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

Associated Press ^ | 06-26-03

[DAnconia55]

I wonder how many freaks will celibrate my taking it up the a** tonight !

You really should find better things to do with your imagination.

[Southack]

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

Indeed, I agree.

But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and this activist Court got something right, even if they got there for the wrong reasons.

The end result of their ruling is that *government* power has been restricted.

The Court ruled that our government does *not* have the Constitutional authority to regulate a large scope of private activities inside our bedrooms, homes, and castles.

Sure, at least 3 of the Justices voted for this result simply because they are Leftists who want to see Leftist activist groups have a victory, but no matter, government power has just been restricted.

In short, this is a stealth victory for limiting socialism and government scope-creep. Friends of Big-Government everywhere will one day mourn this ruling.

Our bedrooms are now mostly off-limits to government control. Expand that principle to all of our private property and you've got yourself charging back on the road to freedom.

For instance, pollution regulations are going to come under pressure based upon this ruling. Polluters can point to this ruling and cite the privacy and limited-government-scope arguments and have a much better chance of prevailing than prior to today.

Is it the government's business to know if I just killed an "endangered species" Wolf inside my house now? How about anywhere on my private property ranch?

Is it the government's business if my wife and I assemble a machine gun in my bedroom now? It's consensual, after all, and we do have our right to privacy as well as to whatever turns us on, right?

[jwalsh07]

My duty, rather, is to "decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.

Justice Thomas

Now if he can't find it and Torie can't find it, how did you find it? :-}

[jwalsh07]

The end result of their ruling is that *government* power has been restricted.

Absolutely not. The end result is that the central government got smaller, 9 justices, and infinitely more powerful.

Freedom doesn't emanate from the Supreme Court, freedom comes from the people.

Dictates from the court based on fallacaious reasoning are just that, fallacious.

Perhaps you can point me to the section of the Constitution enumerating a general right of privacy or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," .

I sure the hell can't find it. State legislatures and legislators may have lost a bit of power today but the SCOTUS became infinitely more powerful. On balance, an exceptionally bad day for freedom.

[DAnconia55]

I concur. What passes for 'Conservatism' around here, is more often and more accurately called Fundamentalist Theocracy.

'tis what happens when you run off the libertian thinkers for political (election) expediency..

There's less people left to combat them.

[tdadams]

I have to say I have only read selected excerpts of the opinions so far, I intend to read the whole thing after a good night's sleep, but I agree in part with Torie's analysis and disagree in part.

I agree that in theory it could open up broad avenues to create law from the bench, but in reality, this decision won't necessarily become the basis for a myriad of judicial vagaries. Although the impact of this case is resounding in this particular issue, and the legal basis for overturning the law was sound, I think the opinions given form a fairly weak basis as far as precedent goes. They're hardly controlling. The only decisive controlling statement was in reference to the '86 case of Bowers v. hardwick.

I think the opinions in this case are fairly simple and agreeable. The fourth amendment guarantees a person's personal security (in essense his privacy). If the Texas law couldn't be shown to have a compelling reason to override that privacy, and it clearly did not, it is unconstitutional. I don't think this opens up a "brave new world".

[DAnconia55]

Homosexuals: 1) subject their body parts to uses nature did not intend

Nice to meet you Mother Nature. Didn't know you were real. Can I have your email address in case I need to ask a question of Nature in the future?
Does this apply to us straight folk too? Because I can think of at least two ways to use one of my parts that would fit this definition. (I'd suggest you try at least one of them once. It'll loosen you up...)

are prone to greater suicide, depression and other mental disorders and deficiencies than the heterosexual population at large
Ah. I see. You care about them. Perhaps we should ban air traffic controllers too. They fit this description.

4) molest young people (pedophilia) at a far greater rate than heterosexuals

And the state of the law changes this? Making sex illegal or legal changes the amount of gays? Fess up. You're really afraid now that it's legal, you'll pop off around to the corner store and find someone of the same sex to get it on with. Only that LAW held you back, right?

engage in degrading sexual promiscuity, oftentimes engaging in risky sex with many partners during the same event;

Define :"degrading sexual promiscuity".
Hmmm What about little 'ol me. Can I do that, then? Seeing as I'm not gay?

