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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,401-1,4201,421-1,4401,441-1,460 ... 1,721-1,734 next last
To: jwalsh07
By the way, I have rarely read as much unadultered crap, spam, and inanity, as I have on this thread. Pathetic really. JMO.
1,421 posted on 06/26/2003 6:07:40 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
You have every right to a rightly-ordered private life, as the Constitution states.

There is NO "right to privacy" in the Constitution or any of its amendments. There is no right to sex (natural, un-natural, married or not) in the Constitution.
Under the Constitution as written, the several States legislate regarding sex, theft, murder, etc.
1,419 -nn-


Good lord, you are one of the "whatever is unenumerated can be prohibited" FReekers.
-- Sorry, I thought you were a bit more rational.

BTW, just who is it in your view that gets to specify the "rightly-ordered" edicts?
1,422 posted on 06/26/2003 6:08:07 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1419 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Take your baseless idiocy about hypocrisy to the backroom. You're dismissed.

Graet argument, well said...is that a Sir Edward Coke quote.

I knew you couldn't argue out of your hypocricy between the 9th and 10th. You're just like every other Liberaltarian I've met. No argument backed by law, only personal attack for logic. Thanks for not disappointing.

1,423 posted on 06/26/2003 6:10:27 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1416 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Good lord, you are one of the "whatever is unenumerated can be prohibited" FReekers.

Just like Scalia.

2) The Judaeo-Christian tradition is just fine with me for starters.

1,424 posted on 06/26/2003 6:11:34 PM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1422 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I think you are absolutely correct. I read all the opinions and I know I am limited as far as knowledge of the law goes but this is absolute crap.

I would much prefer somebody like you on the SCOTUS than numbskulls like Kennedy, O'Connor and the 4 dwarves.

And that's with prior knowledge of the fact that we see things a bit differently. From you I would get honesty.

I repat, from a layman, Kennedy's decision is pure crap.

1,425 posted on 06/26/2003 6:16:07 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
"There is NO "right to privacy" in the Constitution or any of its amendments."

Take the first complete thought from this sentence, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." What this means is that the people have a right to be secure. To do that they must be able to keep things private, or hidden from the government, and everyone else too.

The right is the people's right to keep things hidden and out of view. That's why it's infringement by the government was so restricted to probable cause and the testimony of witness. The unreasonableness refers to the infringement of the right, not the right itself.

That's the way the founder's thought of it. Without this right and the limit on it's infringement, folks would be open to all government demands to disclose what any individual's been up to.

The supremes don't really honor that right and neither does the government. It's the subject of the search that determines whether, or not, the right to privacy will be honored. In the case of abortion, the Supremes have said it can be done, because the it's a private matter. Yet, if someone pisses me off and I hire a killer to cut him up in small pieces and feed him to the fishes(all a private matter), the Supremes won't give me the time of day. Also they won't dump a gun registration and ballistic finger print on that ground and the 5th Amend. They pick and choose to order the world to their vision, that's it.

The right to privacy does not provide for the overruling of any law, except for those that provide for an erosion of the Constitutional limit placed on the infringement of that right.

1,426 posted on 06/26/2003 6:17:51 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1419 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I would much prefer somebody like you on the SCOTUS than numbskulls like Kennedy, O'Connor and the 4 dwarves.

You are way too smart to be so gullible where Torie is concerned. He is a faker, big time. You should have read his "I'd like to thank the Academy" post just because Jonah Goldberg wrote a cave-in column on gay issues the other day. He is the most inconsistent (read: lying) post on FR.

Oh well. Your statement just amazes me.

1,427 posted on 06/26/2003 6:20:30 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1425 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

There is no such risk with consensual gay sex.

True, but there are other risks to public health, risks that extend way beyond any "product" of an incestuous union. Not to mention the risks to the public purse when those risks manifest themselves, and under "equal protection" we the taxpayers, will have to pay for the treatment and sustainment of the doomed individual(s).

Besides who are we to say that a deformed and/or mentally retarded kid is "generally undesirable"? </ sarcasm

1,428 posted on 06/26/2003 6:26:06 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Torie
There is a another thread that suggests that this ruling would be the foundation for the courts to throw out the military's 'Don't ask, don't tell'. At first that sounded like a stretch, but after your post I am not so confident. Do you have any opinion on the likelihood of that happening?
1,429 posted on 06/26/2003 6:26:54 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
As well as unconstitutional laws denying women and blacks the right to vote and perpetuating slavery.

