But sadly, I think you really don't see it. You are ready to drink the Kool Aid for big government morality police.
Bottom line, you simply seek to have the government impose by force that which you fail to invoke by persuasion. I will never support that.
you simply seek to have the government impose by force that which you fail to invoke by persuasion.
SODOMY: Brief Of The States Of Alabama, South Carolina, And Utah (S.C.O.T.U.S.& Sodomy)
In keeping with the historical analysis described above, this Court has primarily limited its recognition of non-textual fundamental rights in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education." 27 In 1997, this Court cataloged the list as follows:
In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specifically protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, LOVING V. VIRGINIA , 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON , 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, MEYER V. NEBRASKA , 262 U.S. 390 (1923); PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS , 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT , 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, IBID. ; EISENSTADT V. BAIRD , 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA , 342 U.S. 165 (1952); and to abortion, [ PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CASEY , 505 U.S. 833 (1992)]. 28
"The entire fabric of the Constitution and the purposes that clearly underlie its specific guarantees demonstrate that the rights to marital privacy and to marry and raise a family are of similar order and magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected." 29
The fundamental role of marriage and family in our society has been recognized on many occasions by the Court. In ZABLOCKI V. REDHAIL , 30 the Court invalidated a Wisconsin statute requiring certain persons to obtain a court order before marrying:
[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals. Long ago in MAYNARD V. HILL , 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," ID. , at 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress," ID. , at 211. In MEYER V. NEBRASKA , 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home, and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, ID. , at 399, and in SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON , 316 U.S. 535 (1942), marriage was described as "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," 316 U.S. at 541. 31
The Court went on to conclude that the right to marry is one of the "matters of family life" protected by the right of privacy implicit in the Due Process Clause. 32 In MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND , the Court also dwelt on the historical role of marriage and the family in American society: "Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." 33
This Court has never recognized a fundamental right to engage in sexual activity outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage, let alone to engage in homosexual sodomy. Such a right would be antithetical to the "traditional relation of the family" that is "as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization." 34 Even the amorphous "right to privacy" recognized in GRISWOLD and expanded upon in ROE V. WADE was never intended to include a right to have sex with whomever and however one pleased. In ROE V. WADE , this Court stated that the Due Process Clause does not include "an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases." 35 Twenty-five years later, in WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG , this Court again rejected the proposition that "all important, intimate, and personal decisions" are protected by the Due Process Clause. 36
In his POE V. ULLMAN 37 dissent, which foreshadowed the recognition of the marital right of privacy in GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT , Justice Harlan said that homosexual activity, even when "concealed in the home," was a proper matter of state concern and could be forbidden by the States:
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, 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 time 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 must be built upon that basis. 38
SODOMY : CENTER FOR THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (LAWRENCE v. TEXAS SODOMY BRIEF)
THE HISTORIC AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO CRIMINALIZE SODOMY IS WELL-SETTLED
The historical evidence clearly shows that state legislatures have always possessed a broad authority to outlaw private, consensual sex, and that they also prohibited same-sex sodomy specifically since the earliest days of American history. Enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not alter that state legislative authority.
This Court has frequently looked to the Constitution's "text, history and precedent" to determine its meaning. ELDRED V. ASHCROFT , ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 769, 777 (2003). As this Court recently reiterated in ELDRED V. ASHCROFT , "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." ID ., quoting NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY V. EISNER , 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921); SEE ALSO U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. V. THORNTON , 514 U.S. 779, 790 (1995) ("Against this historical background, we viewed the Convention debates as manifesting the Framers' intent that the qualifications in the Constitution be fixed and exclusive.").
It is a settled constitutional principle within our federal republic that states possess general police powers. Inherent within these powers lies the duty to regulate the "health, safety, and morals" of their members. BARNES V. GLEN THEATER , 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991) (referencing public indecency statutes which were designed to protect morals and public order). States have used this police power to promote marriage and direct the sexual activities of their citizens into marriage by criminalizing a wide variety of nonmarital sex acts, such as polygamy, rape, fornication, adultery, prostitution and incest. While crimes such as rape and incest are not consensual, adultery, prostitution, polygamy and fornication are private acts between consenting adults that have been regulated throughout our nation's history. As we shall demonstrate, states have possessed and properly exercised the authority to regulate deviate sexual conduct including sodomy at all relevant times in our nation's history.
SODOMY : Legislators,State of Texas, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102
In evaluating whether § 21.06 is rational, the Court should consider that the provision is one part of a larger network of laws designed to further the legitimate State interest of promoting traditional marriage of one man and one woman.
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.
Poe , 367 U.S. at 546 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The connection between § 21.06 and marriage is undeniable. The same legislature which changed the Texas sodomy law in 1973 to its current form, at the same time changed Texas' marriage law to explicitly specify, for the first time, that marriage in Texas may only be between "a man and a woman." T EX . F AM . C ODE § 2.001 (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1596, ch. 577, § 1). Even in teaching sexual education, Texas law emphasizes that sex should be within marriage and other conduct, such as homosexual sex, is discouraged. Sex education materials must "emphasize sexual abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage as the expected standard" and must discourage "homosexual conduct" and note that it violates § 21.06. T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE § 85.007.
Translation - your unwillingness to roll over and agree with me is disturbing.
I see your point but you don't see mine. You think that the belief that individuals should have rights, such as the right to life, is univeral, immutable, and no matter what else we deny or allow we will never lose this.
I think you have very little imagination and very little knowledge of history. You don't know what a monumental change in human thinking it was to put individual human rights in such high regard regardless of the perceived worth of the human being (a concept already shreaded by the abortion laws in this country). That is a particularly Judeo-Christian concept based on the religious conviction that every human being is an image bearer of G-d. For some reason, you think atheists are beholden to this concept despite thousands of years of human history proving it was not so.
I happen to believe that channeling our sexual appetites is as fundamentally important as protecting our rights. But I can't argue that point with you if you're simply going to conclude that anyone who doesn't agree with you is disturbed.
I disagree with you and I can state my reasons. Face it. It's not only allowed, but it is good for the Republic.
Shalom.