Privacy amok (Sodomy Laws)

Washington Times ^ | 6/27/03

[kattracks]

The Supreme Court turned the Constitution upside down yesterday. In a 6-3 decision, the majority struck down state sodomy laws across the country ? a move that is being celebrated as a huge victory for homosexual rights, which it is. The court used the so-called right to privacy to rule against a Texas law prohibiting sex between people of the same sex. In a brazen example of judicial overreach, the court also ruled against all sodomy laws in all states. This is bad law; the Constitution protects the rights of the states to legislate on these matters.

[Skywalk]

Problem is, I can find neither a right to eat cheeseburgers nor a right to use the internet in my copy of the Constitution either.

There may not be an absolute right to "privacy" but there certainly exist rights beyond those listed explicitly in Amendments 1-8.

[ex-Texan]

With ban on gay bashing on FR in effect, I will not write what I truly feel. But I urge Freepers in Los Angeles to pick up a copy of LA Weekly and quickly peruse it some time.
It is filled with open solicitations for sex with thrill seeking strangers looking for everything imaginable.

[weegee]

The court has reversed its own ruling. No ammendments have been made to the constitution. What's changed?

[RAT Patrol]

Nice, but too little too late from the Washington Times.

[RAT Patrol]

Actually, the court reversed the will of the Texas Legislature -- no, the will of 13 state legislatures.

[weegee]

What's more, the same lefists who chant "selected, not elected" applaud this Supreme Court decision. They don't base their arguments on the constitution or the rule of law; they are only interested in the end results.

[RAT Patrol]

Well, this has pushed me to make a final decision on something I've been thinking about a long time. I'm changing my voter registration to the Constitution Party. Republicans are spineless, therefore worthless. So I am taking David Horowitz's advice and moving on. It's the right think for me to do.

[RAT Patrol]

He won't. He's a RAT. It's a waste of my effort. Sorry.

[BillSharp]

Sorry, but buggery is a common law crime.

Eating hamburgers isn't.

[Ed_in_NJ]

"The Supreme Court turned the Constitution upside down yesterday."

WRONG!!! They did the turning exactly one year ago, in the Earls case, when they said schools could randomly subject innocent public school students to drug tests.

Where was all the outrage THEN? Nowhere - because to many so-called 'conservatives' it was a popular decision. It was sold as a 'law and order' issue, and a lot of gullible people bought into it. It only had to do with teenagers, so noone cared enough to look into it in depth.

The court sided with the government (schools) against the rights of students to attend school without having their bodily fluids "searched."

It was a 'social-activist' decision that required perversion of the Constitution -- just like this one.

[tdadams]

I have to disagree with those characterizing this ruling as judicial activism. While it's true that each state has the right to define its own laws within its borders, this is not absolute. No state can enact and enforce a law that violates an individual's civil rights. No one today except the most anachronistic among us would argue that miscegenation laws are supportable and constitutional. Those laws were rooted in animosity towards a certain behavior despised by a majority. Likewise with this Texas law.

It is the legitimate duty of the USSC to examine the justness of state laws when they come before it and weigh the constitutionality of those laws. The court rightly saw that the Texas law was an unjustified and unconstitutional invasion of an individual's liberty. The state could show no compelling reason why it's interests should override those of the individual.

The opinion given by Kennedy was very sound and well reasoned. And despite the outcome of this case and its cultural implications, the opinion was quite an eloquent affirmation of the principles most conservatives stand for - limiting the power of government.

And despite the constant stream of apocalyptic rhetoric I expect to see all through the day, as I look out my window at this moment, the sun does indeed continue to rise.

[tbpiper]

Is sodomy wrong?

[DB]

And Republicans are at fault for this decision how?

The Republicans went to war to nominate those judges that dissented in this case.

How many judges will the Constitution Party nominate?

[tdadams]

If you believe it's wrong, you're free to abstain.

[RAT Patrol]

The Republicans went to war to nominate those judges that dissented in this case.

Republicans also placed 4 of the 6 activists on the court. There are many good Republicans out there, most of them are gutless. Increasingly, the cultural war in the political arena is within the Republican Party itself. In case you haven't noticed, we're losing. Very few Republicans stood up and defended Santorum, let alone courageously argued this issue on its merits. Nope. They chickened-out, rolled-over, or flat out agreed with the liberals on it.

That's my view, and I've been inches away from this decision for a long time. I'll be honest, Bush has taught me I can't trust Republicans to either give it to me straight during elections, so I can make an informed decision, or to stand by what they do promise (CFR). Even if they did, courts decide everything. Republicans have the majority and they can't get any judges through unless they say "Mother may I" to Patrick Leahy.

And Bush has been wimpy on this subject at best. He's a politician first. That's fine. Now I know. I'm making an informed decision to change the way I approach politics and the way I vote.

[DB]

Some success is better than no success.

That is simply the reality of life.

Clinton was elected by much the same thinking your expressing now, BushI wasn't pure enough.

Our children will be paying for at least the next generation for the damage Clinton did to the country beginning with the WTC.

---

One of the flakes on the court was nominated by Reagan. Was he not worthy of your vote? He made some other doozies as well...

He also won the cold war.

[RAT Patrol]

DB, I have a great deal of respect for you. But I can tell you I've heard all this and argued it from your side before. Yet, all the people who say "compromise to win power" are not there to support the issues important to me. The Republican Party has changed and I don't recognize it. We got tax-cuts and that's great. But the spending has been through the roof -- all because we are "cleverly" trying to steal issues from the Democrats. Heck, other than the tax issue, we are Democrats. And if you keep spending like crazy, taxes are going to have to go back up. No question about it.

I'm actually quite excited about the Constitution Party and following my conscience.

You know, part of my gripe, too, is that even the so-called conservatives in the press have largely caved to the gay agenda. You've got Andrew Sullivan starring at the Washington Times; he's all the rave in the NR blog talk. Jonah Goldberg came out in favor of domestic partnership. Paul Greenberg argued for the constitutional right to sodomy. David Horowitz told Christian conservatives they are bigots (Falwell is a "jackass"), and unless they keep quiet about gay issues when he thinks they should, they ought to just leave the party. He even enlisted measured support from the likes of Ann Coulter and Dennis Preager(sp?). So I'm taking Horowitz's advice. The list of "conservatives" who have caved to gay pressure is surprisingly long.