[Polycarp]

Its no longer a slippery slope. Its a free fall.

[AntiGuv]

The Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, said the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined an interpretation finding in the Constitution a right to engage in the act of sodomy.

The framers of the Constitution didn't include the 14th Amendment into the document (obviously enough) upon which this case revolved; however, their inclusion of a clause permitting future amendments implies that they could have imagined that anything may at some point get added to the Constitution...

[maryz]

The majority reasoned, unbelievably, that because of the trend in state legislatures to repeal sodomy laws

Refresh my memory -- wasn't there another Supreme Court case in the last few months in which the "reasoning" was similar -- that the decision was justified because of a trend in changes to local laws? I think it was O'Connor who wrote that one, but I could be wrong.

[RJCogburn]

The Court was quite correct on this.

Far more damage to our country was done by Justice O'Connor and friends on the Michigan Law School ruling.

[jlogajan]

“We are disappointed but we’re not giving up hope and we’re not going away,” said Jordan Lorence, a senior litigator with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Forget it, it's over. It isn't coming back, just like slavery isn't coming back. Yeah, prohibiting slavery overturned 4000 years of history and Biblical approval of same, also. To bad.

[Labyrinthos]

The Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, said the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined an interpretation finding in the Constitution a right to engage in the act of sodomy.

Nor could they have imagined automatic and semi-automatic firearms, which must mean that we're not allowed to possess them under the Second Amendment, right?

To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

Although I have not read the court's decision yet, I doubt the court elevated homosodomy to a fundemental right, but rather, reaffirmed the fundemental right to privacy and equal protection under the laws.

[liberalnot]

if the supremes had used the koran they would have come up with a decision acceptable to many on this forum.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You don't know much Roman history do you.

[HatSteel]

Face facts. The homosexuals have won the culture. There is no turning back UNTIL the culture either pays a terrible price or meets its demise.

It seems that Sodom and Gomorrah got to the point where those inhabitants felt it was their RIGHT to FORCE their sexual advances on others. (Impossible, you say? Then you've not been listening to the radical gays and to Nambla.)

When we get to that point, when good people look the other way, then we can rightly say, "If God doesn't respond here, then he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah."

[Radix]

I thought that you had to overturned in order to have sodomy!

[almcbean]

Many people miss the point. The issue is not whether this law is a good or bad one-that would be for the Texas legislature to decide-but whether this law, good or bad, violates the constitution. Without the mythical right to privacy, it clearly does not. Our supreme court has become nothing more than a super-legislature, which it was never supposed to be. And a pretty bad one I might add. And, sadly, abetted by four Republican appointed judges, two by Reagan.

[Servant of the Nine]

Why get so worked up about what a fag you don't know does to another fag you don't know when 34 states have never bothered to outlaw necrophilia?

Who knows what they are legally doing to dead family members down at the Funeral Home?

So9

[lilylangtree]

Bring down the Supreme Court! Since they're violating Constitution, then we don't need them.

[AntiGuv]

I just finished reading Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the Lawrence v Texas ruling. Interestingly, he addressed the very issue brought up here as his final remarks:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its mani-fold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

[Sabertooth]

This is dismal, but strangely fitting, as the majority has gleaned a right to homosexual sodomy from reasoning they pulled out of their asses.

Like abortion, homosexual sodomy is not legitimately within the purview of the federal government, and legislation regarding both should be properly left to the states. I support the prerogative of the states to outlaw or legalize either, and it's a foul practice for the federal government to relentlessly usurp the states' prerogatives via the tripartite clutching for power we see in the federal branches.

There is a thermodynamic aspect to political power: like energy, political power is conserved and finite. The federal government only becomes more powerful by seizing that power, either from the states, or from the people. We appear to have reached a point where federal power is now a political black hole, with each new absorption of power increasing its mass, with the consequently greater gravitational pull fueling the next seizure of power.

Since much of the plain meaning of the Constitution is now meaningless to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government, what is to stop their ravenous lust for power from gorging indefinitely on the states and the people?

[nickcarraway]

It's scary to think this is the most ``conservative'' the Court may ever be again...

[blackdog]

And I suppose that using the same logic, that since states are repealing marijuana posession/use laws that the federal interest in such cases is no longer in effect either?

Maybe someone should make sure the DEA gets a copy of the wisdom broght forth by the majority ruling.

Once again, proof that saying nothing preserves your wisdom. Opening your mouth (or in this case opening your judicial mouth) proves that the cloak of elitist wisdom that our supreme court is shrouded in has presented them as an incredibly stupid bunch of social architects willing to rule on issues which have nothing to do with their charter.

I can recognize a cultural nervous breakdown when I see one. If the FDA does not start a thorazine feed into the public's water system there is going to be complete insanity during the next decade.

Liberals have lost congress, and executive branches out of a three branched government. Can someone please explain to them that the judicial branch is not an elective one?

[kms61]

There's still a war going on in Iraq, and two soldiers went missing today. This nonsense about sodomy isn't even on my radar.

[weegee]

"...there is a right to privacy to protect private, adult consensual sexual activity. "

Hmmmm. And just what does this do for the states that have a higher age of consent (age 18) for homosexual sex acts than for heterosexual sex acts. Many states have an age of consent under 18 and some have set homosexual acts at age 18.

That call of "discrimation" throws the "consenting adults" argument out the window as one or more of the participants can be under the age of 18.

[Van Jenerette]

the FOUNDING FATHERS UNLEASHED

WARNING...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams, October 11, 1798

WARNING...

"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?... And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?..." - John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

The entire argument about sexual behavior is so simple it can be reduced to the following: Should there be any social rules about what sexual activity a human being engages in?

If the answer is no then everyone should just shut up...hetero is okay, cousins are okay, polygamy is okay, bi is okay; gay is okay, 13-year olds are okay, and one or one-hundred-at-a-time are okay, et. al.

However, if a society decides that certain rules about who does whom when and where is functional and perhaps even necessary, all that is left is to decide is WHAT are the rules of sexual behavior and WHO shall make them...simple.

Those who follow the 'rules' are then NORMAL and all the rest are PERVERTS or DEVIANTS... so very, very simple...you decide.

Van & Katherine Jenerette

www.jenerette.com