Gays Overjoyed, Conservatives Despair Over Sodomy Ruling (Mega-barf ALERT)

Associated Press ^ | 06-26-03

[Brian S]

In a gesture of gratitude for the Supreme Court's decision Thursday striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law, gay-rights activists lowered the huge rainbow flag that always flies over the city's Castro District and hoisted the Stars and Stripes in its place.

[jwalsh07]

You either can't read or you are incapable of understanding the breadth, scope and audaciousness Kennedy's majority opinion.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

"Gay advocacy groups from Alaska to Florida planned to celebrate into the night."

God help the gerbils...lock up the pet stores...now!

[Southack]

"The danger is that this opinion may have reduced marriage from a societal institution to a mere contract. (massachusetts alert for reasoning predictions)"

It's possible that we lost the fight over marriage more than a century ago. Why, for instance, is *government* in the business of regulating this particular religious practice known as marriage?

I certainly don't want the government passing laws about baptism and excommunication, so why is marriage OK to regulate by the government in the first place?

Regulating marriage may have been the seminal event in which the government camel poked its nose into the religious tent.

In my opinion, marriage is a religious practice that should *only* be regulated by the religion of your choice. Likewise, government laws about homeschooling and other practices that are driven by religious beliefs should be thrown out. It's simply NOT the government's domain.

[longtermmemmory]

I vote, I do not shirk jury duty.

No the Supreme Court did not do what they were supposed to do. However, the court ebbs and flows, there was the dred scot and brown vs board of education decisions.

Are the liberals like yourself going to appologize to senator santorum now? The homosexual groups just announced on the nightly news that they intend to use this opinion to challege opposition to homosexual marriage.

[tdadams]

Sorry, I expect a little more than you simply calling me illiterate if you want my consideration. I'm quite capable of understanding the decision, thinking for myself, and drawing a conclusion. I disagree with you. Deal with it.

[PhiKapMom]

You are right -- I did forget NJ! That makes me even more disgusted.

Personally think this is a wake-up call that we need to active in electing conservatives to the House and Senate and especially get more in the Senate so we can get less activist Judicial nominees through the confirmation process.

I am sick and tired of an activist SCOTUS that I have been witnessing and it scares me what would happen with the DemocRATs in control of the White House and Senate.

[cherry_bomb88]

Wonder if it's legal to burn a rainbow flag?

You know, because of the recent ruling given to us by the Supreme court....perhaps burning a rainbow flag at the FReep of the HildaBeast on Saturday wouldn't be entirely out of place! But, CL, it's up to you, it's your show!

[bayourod]

I just can't wait to tell my girlfried what's now legal.

[tdadams]

How did you feel about the decisions to overturn state laws permitting medical marijuana and assisted suicide? Your answer will be very telling.

I have a thick skin, so calling me a liberal is nothing but amuzing to me. Along with that label, the virtuous and pious standard bearers of FR also frequently call me a homo and a druggie, neither of which is true either.

[jwalsh07]

I dissent, you're letting your ideology cloud you're judgement. When the judicial activists bite you in the ass, don't come looking here for sympathy.

One can not read Kennedy's opinion and come away with anything but utter awe at the audacity of the SCOTUS.

[Imal]

It is decisions like this that make me want to give every male Supreme Court justice a big, sloppy French kiss.

[longtermmemmory]

Most people do not realize that religious marriages are not recognized by the government. When you priest performs the ceremony, for government purposes, they are doing it as their capacity as a notary public. Thus the government is recognizing the marriage by notary not priest.

This explanation does not take into account common law marriages since they are not recognized in every state and the process is different in those states that do.

(In watching Candidate Dean on sunday, it is clear in his mind that vermont abolished marriage rather than created civil unions.)

The marriage unit is the way native citizens. The one man one woman is the core family unit of our society and our nation. The governemtn has a vested interest in the sucess of this family unit. Call it enlightened self interest. Government also has an intereste in ENCOURAGING this form. This also means DIScouraging the recognition of less acceptable alternative lifestyles.

[jwalsh07]

Applauding judicial activism because it accords with your particular ideology is a dead end street.

