Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban
AP via Yahoo ^
| 6/26/03
| AP
Posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:57 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 281-298 next last
To: longtermmemmory
he was discussing the overulling of precident by whim. Certainly there is a long term precedent for sodomy laws. While precedent is a major factor in law, it shouldn't be the only factor.
The irritating thing about Roe v. Wade is that it elevated the mother's right to privacy above the child's right to life. That seems nonsensical on the face of it. As well as whimsical.
Today's ruling does overturn long term precedents.
181
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT
by
jimt
To: longtermmemmory
he was discussing the overulling of precident by whim. Certainly there is a long term precedent for sodomy laws. While precedent is a major factor in law, it shouldn't be the only factor.
The irritating thing about Roe v. Wade is that it elevated the mother's right to privacy above the child's right to life. That seems nonsensical on the face of it. As well as whimsical.
Today's ruling does overturn long term precedents.
182
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT
by
jimt
To: lepton
Actually, with the necrophilia thing, you've got a point: One can donate their bodes, or in theory even sell them. Once owned or in custody, as long as it's done in private, what's the argument [to be made]? That some acts are intrinsically evil, and that by condoning them, we as a society condone that evil.
Evil acts make evil people; even if the acts themselves are carried out in private, the people who commit them live lives that are public, and thus carry the evil into society until it becomes woven into the culture itself.
I do not wish to live in a culture where evil is condoned; therefore, I oppose the evil of sodomy, even when carried out in private between consenting adults.
183
posted on
06/26/2003 10:24:48 AM PDT
by
B-Chan
(Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
To: Paul C. Jesup
Does that include a condom? Sorry couldn't resist asking. Nope. The state even got into the condom business in the 1990s.
look here
To: rintense
Let's be clear. Not only gay couples engage in sodomy... I know of many hetero couples who do as well- and enjoy it. Personally, the thought of going in through the out door is a major turn off.
Don't forget, anti-sodomy laws didn't just apply to anal sex, but oral sex as well. In 4 of the 13 states that had/have such laws, they only aply to same sex couples (Texas, the state in question in this case, being one). The other 9 prohibited anla/oral sex for all couples. Lots of guys will be glad to know their wives/girlfriends can polish their knobs without breaking th law now.
IMHO, the court should have struck down the law on the basis of equal protection under the law premieses only. If Texaas wanted to ban it for all couples fine, that's teh state's right, but they can't single out just same sex couples.
185
posted on
06/26/2003 10:27:41 AM PDT
by
cschroe
To: aristeides
Scalia's dissent is great -- thanks so much for the link!
186
posted on
06/26/2003 10:35:13 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: MHGinTN
Homo marriage is the next case they will seek to push through the putrified court system. Do read Scalia's dissent -- Aristides linked it at #23.
187
posted on
06/26/2003 10:38:23 AM PDT
by
maryz
To: MHGinTN
If I'm a homo? That's cute.
First of all, it's none of your business and it's irrelevant. The point is that your intolerance is not what God wants. Jesus loved sinners and so should you.
Furhtermore, the law is not intended to shelter you from things you do not like. The law is intended to protect your rights. Sodomy laws do not protect your rights and are an infringement on the rights of others.
188
posted on
06/26/2003 10:42:46 AM PDT
by
jayef
To: cschroe
IMHO, the court should have struck down the law on the basis of equal protection under the law premieses only. If Texaas wanted to ban it for all couples fine, that's teh state's right, but they can't single out just same sex couples. Agreed.
189
posted on
06/26/2003 10:54:30 AM PDT
by
rintense
(Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
To: drjimmy
My point is that you claim the following: "Upholding laws that existed from the start of the country should have been a no-brainer. Like the laws or not, they were supported by the Founders and the original 13 states." First, please credit the poster that actually said that.
So are all the laws enacted with the founding of the United States government in 1788 (or 1790, if you want to wait until the last of the original 13 states ratified the Constitution) supposed to be in force today--like them or not? By the way, do you have any idea when the law that the Supreme Court just found unconstitutional was enacted?
They are supposed to be in force today unless in clear opposition to the Constitution as ratified and understood at the time, unless repealed or altered in a legal and Constitutional manner since then.
Bad laws should be legislatively repealed or repaired, not simply re-interpreted.
From where I stand, there are several points on the Constitution that needed refining, and some that still do. Amending the Constitution is the proper way - just making stuff up is not.
