Ruling may impact sex laws, sets stage for marriage fight

Washington Blade ^ | June 26, 2003 | CHRIS CRAIN

[Dog Gone]

This is a pretty good analysis of the decision, even though it comes from the gay perspective.

[pittsburgh gop guy]

After reading the entire decision, I can say without a doubt:

This is the worst decision in a generation.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Yup. This is what it was really all about.

Get ready. The Culture Wars is going nuclear.

Gonna be a bumpy ride...(no pun)

[DoughtyOne]

You mark my words, IMO the homosexual agenda will destroy everything decent in this nation.

This issue is intertwined with the very fabric of our society.

Marriage
Familes
Children
Education
Housing
Churches
Government
and more...

...will be impacted by this.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

So, does this mean it covers a father having sex with his 18 year old daughter if it's consensual?

Does this open the door to legal incest?

What about bestiality?

This case was about opening the floodgates of perversion and tearing down all cultural norms.

This is just a big first step in getting the court to add homosexuality to civil rights statutes such that they can get around the laws that states have passed against recognition of gay marraige...and make it a civil rights penalty to deny it.

As Hannity just said, "Does this mean a priest will be arrested if he refuses to marry gays"?

This is a huge opening volley in the culture war....

The worst decision this court has ever handed down, even worse than the affirmative action decision...

[Im Your Huckleberry]

You got it.

The inmates are running the asylum.

[Dog Gone]

"This case 'does not involve' the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this court."

Scalia has a knack for being brutally honest.

It is now no longer enough for Congress to pass a Defense of Marriage Act. It needs to be a Constitutional Amendment in order to shut Pandora's Box opened today.

Can you imagine the fight that will generate?

[rth_sr]

"The worst decision this court has ever handed down, even worse than the affirmative action decision.."

While the decision is deplorable, Roe v. Wade is, without a doubt, the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court.

[RAT Patrol]

Clearly, the majority now exists to pull a Canadian.

[RAT Patrol]

Now that the Court has recognized a homosexuals as a minority group (gee, what desire can we come up with that will grant us such status?), what effect will this have on the elevated issue of diversity? Will AA include homoseuxals now? Will schools etc...be allowed to seek a critical mass?

[randita]

As Hannity just said, "Does this mean a priest will be arrested if he refuses to marry gays"?

Hannity's argument is stupid. Priests and pastors can refuse to marry heterosexual couples now for any number of reasons. Being married by a priest or pastor is not a right. People can have a civil marriage.

[randita]

Does this ruling mean that state laws against prostitution can be challenged?

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Exactly.

This was a calculated case, brought before the court by calculating members of the "filthy, degenerate, lobby" for the express purpose of setting a precedent towards their filthy, degenerate behavior being granted civil rights status.

This was a monstrous decision, absolutely monstrous.

You watch. You mark my words. This is going to open the flood gates. The gays are going to go into overdrive now, trying to achieve federal civil rights recognition.

This will allow them to sue landlords, churches, the boy scouts (again), private professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc, who have religious convictions that would not allow them to take a gay as a client), etc.

This is about rubbing it in the "breeders" faces and forcing the 98% of the population that doesn't practice or support their deviancy, to deal with them. They want to mock society. They want to irritate, annoy and insult the normal, heterosexual population.

I can't even say anymore. I'm too wound up. But I guarantee you what I would say next would get me banned outright. No cooling off period. No time out. Straight out banned.

So I won't say it...but I'll sit here and think it...

[Im Your Huckleberry]

They need to do it.

And they need to do it now.

[randita]

This is the worst decision in a generation.

You said it. I haven't been all that happy with W's triangulation strategy, but when it's obvious how high the stakes are regarding the judiciary, I'm willing to cut him slack. We HAVE GOT TO KEEP a Republican President and get closer to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. I think W is doing what he thinks he has to make that happen.

[Dog Gone]

Does this ruling mean that state laws against prostitution can be challenged?

It makes it more likely. How can the state make that conduct in the bedroom between consenting adults illegal?

[almcbean]

This article is from a gay newspaper. They clearly understand the import of this decision. A court assault by homosexual activists on marriage is next, and this decision will provide the ammunition. Read the decision. As Scalia says, if you apply the logic and principles of this decision, everything goes. Polygamy, incest, and even bestiality is constitutionally protected under this court's logic.

[babyface00]

It makes it more likely. How can the state make that conduct in the bedroom between consenting adults illegal?

And why not extend this same right to privacy to any consensual act, including drug use or commerce, the exchange of pre-existing child pornography, the exchange of firearms, or any private, consensual action? Furthermore, how can the government "regulate" income generated on private property between consenting adults?!

This could have some could side-effects, and it could also have some bad ones. It's a new paradigm, that's for sure.

[babyface00]

"could have some could"

should be

"could have some good"

[Jim Noble]

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"

Does he have any idea what he's just said?