Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

AP via Yahoo ^ | 6/26/03 | AP

[jethropalerobber]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban

WASHINGTON - 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.

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.

[DAnconia55]

Sorry if I'm a bit off-topic...I've just never understood this...

Made up cultural tradition. And the Thumpers react like Pavlov's dogs. Predictable, really.

[DAnconia55]

I for one am in favor of multiple husbands... One to dance with One to fix things One to talk to One to shop with And one for sex ;)

And I be the one that has sex with you, and not the one that has to listen to you? :)

That Polyandry thing might have benefits after all!

[DAnconia55]

Bestiality? That will depend on the position of the animal rights types. It may well be classified as cruelty to animals.

[Diamond]

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.)

Made up cultural tradition? Even if it were, what authority does the Court have dictate our cultural traditions? hmmm?

I guess in your opinion Jesus must have been a Thumper and a Moral Ayatollah, on the level of one of Pavlov's dogs, because he said;
⁴"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'^{[1] 5}and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two [not, the three, four and five, etc.] will become one flesh'^[2] ? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Now, if I were to ask you where you get your moral instruction that more than one wife is NOT immoral, and ask you to cite your authority, what can you cite that is anything more than a made up cultural tradition?

Cordially,

[Taxbilly]

the religious are the ones that use "sin" in reference to sodomy.

Well then I take it from your statement {Sex is morally neutral. That is man and man or man and women or women and women. There is no hierarchy. A man and women are not commit sin by enjoying each others company, nor are two men morally superior by enjoying each others company. } that you're talking about G-d's law when you use the word sin . I refer you to Romans 1.

[MHGinTN]

You pontificated, "The point is that your intolerance is not what God wants." Well, you know what, you're precisely wrong! But you're at least bold with your foolish assertion! When this nation tolerates deviancy, it corrodes the society and destroys it, as shown repeatedly with the history of the Israelites ... so scripture proves you wrong, also. You're so far wrong that you don't deserve further recognition. But you further opined, "Jesus loved sinners and so should you." Sorry, homo-apologist, tolerance and agape love are not the same thing. But nice try, zoid. Peddle for the deviants to someone else. Your butties are disgusting.

[najida]

If you can cook, we may have a deal ;)

[nyconse]

I may get killed here, but I have never believed you can legislate sexual morality. I think the court was right. Most states don't have sodomy laws.

Abortion is interesting. I have long held in order to change abortion laws, you have to change the hearts and minds of women. This is happening. New polls show a clear majority of women are against abortion. I think it is quite possible that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. This will not outlaw abortion (contrary to what libs say). It will merely send the issue to the states where people will be able to have a say in whether abortion is legal or not.

[gathersnomoss]

They'll have a yabba-dabba-do time
They'll have a gay old time............

[gathersnomoss]

OK boy's...out of the pool.

[jayef]

I'm sorry. Explain to me why you are interested in where people stick their penis. Beyond that, what is the compelling interest of the state?

How do you get around the discrimination against a class of people without using the sophistry of Scalia. There is no excuse for prejudice. Hiding behind religion to justify your prejudice is even more disgusting.

I'm not peddling anything. I can't find anything in the Supreme Court's decision or in my statements to you which would compel you, or even suggest to you, that you go out and have any kind of sex . . . gay, straight or otherwise.

You talk about nations tolerating deviancy corroding and destroying society . . . tell me, what happens to nations that tolerate bigotry and discrimination? I have a clue for you, the answer is not in The Bible. The answer, my friend, is in the Constitution of the United States.

[MHGinTN]

jayef wrote, (we'll dissect it as we go)I'm sorry. Explain to me why you are interested in where people stick their penis. Beyond that, what is the compelling interest of the state? jayef I'm only morally responsible for where I stick my body part, sweetums. You are responsible for yours. When sexual behavior effects society (as in healthcare costs, disease, corruption of children), I get very interested in that! Don't you, dear?... Or do you want to play and someone else pay?

How do you get around the discrimination against a class of people without using the sophistry of Scalia. Baby, deviants choose to be deviants, and they want to be identified for their sexual deviant proclivities. The deviants have set the stage, not Scalia. There is no excuse for prejudice. When a chosen class of behavior is a corrupter of society and a BIG drag on the healthcare system, it is in fact a good thing to be prejudiced against that sickness! Sorry you pansy-assed liberal deviancy apologists don't understand that. Grow up. Hiding behind religion to justify your prejudice is even more disgusting. You brought up religious, little nettle.

I'm not peddling anything. I can't find anything in the Supreme Court's decision or in my statements to you which would compel you, or even suggest to you, that you go out and have any kind of sex . . . gay, straight or otherwise. What a stupid strawman to try and raise! You have been hanging out with the wrong mental midgets, sweetums.

You talk about nations tolerating deviancy corroding and destroying society . . . tell me, what happens to nations that tolerate bigotry and discrimination? Again, a certain degree of intolerance is healthy for the society. When you and your deviant butties succeed in removing intolerance toward your deviancies (if you succeed), you will have destroyed this Republic for what you prefer, in the name of tolerance for your deviancy preferences. I have a clue for you, the answer is not in The Bible. The answer, my friend, is in the Constitution of the United States. You haven't a clue, son, not a clue.

[Bluntpoint]

Hillary is holding a celebration party tonight. The entre is Trout... or something that smells like it.

[bvw]

As Scalia warns, and warns mightily, in his dissent, this ruling stikes down many more than just sodomy laws. There is now a claim to be made by the majority's theories that all laws outlawing any forms of sex are defunct.

But beyond that warning of Justice Scalia's, what would stop it there. A anarchy of Liberty is King today. No laws may restrict personal behaviour carried on in private, or even kept "discrete" in public.

As I read it ...

All private Gambling of all forms has just been made legal.

The Drug laws -- excluding of public intoxication -- all struck down.

Prostitution -- as long as keep discrete in public, or in private -- legal in fifty states and all territories.

Bigamy? OKAY!

GROUP Marriage? LEGAL!

Incest between adults? The Supremes have spake: "Go to it!"

The terms of copyright and patent have just been set to Zero days -- as long as one keeps it private.

[bvw]

And I'm sticking with an earlier comment I made.

This ruling also makes Income Tax, and tax truly "voluntary" -- as long as two consenting adults agree to something in private, the state has no review.

Abortion, suicide pacts, euthanasia -- all legal under today's ruling. Selling your children -- fine. (As long as they are not slaves, of course.)

Extreme amoral libertarianism has just become rule of the land.

[DAnconia55]

Furhtermore, the law is not intended to shelter you from things you do not like. The law is intended to protect your rights

A most excellent point.

[DAnconia55]

Made up cultural tradition? Even if it were, what authority does the Court have dictate our cultural traditions? hmmm?

Precisely. And thus, there is no morally legal basis (say as opposed to a law against murder) for passing legislation against things that you merely do not like.

I do not like country music. Or leftists.
In our current system of government, I shouldn't be able to ban them.