They weren't unconsitutional then, now they are. It's called the amendment process. It's specified in Article V, which in fact prohibited certain sections from being amended, one of which was a Constitutional provision restricting Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves until 1808. Slavery was legal, which is not to say that it was moral or right, under the Constitution as originally passed.

1,430 posted on 06/26/2003 6:33:29 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Isn't your marriage a covenant between yourself and your spouse, and potentially your God?

It is also a contract with and via the state. Ever hear of a "marriage license"? Or "By the powers invested in me by God AND THE STATE OF ****"? That's a relatively recent deal, designed to protect the public health originally. It's why some states require blood tests before issueance of a license, or used to at any rate. They even had "waiting periods".

1,431 posted on 06/26/2003 6:38:21 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: OWK
A glorious day for OWK, Lord High Priest of the Anus Cult.

A sad day for America as the rest of us are forced by SCOTUS federal leviathan fiat to embrace an inceasingly coarse and anti-traditional family environment.

1,432 posted on 06/26/2003 6:42:47 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
I respectfully disagree and if you read his post above you would understand why. He opposes sodomy laws but thinks this decision is a disgrace. That is an honest man.
1,433 posted on 06/26/2003 6:44:28 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1427 | View Replies]

To: fooman
I am dissappointed that so many Freepers do not see the harm that is being done to the culture.

The harm was done to the culture long ago when these Puritanical laws were passed. Today we're just starting to repair the damage.

1,434 posted on 06/26/2003 6:45:11 PM PDT by FreeLibertarian (You live and learn. Or you don't live long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1046 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Does the AKC recognize them when they're bred that close?

Sure, but it not just dogs. My Dad raised pigeons and bantam chickens. Breeding father to daughter and son to mother is pretty routine...you just kill the undesirable offspring, which is what some cultures have done with undesirable human offspring as well. Ever hear of a "squab knife"? (Used not just for killing the culls, but also because some twisted people actually like to eat squab.(baby pidgeon)) Often the culls were allowed to grow to conventional eating size. Dad would donate them, both pidgeons and chickens, to needy senior citizens in the area. They were quite glad to get them.

1,435 posted on 06/26/2003 6:48:17 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Scalia's dissent is not legal reasoning; it's political posturing.

I agree, and I was surprised to hear a Supreme Court Justice come out with something like that.

1,436 posted on 06/26/2003 6:49:22 PM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1410 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
Scalia and Thomas are far right

Did you actually read Thomas' dissent? It's short and follows:

I join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' " Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.

Doesn't seem so "far right", to me.

1,437 posted on 06/26/2003 6:53:33 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Whoa, El Gato, dog breeding is a lot more complicated than that. And breeding too close in family circles can produce some horrible consequences. (But I realize you didn't have time to go into it in an FR post...)
1,438 posted on 06/26/2003 7:03:34 PM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1435 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The 14th is not fictitous. It may yet be the amendment that saves our RKBA's from the 'overregulators' among us. Reasonable "due process" must be used in drafting restrictive laws..

If the 14th saves the RKBA, it won't be through the due process clause, but rather the "priveleges and immunities" clause. Due process doesn't relate to the drafting of the law itself, that is the central prohibition of the law, but rather the provisions for enforcement. It is supposed to mean non arbitrary, with protections for the accused to challenge the evidence. It really doesn't say anything about the underlying offense. The courts have ruled (5th circuit in Emerson) that the RKBA may be restricted via the "Due process" of boilerplate language in a divorce proceeding. Only fundamental rights are not subject to infringement, even with due process. Thus the fifth circuit ruled that the RKBA is not a fundamental right, even if it is an individual one. To be fair the 5th circuit, I think they were trying to get the case to the Supreme Court, but the SC denied certori.

Under due process, you can be sent to prison by a jury of your peers for exercising a fundamental Constitutionally protecte right.

I've read today's decision, skimmed it at least, and I have trouble disagreeing with most of Scalia's dissenting opinion. And none at all with Thomas' concurrance in that dissent. All from a logical point of view that is.

1,439 posted on 06/26/2003 7:04:07 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
Now if only my state will drop its law forbidding oral sex between consenting heterosexuals, then maybe I could have more fun

That law was probably invalidated by today's decision. Maybe you could be the test case in your state?

1,440 posted on 06/26/2003 7:16:54 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,401-1,4201,421-1,4401,441-1,460 ... 1,721-1,734 next last

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.

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