Why have states at all?

In fact, why have legislatures?

[tdadams]

You're saying a lot of words but you're not making your case. Make your case and I'll consider it.

I thought Kennedy's opinion was very clear, sound, and based on solid reasoning. I am a bit surprised the majority opinion was based on the privacy protection of the Constitution and not on an equal protection ground. I think the equal protection ground would have been much more cut and dried, but the privacy issue is perfectly legitimate also.

Any law abridging a person's right to privacy (and spare me all the usual no-right-to-gay-sex sophistry, I've heard it all before) must hold up to a strict scrutiny standard. In other words, the state must prove why it's interest in denying a person their rights is of such an overriding interest, that the state's interest trumps the right of the individual who is being denied their rights. This statute was doomed. It could never meet that standard, therefore it's unconstitutional and the court's decision was correct.

Scalia's opinion on the other hand was fairly baseless and rooted in personal ideology. Even Judge Napolitano on Fox News agrees with me on that point.

[tdadams]

Applauding judicial activism because it accords with your particular ideology is a dead end street.

You're absolutely right. So what do you think about the court overturning state laws permitting assisted suicide and medical marijuana? Certainly those are two clear examples of judicial activism. Do you agree or disagree? I'd love to hear your rationale if you disagree.

[Southack]

"The marriage unit is the way native citizens. The one man one woman is the core family unit of our society and our nation. The governemtn has a vested interest in the sucess of this family unit."

Indeed, government certainly does have a vested interest in it, but it isn't within the government's domain to do much about that fact.

Government can not inject itself into the rules and practices of religion. It is forbidden from so doing.

I certainly don't want a Court or Legislature telling me that I'm going to be excommunicated or that I can't be baptised.

But because government has gotten away with regulating the religious practice of marriage for so long, we now have government telling us something that the Church wouldn't: that homosexual marriage is legal (or at least, it will tell us that at some point it time).

[jwalsh07]

Torie is opposed to sodomy laws and is inifinitely more well versed in the law than I am. Here is his opinion of the amjority's decision.

---

Posted by Torie to jwalsh07
On News/Activism 06/26/2003 9:06 PM EDT #1,420 of 1,448

While Kennedy cited Roe, what is so interesting about this decision, is that it backed away from the right to privacy concept. The rationale of this decision, along with Griswald and Roe in a repackaging effort, were wrapped in a yet even broader and more vague concept about the due process right to liberty where its exercise is fundamental to the person. No, I am not making this up.
So now, if the Court really wanted to get activist, with this vague, amorphous, and subjective tool, combined with equal protection sledge hammar (all laws by definition are unequal in protection because they make distinctions, and thus are fair game for bludgoning), well SCOTUS can simply pass any legislation it wants.

Lamar Alexander had this demogogic line (yes, I don't like Lamar), about cutting the pay of Congress, and sending them home. If SCOTUS really gets going, the pay should be cut to zero, and they should stay home forever, and sell off the Capitol Building. The legislative branch will have become as vestigal as an appendix.

In short John, you might not have liked the manufactured penumbra right of privacy, but it had the virtue of by its very nature, being somewhat limited in its application. The standard applied in this case is as limitless as the West Texas horizon. We have a brave new world out there.

And so it goes.

[chicagolady]

We also have to note it is GAY PRIDE WEEK!
The Gay parade is Sunday BUT festivites go ALL Weekend!
That might mean a bigger turn out for Hillary Because Clinton did more than ANYONE to futher the gay agenda.
I am gonna walk softly and my AIM is Hitlery and her
LYING HISTORY!
If you do not have an aim..you will not hit the target!

[chicagolady]

Does this mean Fudge Packing is legal?

[jwalsh07]

I disagree with the court sticking their nose in the medical pot tent or even in the decriminalization tent though I personally would not live in a state that legalized 'all"drugs across the board. It is clearly a state issue.

The assisted suicide law is a horse of a differnt color. The right to life is the first moral imperative of our system of government and allowing the "state" , meaning government federal or state, to gets it nose under there could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences that I'd be glad to discuss with you.