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

Associated Press ^ | 06-26-03

[Vis Numar]

The only reason to read these sort of threads is to see how the sex-act police can't help but visualizing their anti-obsession-- that, and the stray libertarian that cares to bother...

[jwalsh07]

You didn't read the majority opinion?

:-}

So, their justification for the opinion is of no consequence as long as the outcome accords with your ideology.

Aargh!

[jwalsh07]

As a proud 2nd Amendment fan, to "the people" means individual, not collective rights, to me

What are we gonna do, compare gun racks?

You mentioned "collectivism", nobody else. One of the prime rights of the individual is to cast a vote at the ballot box.

The SCOTUS and and supporters of judicial activism are wont to disenfranchise the "people" from that right.

The penumbra holds all sorts of magical things. Give them a chance, they'll get to our guns sooner or later. They are emboldened now and when they come for your guns in your state, remember to read the majority opinion.

[Southack]

"So, their justification for the opinion is of no consequence as long as the outcome accords with your ideology."

I looked at the dissent to see if there was a compelling reason for the government to override bedroom privacy. What I found was that Scalia concentrated not on providing that compelling reason, but rather spent his time rightfully skewering the liberal Justices for their reversals of their own rationals as they listed in cases such as Roe v Wade, among others.

Scalia is clearly setting them up to use their own justifications in the majority opinion today as rationales for overturning their sacred cows such as Roe v Wade after the Court gets new Justices.

Which is all fine and well, but Scalia didn't list why the government should have a compelling interest to override your bedroom privacy. Had he listed such a reason, I would have had to have read the majority opinion to see if they had a better argument against said reason.

But alas, there was no such reason in the dissent. Scalia was citing technical reasons for his dissent by listing the clearly contradictory rationales used by the liberals in earlier cases compared to today.

[jwalsh07]

Then you missed his entire thesis of "fundamental" rights which I am so ineptly trying to elucidate here.

[Southack]

"You mentioned "collectivism", nobody else. One of the prime rights of the individual is to cast a vote at the ballot box. The SCOTUS and and supporters of judicial activism are wont to disenfranchise the "people" from that right. The penumbra holds all sorts of magical things. Give them a chance, they'll get to our guns sooner or later. They are emboldened now and when they come for your guns in your state, remember to read the majority opinion."

Careful. If casting a vote is your so-called "individual" right, then you have no more right to own a gun than what your legislature says.

That's something that I strongly disagree with. I have the INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun, regardless of what legislators get voted into office. That's a true individual right, as opposed to what you mentioned about voting people into office.

[jwalsh07]

Careful.

Not necessary. but thanks anyway. If casting a vote is your so-called "individual" right, then you have no more right to own a gun than what your legislature says.

The right to vote and the RTKABA are both individual rights and are not mutually exclusive. You can no more violate my right to vote at the point of a gun than the next guy can vote abridge your right to own a gun.

But your take that voting rights are not individual rights is an interesting one since the Constituion enumerates it every bit as clearly as the RTKABA.

So you tell me is voting a "collective" right enumerated in the Constitution?

[Technogeeb]

I agree about arresting the two men. I highly suspect that the whole thing was staged from start to finish, including the arrest.

It was; the person who gave the false report was also a homosexual, and the two engaging in sodomy refused to stop when the police arrived and threatened them with arrest. The entire case was a fraud.

[tdadams]

I think basing Roe on the 4th was a contrivance, even if someone were to have an abortion in the privacy of their own home, which I'm not aware of any instances of that. I think this decision is consistent with the intent of the 4th. That's not to say the Founders favored the amendment for the purpose of men copulating with each other.

But I imagine the Founders, being intelligent men, certainly could have foreseen that by securing idividuals against government intrusion that they might be protecting some illicit behavior.

Nevertheless, they saw the rights of the individual as having primacy over the interests of the government, absent a clear and compelling reason. Lawrence v. Texas is completely consistent with that line of thinking.

[Princeton]

[jpsb]

I thought I was the King of Typos, but you just won my title. (That was a typo right?)

[GenXFreedomFighter]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the Law of Moses required that marriages had to be recognized by the government of the locality where the couple resided. I don't know where I read that (the Bible maybe), but I believe that religious institutions for a long time have wanted that government involvement to legally bind the couple to make divorce that much harder. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Newbomb Turk]

It took me a while but yes that was a typo. I will proably burn in hades for what I think of the people who engage in that activity anyway.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> Why do homosexualists use an accusation of homosexualism as a put down...

Kinda funny it goes both ways in this battle.
There has been a perennial gay rights battle in Oregon now for about the last 20 years.

Back when former Nike executive, Portland Mayor, and Transportation Secretary (under Carter) Neil Goldschmidt was Governor, he issued an executive order giving gays rights that others in state employment didn't enjoy. That order spawned an organization known as the Oregon Citizen's Alliance, who immediately launched an initiative drive to overturn the order. The initiative won approval by the voters, and the order was rescinded.

Subsequently, they lauched anti special rights initiatives statewide and in most cities and counties. One of the cities to approve such a law was Springfield, right next door to Eugene. During the campaign there was much heated debate, one of the more vocal proponents of the measure was a conservative Springfield City Councilor and Sheriff's deputy who's name I would like to mention but can't spell (it's Polish). Though he was on our side (or at least my side), he was sometimes less than professional in his conduct during the campaign (though the other side did some nasty stuff, including painting pink triangles all over his house and car, then creating a ruckus on his property, waking him and his family to see the destruction - probably a dumb thing to do at a cop's house but nobody got shot). He would often accuse his opponents of being homosexual, though more often they were just plain old straight liberals who would quickly deny being gay ("I've been married for 20 years, I have four kids..." You know the drill)

I always thought it odd that if those people really didn't see anything wrong with being gay or promoting the gay lifestyle, they would be offended at being referred to as gay.

Dave in Eugene

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> Nevertheless, they saw the rights of the individual as having primacy over the interests of the government, absent a clear and compelling reason. Lawrence v. Texas is completely consistent with that line of thinking.

Agreed. But they use that same argument against laws barring public conduct, or worse, government promotion, and they'll use it when they use the courts to try to get marriage and adoption.

I'm not sure about adoption (or foster parenting). A law that declares some thing to be prohibited ought to at least say why something is so bad it needs to be prohibited. I know why it is in my mind, but I'm not sure how it could be spelled out in a law.

Marriage should be cut and dried, it's what it is (between a man and a woman), but in the end, I think it'll boil down to the issue of use of the word.

Civil unions exist, and no law or court ruling is going to change that. They can, and do, contractually arrange nearly all of the benefits now. The only thing they miss out on now is a few dollars of Social inSecurity survivor benefits. I don't think we can really stop two (or perhaps more) consenting adults from forming a legal relationship that gives one another all or most of the benefits of marriage. That "or perhaps more" bit is going to open up a whole new can of worms if and when the issue gets to the USSC, when the question arises "why only between a man and a woman?", the next question will be "why only two?". Well why not? Do any of us have a rational argument? I can see it now - government eployees first, then many others, setting up little communes and harems and such, getting 20 or 30 tax deductions and subsidized health coverage for the whole bunch. I guess I'll have to start shopping for some extra wives so I won't be having to pay the difference. One can easily see our culture being seriously altered by this.

Dave in Eugene

[Old Professer]

Members of a local American Legion Post made up of gay men unfurled the American flag, then saluted and sang the "Star-Spangled Banner," as residents marveled that a goal they had been seeking for so long had been realized.

Well, I guess my post isn't that bad, afterall. They're just a bunch of red-necked, bad-tempered drunks.