190
posted on
06/26/2003 11:01:02 AM PDT
by
lepton
To: Dog Gone
Right to privacy may have been reaffirmed, but it would be quite easy for the Supreme Court to find that right to privacy trumped in the abortion context, if it had a mind to do so. All it would have to do is to find the interest of government and society in the life of the fetus is a compelling interest that supersedes the mother's right to privacy, at least after a certain stage in pregnancy. (It could also find the fetus's right to life trumps the mother's right to privacy, but it would be hard to limit that to merely overruling Roe, rather than finding abortions per se unconstitutional.)
To: B-Chan
I do not wish to live in a culture where evil is condoned; therefore, I oppose the evil of sodomy, even when carried out in private between consenting adults. Sorry. I was referring to the legal argument. The moral argument is fairly simple - but was not only discounted but dealt with in a contrarian manner by the court.
192
posted on
06/26/2003 11:06:37 AM PDT
by
lepton
To: jayef
You seem to be assuming that homosexuals are necessarily sinners. They aren't, if they are celibate.
And that is part of the problem with Kennedy's opinion. It seems to assume that, for some reason, homosexuals have to be sexually active, that practising homosexual acts is some necessary part of their identity.
To: aristeides
I still haven't read Kennedy's opinion, but I have to agree with Scalia that this decision makes future decisions by the Court very unpredictable.
Comment #195 Removed by Moderator
To: Diamond
You forgot polygamy, and a bunch of other perversions neither of us has even imagined. Wow. I can cut and paste my replies today. The Moral Ayatollahs are pretty much carbon copies, it seems.
I could ask WHERE you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is 'immoral' (snip). I could ask you to cite it. (You won't be able to... it's a made up cultural tradition.)
That said, my standard disclaimer : Polygamy is its own punishment. Any man dumb enough to marry more than one woman deserves what he gets.
196
posted on
06/26/2003 11:28:54 AM PDT
by
DAnconia55
(Thumping the Moral Ayatollahs, daily.)
To: Naspino
After the court ruled that child porn was legal so long as it was conducted virtually I don't suppose you'd care to explain how there can be a sex crime without a victim?
By your standards ancient statues of naked children, or paintings could be classified child porn. Better close them museums, Rufus.
197
posted on
06/26/2003 11:30:55 AM PDT
by
DAnconia55
(Thumping the Moral Ayatollahs, daily.)
To: All
TODAY'S LINKS OF INTEREST:
PRAYER IS POWERFUL. PLEASE PRAY NOW! Amen. Today's Bible Message:
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might...For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." -from THE BIBLE: Ephesians 5:10,12
CNS NEWS.com: "ANNIVERSARY OF ANTI-PLEDGE DECISION FINDS NATION AWAITING SUPREME COURT ACTION" by Christine Hall (June 26, 2003) (Read More...)
AGAPE PRESS.org: "HIGH COURT STRIKES DOWN TEXAS SODOMY LAW Dissenting Justice: 'Court Has Signed On to Homosexual Agenda'" By Sherrie Black, Allie Martin, and Jody Brown (June 26, 2003) (Read More...)
WorldNetDaily.com: "NURSE BACKS UP CLINTON RAPE CHARGE Attended Broaddrick's wounds after alleged assault in Arkansas" (June 26, 2003) (Read More...)
The latest edition of THE CULTURE AND FAMILY REPORT is online for your perusal!
COVENANT NEWS.com: "ABOMINATIONS"
GULF1.com - H.I.T.R.A.P. (Honesty, Integrity, Trust, Responsibility, Accountability and People): "TOLERANCE DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF EVIL" -Commentary by Robert L. Pappas, Col. USMC (Ret.) (June 24, 2003)
NY POST.com: "PURV PROF FUROR" by Laura Italiano (June 24, 2003) (Read More...)
CNS NEWS.com: "CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION OF NUDIST CAMP FOR KIDS" by Lawrence Morahan (June 20, 2003) (Read More...)
198
posted on
06/26/2003 11:31:17 AM PDT
by
Cindy
Comment #199 Removed by Moderator
To: dark_lord
Your #42 is accurate.
I don't think that sex with children, nor bestiality, will be legalized because in neither case can the "consenting adult" argument be made Everything else goes. Polygamy, Incest and prostitution should be legal.
There is a cultural aversion to Incest (except in Arkansas), founded (unlike the rest the Thumpers do) in scientific realty. At one time the gene pool was too small to allow sex between relatives as reproduction would produce genetic defects (See: Klinton family tree).
Now as gross as it is.... I'm not sure there's a scientific reason for this now, considering we're all mongrels now.
And once again my disclaimer: Anyone dumb enough to engage in Polygamy has formed their own punishment.
200
posted on
06/26/2003 11:35:44 AM PDT
by
DAnconia55
(Thumping the Moral Ayatollahs, daily.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 281-298 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson