SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[AntiGuv]

If so, then it sounds as if the Court reversed Bowers v Hardwick. Good..

[jimt]

Libertarians are cheering.

Kevin, you astound me. You're telling the truth this morning ! But not the whole truth, of course.

[Aeronaut]

Deeper into the cesspool we slide.

[The Red Zone]

and will eventually be used by the left to support overturning laws against child molestation and pornography

I don't expect that in my lifetime, but I do expect "compelling state interest" to become a larger and larger factor in SCOTUS decisions (i.e. more police state, less freedom) as the rule of law (fundamentally rooted in Constitution) is eaten away.

[Thane_Banquo]

That says nothing about homosexuality or the right to privacy. An equal protection clause ruling would at least have been less flawed.

[SevenDaysInMay]

A right to privacy can be understood to be a right reserved to individuals, clearly the 10th.

I have never had any problem with that "privacy civil right". It was the federalized right to kill preborn children that changed my attitude of SCOTUUS usurpation of power.

Sen. Santorum is proved correct.

14 y.o. and others will be in for the rides of their lives.

[AntiGuv]

Breaking on AP:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

[B Knotts]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' gay sex ban Thursday, deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

The top court's decision overturned a Texas Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by two men who were caught engaging in an illegal sex act.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

[The Red Zone]

if someone engaging in sex with a animal when the police come in they will have no right to arrest them

Not on those grounds, but keep in mind that cruelty to an animal is now considered a worse crime than sodomy iswas

[Kevin Curry]

Entirely expected. Did Breyer issue the Opinion of the Court??

Ginsberg and Souter voted pro-anal, you know that for sure. And which Republican senator proudly takes credit for their appointments? Why, the feckless chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch--who just last week threw the weight of his support behind Ted Kennedy's federal hate-crime legislation as well.

And who will preside over the Judiciary Committee's vetting of replacements for O'Connor and Rehnquist if they retire soon as the rumor has it? None other than Orrin Hatch.

The Democrats don't need the hold a senate majority to pack the SCOTUS with more Ginsbergs, Souters, and Breyers. They already control the appointment process thorough Ted Kennedy's best friend.

This is just one more bullet in the heart of federalism and state-reserved powers under the 10th Amendment.

[vin-one]

Thanks,
add some levity to an argument, that many people will only look at the pervert end of it( ha ha)

that being said,
I really don't look at it as a perverted standpoint,
but from a morality standpoint, and the gov't should not regulate morality....
as well, in VA. if a married couple has consenual sodomy. technically they could be charged.

Not sure who is getting this in the end.
Still waiting for the oral arguments.

[Pyro7480]

I guess Rhenquist, Thomas, and Scalia were the only ones dissenting.

[Aeronaut]

"demeans the lives of homosexual persons,"

Just my opinion, but I think they do that to themselves by their perversion.

[AntiGuv]

Well, Texas doesn't criminalize bestiality anyhow (go figure) so I guess it won't matter one way or another..

[Straight Vermonter]

I never cease to be stunned by Freepers who want big government in people's bedrooms.

[The Red Zone]

deciding that states cannot punish gay couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.

OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved.

[E Rocc]

Excuse the pun, but this Sodomy ruling is a very slippery slope. How far are they going to carry this right to privacy, don't forget the man/boy love associations will love this ruling.

Age-related laws have not been overturned nor will they be, indeed the Constitution not only allows age restrictions it contains them. This ruling only says that it is none of government's business what grownups do.

-Eric

[sharkhawk]

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

But I thought the left says all supreme court decisions must never be overturned. I guess they will reverse course on Roe v. Wade.

[Dead Corpse]

Ms. Grundy is crying in her beer.

[Xenalyte]

You first. ;)