SUPREME COURT WRONG TO DECLARE A RIGHT TO SEXUAL PERVERSION

Concerned Women for America ^ | 6/26/03 | Various

[Polycarp]

Its been fun, America. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

[mvpel]

It's really starting to infuriate me the number of people who don't seem to realize the import of the Ninth Amendment, and seem to think that the rights listed in the Constitution are the only rights we have.

[republicman]

IMO the government ought to stay ought of consensual sexual matters, even if they are disgusting.

BUT

This was not a constitutional decision, this was a personal opinion. And the court has no right to issue personal opinions about what should and shouldn't be law.

Today the justices did what Roe v Wade did, they took the right of states to make their laws (the tenth amendment) and trashed it, because they PERSONALLY thought there ought not be such laws.

Disgraceful

[PeterPrinciple]

Remind me again what happened in the old testament when judges were corrupt..................

[litehaus]

NAMBLA, too, is celebrating I am sure......

[Desdemona]

Today the justices did what Roe v Wade did, they took the right of states to make their laws (the tenth amendment) and trashed it, because they PERSONALLY thought there ought not be such laws.

So, it's going to take 30+ years to get this overturned?

[Desdemona]

Another battle in the culture war...

DO NOT EVER SURRENDER. Any give from conservatives, real conservatives, and the morally corrupt will exploit it for all they're worth.

[freeangel]

Homosexuals were responsible for the AIDS epidemic in this country and the taxpayers are left holding the bill for this. Tell me again why the government should stay out of their freakin bedrooms.

[jimkress]

God has given us a set of rules to live by. We are supposeed to use our free will to choose if we will follow these rules or not. How can we claim willing compliance with God's laws if we obey them only because of societal, legal compulsion?

[Jim Noble]

If there’s no rational basis for prohibiting same-sex sodomy by consenting adults, then state laws prohibiting prostitution, adultery, bigamy, and incest are at risk

They're not "at risk"-they're blatantly unconstitutional.

Mr. Justice Kennedy, for the Court:

"These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex">

[freeeee]

To all the people claiming the sky is falling, you can relax.

This ruling has no practicle effect on anyone's behavior.

The vast, vast amounts of people who engage in oral and anal sex don't give a damn what the law says about it.

They're going to do it anyway, and there's nothing the state can do about it.

And no one is going to have oral or anal sex that wouldn't have done so while it was illegal.

The only thing sodomy laws do is foster massive contempt for the law. You see, if you make someone a felon for having oral sex, they're going to think the law is a big joke, and they're going to get used to breaking the law. Later, when they contemplate breaking a real law, it won't be such a big deal.

[freeeee]

the taxpayers are left holding the bill for this. Tell me again why the government should stay out of their freakin bedrooms.

It's always interesting to see conservatives promote the intrusions that accompany socialism.

[Weimdog]

Sex with a minor is still illegal and you know it.

[tbpiper]

Gay Americans are.....church-goers.

But not believers.

[oldironsides]

I suppose they will make the Red Cross stop asking those nasty questions before you give blood? It is a right to have a private sex life and you do not have to tell anyone anything. It is a private matter.

[the infidel]

NAMBLA shouldn't take any comfort from this ruling. Despite its shortcomings, the majority opinion explicitly pointed out that the case and ruling were about behavior between consenting adults.

[AntiGuv]

Justice Thomas dissent in Lawrence v Texas:

I join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' " Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.

[bold-type added]

AntiGuv's addendum: Get over it - it's a done deal..

[mom-7]

I believe that the Supremes have lost their collective minds. Shades of Soddom and Gomorrah.

[Digger]

It's really starting to infuriate me the number of people who don't seem to realize the import of the Ninth Amendment, and seem to think that the rights listed in the Constitution are the only rights we have.

I believe that this is the real issue in this case. The solution is to appoint more Justices like Thomas.