Supreme Legislature Discovers Right to Sodomy (Joseph J. Sabia)

Cornell Review ^ | 6/26/2003 | Joseph J. Sabia

[TLBSHOW]

Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Guerriero—a so-called Republican who claims to revere the U.S. Constitution—admitted as such in a memorable exchange with Pat Buchanan on MSNBC’s Buchanan & Press:

GUERRIERO: …We support an overturning of the remainder of sodomy laws across the country...

BUCHANAN: [Via] judicial fiat?

GUERRIERO: I don’t care how.

Joseph J. Sabia

[muawiyah]

Well, anyway, the Justices know what they like, eh?!

Ginzburg most of all.

[Mark was here]

I say the government should cutoff all AIDS funding and research immediately.

If spreading AIDS is a private mater, the treatment of it should also be.

Now more than ever.

[Malesherbes]

It's amazing how our Supreme Court keeps discovering rights not previously known to be in the Constitution: yesterday, diversity; today, sodomy. What will tomorrow bring? Maybe polygamy and/or pederasty.

[JOE6PAK]

See also :"U.S. to Distribute 250,000 Quick AIDS Tests".

IN-FREEKIN-CREDIBLE!

[Andy Roark]

I think as long as homosexuals are having "bareback" parties, encouraging the spread of AIDS unchecked and then living on the treatments that are given to them by the state, or by their employer, we aboslutley should take another look.

There are many folks who contract AIDS who would benefit from research, but it is time that we start figuring out who is and is not a legitimate victim - and more importantly who is a victim because they wanted to increased "clout" in the liberal left community that comes from being HIV positive. Those who choose to catch HIV should live with their decisions, off of the govenment paycheck.

[BritExPatInFla]

"If spreading AIDS is a private mater, the treatment of it should also be."

God forbid that you might contract HIV through a transfusion or some other non-gay sex manner. Even as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, I realize that HIV is not only spread by the gay community, you need to educate yourself as well.

[Tax-chick]

No, no, no! You can't say that! That's LOGIC, and it UPSETS people, especially Supreme Court justices and Andrew Sullivan (pause to pray for his soul ...) Look what happened to Senator Santorum!

[Uncle Miltie]

Bow down before your new RULERS. The Supremes will brook no dissent from States or Constitutional Amendments.

[Malsua]

I'm not a homo. However, I could care less what two consenting folks do. This decision simply removed the government from it. How is this a bad thing? Do you think it was EVER enforced? Maybe once, twice, a handful? Shrug. Why is this even an issue? Do you think this repeal means that tons of homos who were platonic will now start having homo sex?

Let's be real here. It should have never become law in the first place. Let's start by getting the FED _OUT_ of our lives in the first place(starting with taxation). I'm all for repealing morality legislation. If you think moral legislation is so great, Saudi Arabia might be a fit for you. They legislate and punish everything including what you think and do in your own home.

[Malsua]

Oh and don't start in on the bit about "so it's ok to harm children". I never said that and would NEVER support such a thing. Two consenting adults, not killing each other is NOT my business.

[muir_redwoods]

Don't tell me that the Supreme Court decided that free adults have the right to decide what form of consensual sex they themselves prefer without the advice of the State. Why next thing you know somebody will claim for us the right to consume any kind of vegetation we like. Who will be able to tolerate a country where people are relied upon to make personal choices that only affect themselves? Don't all people need an intrusive State to tell them what is moral and what is not? How can we let people make such choices for themselves?

[mikenola]

Today's ruling was sound. Contrary to many FReepers I believe there is a constitutional basis for the "right to privacy" grounded in Amendment IV, "search and seizure". This is defacto privacy.

Those who contradict this argument might do well to stop and think if they want *their* bedroom practices held open to public scrutiny. (How many FReepers indulges in kink?)

The public health argument re aids, is null , because we have exisiting laws covering willful endangerment, including other STDs.

I posted on an earlier thread that FReepers should detail their bedroom practices here on FR. Then all of us could decide. So far no takers.

[AmishDude]

As Justice Thomas said, it's not the actual ruling that's so abhorrent (I want all such laws off the books) it's the reason -- privacy. Santorum will be proven right in short order. Some freak in Utah is going to argue that he can have sex with his 2 daughters and 2 nieces (all of age, of course) and the incest and polygamy laws cannot enter his bedroom.

He'll probably lose -- the first time (some penumbras are more equal than others) -- but it won't be long before some appeals court will have to acknowledge the right to privacy there.

[BikerNYC]

"The court has taken sides in the culture war.”

Scalia is right, of course, but his dissent has taken sides, too.

[DaGman]

The government has a plethora of compelling reasons to keep sex between a father and daughter or nieces very illegal just a it does for bigamy and other crimes. To argue differently is simply hysteria.

This decision was a good one. The government has absolutely no business in the private bedroom of consenting adults, period.

[AmishDude]

The government has a plethora of compelling reasons to keep sex between a father and daughter or nieces very illegal just a it does for bigamy and other crimes.

Name one.

Oh, one that will not be trumped by "privacy".

Whether or not a government should be in a person's bedroom is quite a different matter as to whether or not it is constitutional.

[Rodsomnia]

What do you expect when pinhead senators require judges to pass the Constitutional litmus test of seeing an abortion right in the Constitution. Oops I forgot it's right below the line with the "Diversity" clause.

[Rodsomnia]

Why should "privacy" rights be restricted to the bedroom? Why not extend the broad privacy rights to our wallets like the people who wrote the Constitution intended.

[bvw]

Today's ruling has a sound. An awful one. Your view is myopic, and selfish. Don't waste your time replying -- I'm not in a discussion. Just giving a warning, and now, on this issue I am quiet, except only to my children who G-d-willing I will strive to shelter, and protect.