Posted on 04/26/2003 12:28:27 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier
Probably because they made sodomy illegal for all citizens.
Sodomy, adultery, and fornication were all addressed in colonial times, and they were illegal for all people, so what's changed since then is that the majority wishes to have that restriction lifted (notice that adultery and fornication do not get a mention) from heterosexuals, but held firm for homosexuals.
There are no laws against premarital sex (fornication) in Texas, there are no laws making adultery illegal in Texas, and sodomy is legal in Texas for some, but not for others. We have destroyed the Founding Father's nation, and now, we are embracing some convaluded point which would allow some to commit sodomy, but not others.
I don't think that bringing the Founding Fathers in on this argument is a real good idea, morally speaking, they would think us all perverts.
I have taken, as I do so often, the position of devil's advocate in the fact that I am attempting to look at this from a non-biased perspective.
I think that the flaw in the argument here is the law itself, and the way it is worded in Texas. Unfortunately, and I mean unfortunately because I am no friend of the "gay agenda", this law left itself open for challenges.
Below, is the what I believe to be the thrust of the case against the Texas law, from Court's transcripts, the speaker is Paul M. Smith, for the plaintiffs:
"The one thing that, I submit the court, the state should not be able to come in to say is: We are going to permit ourselves, the majority of people in our society, full and free rein to make these decisions for ourselves, but theres one minority of people [who] dont get that decision and the only reason were going to give you is we want it that way. We want them to be unequal in their choices and their freedoms, because we think we should have the right to commit adultery, to commit fornication, to commit sodomy. And the state should have no basis for intruding into our lives, but we dont want those people over there to have the same right."
Let's see the text. I read it, and I don't see any such right.
All rights need not be enumerated, nor could they be. - Too many.. Get logical.
And why was the right to any private sexual behavior never recognized before by the federal government or any state government?
Because the FF weren't that stupid? Privacy in a 'mans castle' in those days was an obvious right, one that had been violated by the quartering of soldiers.. Thus the 3rd amendment.
For the fourth time, you keep ignoring the fact that we've had sodomy laws since well before the founding of this country, and the FFs had no problem with them at all.
Yep, I ignore their irrational laws about slavery as well. Most anyone is a hypocrite about some aspects of life.
Also, even if you want to argue that citizens have a non-enumerated right to some expectation of privacy--a reasonable idea--you cannot rationally argue that it is a blanket, absolute right.
I'm not arguing absolutes, and never have.
Big of you to admit privacy is reasonable tho. - Thanks.
As the constitution also states, warrants can lead to searches of homes, so any "right of privacy" in one's house is a conditional right to begin with.
Unreasonable searches are violations.
Moreover, a non-enumerated right to privacy would protect you from unwarranted surveillance during acts of sodomy, but it would not protect you from prosecution based on your private actions, including sodomy, if you were caught
'Caught' at what? - 'Sin'? - The state has no power to ban such acts.
--ie, you invited a cop into the home, or he came with a warrant, while you were engaged in sodomy, just as if you had invited him in while you were doing drugs or killing someone. The English principle that "a man's home is his castle" does not mean that anything you do in your home is legal--the false principle that your argument depends on.
You simply repeat your theory that states have the power to prohibit damn near anything. Eating horsemeat can be deemed a 'crime' in your view.
Getta Grip.
Well, the founding fathers agreed with me on sodomy, anyway. And you just keep repeating your theory that states DON'T have the power to prohibit damn near anything.
Eating horsemeat can be deemed a 'crime' in your view.
In some states, it probably IS a crime to eat horsemeat. :-)
Look, you're just assuming that libertarian principles are contained within the constitution, or that just because the government does not NEED to regulate something, it also CANNOT regulate it. I agree that many state governments regulate too much, and that means you should change the law through the political process. But there are only certain specific things that governments ABSOLUTELY CANNOT regulate, and that's the only time we invoke the constitution. To create a whole new category of such things, as this ruling may and as you want to, is not something to be taken lightly or jumped into without considering the consequences--namely the downfall of laws against other consensual sex acts that even pro-sodomy people think should be illegal.
States have always had the power to regulate matters of health and morals--that's all over SCOTUS precedent. Some states do so more than others. For sodomy, which is definitely unhealthy and also widely considered immoral, it is not unreasonable to see the state's compelling interest--if for no other reason than the health problems it creates.
Hundreds of children are still born in this country with AIDS each year, and almost all of them--really, it's probably all of them--get it because someone a rung or two up the chain of sexual activity got it through sodomy and passed it to the birth mother. Sodomy is an extremely high-risk activity, several times more likely than almost anything else--and definitely more likely than any other form of sexual activity--to pass along AIDS. That alone, aside from moral considerations, seems like a compelling interest to me.
So there is one possible argument for why states should be able to criminalize sodomy. I don't think it's the only one, or even the best one necessarily, but there is a good rationale for it.
There are also arguments against criminalizing it. Fine. So go pass a new law in Texas instead of soiling our constitution with this new alleged right and all of the consequences it will bring with it.
Without digging back into the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, I've not the inclination to rehash a topic which has already been beaten to death. The communications between the founders, and the discussions which occurred in the State assemblies prior to the ratification of the Constition, made clear the reasoning of the Second Amendment. The intent was that free citizens would not lawfully be deprived of their God-given right to the means to protect themselves from tyrannical government, or from the criminal elements, or from the beasts of the field and wilderness.
I'm not sure if you are playing Devil's Advocate, and wish to generate a fresh discussion to support the Second Amendment, or if you have actually sold out to the Dark Side and wish to live as a well-controlled subject of a totalitarian police-state government.
If it is the latter, the utopia you seek is just a short swim or boat ride to the south of you. With all due respect, I hope this is not the case.
I cannot find the other quotation, the first one you gave. I'm looking now.
This argument never has been, and will not now, be settled through civil discourse.
Here's some context to the precise quote you gave: Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a "liberty" protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such "liberty." Rather, the adjudication of substantive due process claims may require this Court to exercise its reasoned judgment in determining the boundaries between the individual's liberty and the demands of organized society.
This is corrupt jurisprudence: the whole basis of this decision is that these three justices--O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souder--were going to try to come up with some excuse for upholding Roe v. Wade at all costs.
The interesting corollary is that if you accept sodomy as a constitutional right, you almost certainly must accept Roe v. Wade.
All I'm saying is that you just quoted this thing passing it off as if it were some binding, or at least significant opinion. In fact it was a lone dissent--that is to say that Harlan was the only one who agreed with this.
Not "Glogg" (umlaut over the o)?
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.