Founders would have been appalled had they not—religious people, who are the intended beneficiaries of the USC, do not casually tolerate open immorality. If we want to follow the Constitution, we have to pay attention to where it says "Congress shall pass no law . . ." and where it explicitly leaves the rest "to the States and the People, respectively." If we don't like the blue-noses upstate, the USC allows us to move to Greenwich Village, where the local codes are very different indeed.

131 posted on 03/15/2013 9:42:04 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]


To: SamuraiScot; highball; Canadian Lurker
Married couples are entitled to a great deal of privacy, and unmarried couples, quite a bit less. [...] Acts between people who aren't married are intrinsically more "public," because their relation to each other isn't permanent.

That second sentence may be true under some strained and highly unusual definition of "public" - but that definition clearly has no legitimate bearing on privacy rights.

158 posted on 03/18/2013 7:43:50 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson