Replies

I'm ever so confused here. It's been my contention that this site, and those who frequent it, were in favor of freedoms afforded by the Constitution. In reading the posts of this, and many other threads, I find that some do support freedom, but only if it matches their own individual definitions of the term.

I do feel that the individual States should have more power than the Federal government. While I feel that State's rights should play in here, I feel that the State of Texas has failed in protecting the freedoms of her citizens when law makers sought to impose their idea of morality on them. Therefore, SCOTUS stepped in.

The legislation of morals has no place in a truly free society. By insisting on separation of church and state, the Founding Fathers were making it clear that religion had no place in the government of this country.

Hypocrisy is rampant on both the left and the right. So, I take a simple stance in day to day life. If my actions cause no harm or infringement on the rights of others, then leave me alone about them. Don't impose your ideas of right/wrong on others. Don't impose your religious beliefs on others. Not everyone wishes to hear the message you're attempting to deliver.

Don't like guns? Don't own one, but don't expect me to give mine up. Don't like abortion? Don't have one, I don't like it, so I won't have one. Don't like anal sex? Don't have anal sex. I certainly won't be doing it.

This thread makes me laugh when those posting here relate this situation to child molestation and other such issues. The basic difference is that in this ruling, sex between CONSENTING ADULTS is private and protected in whatever form it may choose to take, and there is no victimization. No rights are violated (unless you count those of the defendants when they were arrested). Therefore, no crime has occurred.

When a child is molested, there is NO legal consent. The child is a victim. There is a violation of rights. There is a crime.

It is possible to maintain your convictions and still have a free society. It means supporting a tolerant society. Many in this country cannot fathom such a thought. I'm most certain that many will spew hatred and "what-if's" at me as a result of this post. That's fine. It is their right. My message is not meant to be inflamatory, but it will be seen as such by many.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim to stand for freedom, then stand for freedom. . . ALL Freedoms, even those with which you may not agree.

All this talk of the 4th Amendment and 10th Amendments in this case. . . What of the 9th? The Constitution doesn't discuss sex. However, James Madison had the vision to make it known that the rights listed in the document were not the only God-given rights that the people of this nation possessed.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, you have the right to choose your own path.

"What of the 9th? ... However, James Madison had the vision to make it known that the rights listed in the document were not the only God-given rights that the people of this nation possessed.

Surely you're not suggesting that God is the source of a the corn hole right?

"By insisting on separation of church and state, the Founding Fathers were making it clear that religion had no place in the government of this country."

There is no requirement for the separation of church and state. There is only a prohibition on the establishment of a state church and a prohibition on restricting the free exercise of religion. Folks that believe stuff do so for their own reasons. Some, or part of those reasons can be religious doctrine. They're entitled to that.

"The Constitution doesn't discuss sex."

That's why the SCOTUS had no justification to junk the TX law.

But here is another thing we should consider:

The opinion states that it does not apply to sex with minors. But now the question the court didn't clarify is what constitutes a minor, and what constitutes consent? These areas have always been reserved to the states, but now that the federal courts decided to ignore the 10th amendment, the age of consent (and what constitutes consent) will become a federal court mandate, not a state legislature's. I am not at all comfortable with that.

Again, I do not believe the state legislatures should govern what happens between consenting adults in private quarters, but I also do not believe the federal courts have the power to regulate on this issue, because the 10th amendment grants this power to the states and the people themselves.

By insisting on separation of church and state, the Founding Fathers were making it clear that religion had no place in the government of this country.

But they never did that. What they did was say that the federal government could not force one to take up a particular religion, and what they meant was a particular denomination, nor could they probit anyone from practicing whatever religion they chose. They did not forbid religous ideas from affecting the governance of the land.

This issue goes way beyond any particular religion. It may be a matter of public health. Like quarentining those with TB or smallpox. Or requiring that latrines be dug downstream from the source of drinking water. Many religous "Laws" are really only distillations of folk wisdom, which came from obervation of actions and consequences. That same folk wisdom may be allowed to illuminate modern law making. At least it's based on observations and not "feelings".

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, you have the right to choose your own path.

Retained is a key word here. The right must have been in existance for it to be protected by the 9th amendment and by extension the 14th as applied to the states. The 10th amendment protects us against exercise of powers not granted. For similar protection from state governments exercising powers not granted, we must look to our state constitutions. Even that is a little tricky, because the enforcement of Common law and the police power belongs to the States, not the federal govenemnt, absent explicit provisions to the contrary.

Botom line, is that many, myself included, do not think that homosexual activity is a "freedom afforded by the Constitution". If nothing else this case stands for the proposition that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, regardless of the words on parchment written (mostly) by bunch of dead white guys.

Unfortunatley for that position, many, including myself, have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, againtt all enemies, foreign and domestic" and that may include Supreme Court Justices. The written words have meaning and for most part they aren't even difficult to understand. Even the ones that are a little hard to understand, can be comprehended by reading the words of those that crafted them, and those that oppossed them as well.