Supreme Court To Hear Key Sodomy and Pro-Life Cases

traditional Values Coalition ^ | Traditional Values Coalition

[webber]

Supreme Court To Hear Key Sodomy and Pro-Life Cases

Summary:The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments for abolishing the sodomy law in Texas. If ruled illegal, this decision will impact 13 states with sodomy laws on the books. The court is also hearing arguments on the legality of using the Racketeer and Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act against pro-life picketers.

During this new session of the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices will hear two key cases involving sodomy and the punishment of pro-lifers under a statute designed to be used against mobsters. The sodomy law challenge comes from the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a radical homosexual group that lobbies for the abolishment of laws against sodomy. The court will review the Texas prosecution of two men charged with engaging in homosexual conduct. The two men were fined $200 after pleading no contest to the misdemeanor charges.

Nine states ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. Texas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma only punish homosexual sodomy.

TVC is joining in filing an amicus brief in support of the Texas sodomy statute with the U.S. Justice Foundation and the Pro-Family Law Center. For more details, go to:Abiding truth
and to the U.S. Justice Foundation web site: U.S. Justice Foundation

The U.S. Supreme Court will also hear arguments over whether or not pro-life demonstrators can be sued under federal anti-racketeering laws. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) has been used in the past against pro-life demonstrators. This case involves pro-lifer Joseph Scheidler versus the National Organization for Women. Scheidler was found guilty under RICO in 1998 but has appealed his case to the Supreme Court.

According to Scheidler, this case involves "a fundamental question of the freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution." He continues: "Our country was founded on the right to protest injustice. There is no greater injustice than depriving unborn children of their right to life. I am counting on the Supreme Court to uphold our right to protest and to put an end to the use of RICO to silence protesters."

For a more detailed history of this case, go to: Pro-Life Action

---

This article comes from Traditional Values Coalition Traditional Values Coalition

---

http://traditionalvalues.org/article.php?sid=661

[Karsus]

I will save everyone a lot of trouble.

Oh NO!!! If the SCUS overturns the Texas sodomy law it will result in (public sex between gays, more porn magazines (like cozmo), the legalization of sex with kids/animals, and/or the complete and total unraveling of our social structure)

There, I just saved a lot of people a lot of time.

:->

[Texasforever]

In your learned opinion what constitutional violation will the court cite to overturn this law?

[Karsus]

Sorry. This is a topic that can not be discussed on this board. It quickly degenerates into a name calling session. It is almost as bad as saying something the GWB is doing is not 100% perfect.

:->

[Texasforever]

The law will be upheld on 10th amendment grounds. Sorry.

[For the Unborn]

In your learned opinion, when will CFR be overturned?

[Karsus]

What about equal protection under the law?

[Texasforever]

In your learned opinion, when will CFR be overturned?

It will not be overturned only the issue ad ban portion that has a 1st amendment component to it.

[Texasforever]

What about equal protection under the law?

Only if the law applies only to gays. The Texas law applies to all.

[Texasforever]

I stand corrected, Texas law only applies to gays. It may be overturned unless the law is changed.

[Karsus]

One question, what right does the state have to control what I do with my wife in bed?


From:
http://news.christiansunite.com/religion/religion02763.shtml

"The high court announced Dec. 2 it would review a Texas court decision sustaining a state law banning sexual relations between members of the same sex. Arguments in the case should be heard early next year, and a ruling is expected by next summer."

[Karsus]

Just ignore my last msg.

[Texasforever]

One question, what right does the state have to control what I do with my wife in bed?

Have you been arrested?

[Karsus]

No. But if they law is to be applied fairly then I/we could be. Last time I checked this was still America and the laws were ment to be enforced equally.

But that didn't answer my question. What right does the state have in regulating what my wife and I do in bed? We are both consenting adults.

[Texasforever]

The fact is that the old "blue" laws serve a purpose. The old MANN Act is still on the books and is the only federal law involving sex in the country. I think the last time anyone was charged under the law was one of the old gangsters in the '30s.

[Karsus]

What purpose is that? I fail to see what right the state has in regulating what my wife and I do in bed.

[Karsus]

This is just from a very quick read of the MANN act. I may be wrong.

This: "Transportation generally Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both" seams to say that if I take my wife to a state where it is againts the law to have oral sex, and we have oral sex, then we could go to prison for five year? That is insane.

[Texasforever]

I fail to see what right the state has in regulating what my wife and I do in bed.

For the simple reason that the law is not targeted at you and your wife it is in reality targeted at homosexuals who have a real tendency to not be content to limit their sexual activities to the bedroom even with this law. Homosexuals only have sodomy as a sexual choice and I can promise you they practice it with gusto in Houston. They are hardly oppressed. As I said, since this law is strictly for homosexuals it may well be overturned.

[Karsus]

But that violates the equal protection clause of the USC.

[Karsus]

There are already laws about sex in public. Sex acts in public are already covered under seperate laws.