FREEP SCOTUS FOR VIOLATING CONSTITUTION AGAIN 1-202-479-3211

VANITY | JUNE 26, 2003 | EAGLE HAS LANDED

[TheEaglehasLanded]

HOPEFULLY SOME FREEPERS CAN GET DOWN THERE

[jimkress]

To which violation do you refer?

[Libertarian4Bush]

so... the government is less able to tell us what to do in our own homes, and you're upset?

[Bikers4Bush]

I think he's thinking more along the lines of states rights issues.

[Libertarian4Bush]

I'd suspect he's thinking more along the lines of homosexuality issues, but ah well...

[Bikers4Bush]

Two sides same coin. Does Texas or does it not have a right to decide what it considers deviant or not.

Nevada is allowed (prostitution is legal) so why not Texas?

[exmarine]

Two sides same coin. Does Texas or does it not have a right to decide what it considers deviant or not. Nevada is allowed (prostitution is legal) so why not Texas?

Just look at history - no country or civilization that practiced sexual licentiousness survived. They all went by the wayside. Our nation is founded on the principle of self-government wherein people govern themselves as directed by their consciences by God. Morality is essential to self-government. Today, sex and pleasure is the new god and there is no moral restraint. So much for moral restraint and so much for our Republic! No virtue, No republic! It's just a matter of time now.

[m1911]

Are male prostitutes legal in Nevada?

[Bikers4Bush]

Yes.

[Bikers4Bush]

Although from what I'm told there isn't exactly a market for them. Go figure.

[Bikers4Bush]

I wouldn't disagree with you. My only point was that if it's o.k. for Nevada to determine what is deviant or not within the state lines then the same should hold true for Texas in which case the SC would have had to side with the state.

[eyespysomething]

Appeal?

[m1911]

Then the two state laws are not comparable. Deviant sexual intercourse between men and women is not illegal in Texas. It's an equal protection issue.

[Libertarian4Bush]

but is god essential to morality? I would say no.

[Bikers4Bush]

How on earth do you figure? Are you implying that there are no homosexual prostitutes or users of prostitutes in Nevada?

[Bikers4Bush]

Last I'd heard that Texas law referred to sodomy period and did not differentiate between the sexes.

[Bikers4Bush]

I don't know who it could be appealed to.

[Libertarian4Bush]

appeal to hans blix?

[m1911]

It was changed in 1973. From the decision:

'The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). It provides: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows:

"(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

"(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object." §21.01(1).
'

The sodomy law originally applied to both sexes (and as such MIGHT have squeaked by the SC), but it was changed to add the "with another individual of the same sex", making the same acts legal if different people performed them.

[Labyrinthos]

I think he's thinking more along the lines of states rights issues.

Fine. Then lobby for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Until then, and notwithstanding the U of M Law School case, states are required to treat their citizens equally.