Santorum is Right, and You Should Be Supporting Him: An Explanation of Lawrence v. Texas

Serious Vanity | 4-26 | TOH

[WOSG]

"I don't know if the homosexual sodomy law is unconstitutional or not, and I've never said otherwise; that's why it's at the Supreme Court."

If that is your standard, then we DO know: It's been Constitutional for the past 200 years. The USSC hasnt ruled otherwise everytime the issue has come to them.

[WOSG]

I am Catholic and not in favor of casino gambling.
Let's not generalize.

besides, gambling is a poor analogy. Unlike sodomy, which is not enforced anywhere in the US seriously, most state still prohibit some form of gambling and enforce those laws.

[Eva]

What Santorum said was that Texas had the right to set whatever laws the people wanted and that other states could set their own laws.

[tpaine]

You have some bizarre ideas on the history of the 14th. The actual 1868 debates on why it was needed are online. Read them.

I wrote:
Nope, that's backwards. The point is, these laws violate our BOR's.

You replied:

Those who assert the above have the words of the constitution against them,

I've quoted some of those words on this thread. Where are your rebuttals?

legal history against them,

Again, I've quoted some history, with no counters. Or, post your own.

and santorum's point to overcome: namely, that a broad 'privacy right' that covers sodomy covers all manner of sex acts.

Of course it does. His point is a given. The real point is that it doesn't matter, - as the constitution over-rules on the main issue.

[Roscoe]

Where in the BOR is there a inalienable right to engage in sodomy?

That's easy. It's crawling about in the same fetid shadow-world penumbra as the right to kill unborn children, just waiting for the libertarians and libertines to imagine it into existence.

[Roscoe]

There's lots of bad stuff going on out there that shouldn't be turned into crimes.

Isn't that a matter for the Texas legislature to decide?

[sinkspur]

Isn't that a matter for the Texas legislature to decide?

Actually, yes. The more I read and research this, the more I'm coming over to the side that the Supremes should leave these kinds of things up to the state.

Especially since my boys tell me no police department in its right mind would arrest sodomizers. It's actually no harm, no foul.

I don't think they will though. The SC wouldn't have taken this case if they were simply going to reaffirm precedence.

I still think that Santorum made a mess of what was, ultimately, a correct position.

[tpaine]

Maybe it's crawling about in the same fetid shadow-world mind that claims states have the right to prohibit the RKBA's, hummmm roscoe?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Rape is rape, anyone who rapes anyone is guilty. There isn't such a law that makes it OK for some to rape, and others not to. That's the case in Texas, where in the eyes of the law, a woman can consent to have a man insert his penis in her rectum, but for a man to do the same it is a crime.

No, draw a comparison between rape laws and that.

[Roscoe]

fetid shadow-world mind that claims states have the right to prohibit the RKBA's

You think that states may prohibit the RKBA, but that they have to permit sodomy? Bizarre.

[Roscoe]

Rape is rape, anyone who rapes anyone is guilty.

Statutory rape.

[Kevin Curry]

man to do the same it is a crime.

That's right. Any man who does so with any other man has broken the law.

Look at it this way. It similar to a public disorder charge that a man could be convicted of if he intentionally barged into a women's restroom. Could he claim 14th Amendment protection by screaming, "No fair! My girlfriend invited me in, and anyway there was a whole bunch of other women in there and they weren't charged with public disorder!"

Now don't get wrapped around the axle because this example involves a male-female circustance. The issue is equal protection.

You're making far more of this than common sense and logic require.

[Jhoffa_]

(Note: You may sodomize with this bunny unless prohibited by law, check local listings, some restrictions apply, see store for details, offer not valid in Mass or other weird states, include $6.95 shipping & handling, topical use only, no step, remove packaging prior to use.)

[tpaine]

Bizarro roscoe. You think that states must prohibit the RKBA's, and they have to outlaw sodomy? Why?

[tpaine]

Only in kevins world would a man intentionally barge into a women's restroom and then claim 14th Amendment protection.

[Roscoe]

You think that states must prohibit the RKBA's, and they have to outlaw sodomy?

False and false. What else is new?

Perhaps you could explain how sodomy came to be a Constitutional right?

[Roscoe]

Look at it this way. It similar to a public disorder charge that a man could be convicted of if he intentionally barged into a women's restroom. Could he claim 14th Amendment protection by screaming, "No fair! My girlfriend invited me in, and anyway there was a whole bunch of other women in there and they weren't charged with public disorder!"

Given enough time, the "Constitution means whatever I want it to" crowd will get there.

[Torie]

but Catholics would be all in favor of casino gambling.

That is about the worst slam on Catholics I have heard yet. I don't approve of state sanctioned gambling that separates those that can't afford it from their money. Granted, it is a losing battle. The Indian tribe lobby has totally screwed us.

[tpaine]

Perhaps roscoe, you could explain how states came to have a Constitutional right to prohibit guns & sin?

[weegee]

Should he start with prostitution laws?