6 and 7 were being done when it was 'illegal' to engage in gay sex. Logic isn't your strong point is it?

[Southack]

"Perhaps you can point me to the section of the Constitution enumerating a general right of privacy or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ."

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[LizardQueen]

Is it the government's business if my wife and I assemble a machine gun in my bedroom now? It's consensual, after all, and we do have our right to privacy as well as to whatever turns us on, right?

It only falls under the privacy umbrella if you use the machine gun as a sex toy ;) ....

LQ, ducking and running....

[DAnconia55]

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?

It isn't. It's fundamentally immoral the I have to apply for permission from the government to choose my wife. (license)

Not something a free society should do.

But then, we're not one.

Amazing how we can be enslaved, merely by stamping the word free on our heads, and the sheep eat it up....

[jwalsh07]

Are you making my point for me?

Thanks.

The people referred to in 9 and 10 are not the 9 people in robes across from the capital building. Agreed?

[tdadams]

Thomas, and you I suppose, are being literal to the point of being dismissively captious. If you're looking for the word "privacy" it's not there. But most people don't need to see the word spelled out to understand the essence and nature of the 4th Amendment. That is to ensure a person's right to certain reasonable measures of privacy, which would encompass the right to consensual sex in your own home whether or not the state approves of your sexual partner.

[scan58]

The end result of their ruling is that *government* power has been restricted.

Absolutely not. The end result is that the central government got smaller, 9 justices, and infinitely more powerful.

My guess is that we haven't seen the end result of this ruling at all.

[Southack]

People with and without robes are all equal, and the law applies to all such people equally.

The 9th and 10th Amendments insure that rights for all people that weren't specificly identified in our Constitution were still protected by our Constitution.

"Privacy" seems to be the most popular such hidden right at the moment. The rights to look for a job or have children would also fall under the 9th and 10th.

But since such rights aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is up to the Courts to identify *when* certain laws go too far in trampling on said rights.

That's what has been done in today's ruling, though I'll probably question the *motives* of at least 3 of the Justices.

[jwalsh07]

I agree that in theory it could open up broad avenues to create law from the bench, but in reality, this decision won't necessarily become the basis for a myriad of judicial vagaries

Those exact words coud have been applied to Roe.

And then there was Doe.

And now we kill them on the way out.

I know where you stand on the issue of homosexuality and I freely admit that I'm a social conservative.

But, surely we can agree that a nation of 50 states has room for us all to live in communities of our choosing without edicts from Olympia.

As to the fourth amendment, it clearly states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And it was clearly not an issue in this case. Do you think the fourth amendment is a basis for Roe?

[jwalsh07]

But since such rights aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is up to the Courts to identify *when* certain laws go too far in trampling on said rights.

Not really, the Constituion is the guarantor of "fundamental" rights, and the majority made a point of saying that sodomy, be it hetero or homo, is not a fundamental right.

If that isn't the case, then they can easily find a right to health care or cadillacs or even holiday in France.

That is what you are advancing.

In the absence of a "fundamental" right question the tenth amendment applies and the issue of what is moral, and all law has a moral component, is left "to the people".

Not to 9 justices.

I'm not going to convince you or Adams but I will ask you both this.

Was the court activist in substituting the word "diversity" for "equal protection under the law"?

[jwalsh07]

MY guess is that your guess is 100% correct.

[Southack]

"If that isn't the case, then they can easily find a right to health care or cadillacs or even holiday in France."

Ahhh, but we *do* have a right to such things, it's just that we aren't necessarily entitled to have the government pay us for them.

[Southack]

"Was the court activist in substituting the word "diversity" for "equal protection under the law"?"

Probably, but I didn't see it. I only read Scalia's dissent.

[Southack]

"In the absence of a "fundamental" right question the tenth amendment applies and the issue of what is moral, and all law has a moral component, is left "to the people". Not to 9 justices."

Indeed, not to 9 Justices nor to 3,000 state legislators or some 500+ Congressmen.

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