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.

[Clint N. Suhks]

pain:- The state does not have the power to regulate consensual incest between adults.

Oh my, I take back my hypocrite charges, you’re a full-fledged Liberaltarian perv aren’t you? Bestiality too?

[tdadams]

Apology accepted. I understand.

Yes, society has the right to pass laws that reflect their moral values, but, only to the extent that those laws do not infringe upon the rights of the individual without a clear and compelling reason for doing so. This is the concept enshrined in the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. And that was the source of the conflict to be resolved in this case.

The court in this case challenged the state of Texas to articulate why it has an interest in abridging this person's conduct, when done in the privacy of their home, and without harming anyone, that overrides the rights of the individual.

The state could not make a convincing argument.

I believe the courts ruling was correct. And although I agree with the arguments in Kennedy's written opinion, I do think it was just a bit of a contrivance. I think Justice O'Connor's argument, based on the Equal Protection Clause, was as solid as can be and very convincing. She drew straight from the black and white of the Constitution.

You may disagree with the outcome and lament the cultural implications, but the ruling and the opinions were sound and correct. I agree it opens up a lot of grey area for other issues relating to privacy, i.e. smoking marijuana in your home. But I have confidence the court anticipated those possibilities and has a means of dealing with them judiciously if they should come up.

[tbpiper]

Can you read? - I asked you a specific question just above:

"Is what kind of sodomy 'wrong' in what context to whom?"

Yes, I can read, but you obiously can't take a hint and since you won't but out (no pun intended), I'll ask you the question, specificly.

Is it wrong for a man to insert his penis into the rectum of another human being?

Additional information to aid in specificity:

The rectum's natural function is to excrete fecal matter.

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

[tdadams]

I'm sorry, I assumed by my use of the "LOL", you could have surmised my answer.

[tdadams]

Thank you. I'd like to know how many here have actually bothered to read the opinions. I suspect most had their soliloquies prepared in advance.

Kennedy made a very lucid and convincing argument for restraining the power of government.

This is a good thing.

[tbpiper]

Are you ever going to directly answer my question? I would not like to make an incorrect inference.

[Dead Corpse]

Not to mention property Rights and the Second amendment. The same way the gay lobby got this law tossed out is the same way most of us have been advocating tax law and gun control should be tossed out.

The Grundy Brigadiers here on FR are just pissed off because they can't legislate for the Missionary position anymore.

[tpaine]

Take your perverted bestiality crap to the back room, suhks. - Argue the issue or shut up:

- The state does not have the power to regulate consensual incest between adults.
- Never has had, never will.

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.
As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures;
the right to consensual incest;
and so on.  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777

[Dead Corpse]

What really made me sick today was trying to listen to Rush. If he would have said "cost to society" or brought up the "Rights of the State" one more time... I would have puked. As it is, I'm canceling my subscription to the Limbaugh Letter.

[RinaseaofDs]

There is no problem. The 10th amendment that would perhaps limit your cheeseburger consumption would be left to the states to legislate, which are closer to the people, which is the point of the editorial that you missed.

Instead of the court saying, the issue here isn't sodomy as a constitutional right, it's the fact that Texas only prohibited sodomy in same sex situations (how come not banned in hetero situations?). They could have sent it back to Texas to rectify that on equal protection grounds.

[tdadams]

Let's not get on this merry go round. I've answered you the way I'm going to answer you, the only way that would be an honest reflection of my opinion. Why would you want me to answer more simplistically with less clarity?

[tdadams]

Thankfully I don't listen to Rush much anymore. The older I get, the lower my threshold for bloviating gets.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

This is not to you personally, kattracks, just a general rant.

begin rant

While you all are playing games (dinking around with Amazon's recommendations, and protesting the Dixie Chicks, etc), the Supreme Court has been busy at work and has legalized sodomy; in the same way they legalized virtual child porn and abortion. Legalized marriage between two gays isn't that far off. And what's next after that? All of this silliness is a waste of time.

/end rant

[tbpiper]

Less clarity???? What could be more clear than a simple yes or no? My guess is you can't say one way or another. That to your way of thinking the act of sodomy is right or wrong depending on what one believes about it. Is this correct?

[swarthyguy]

Kennedy made a very lucid and convincing argument for restraining the power of government.

Why more "conservatives" can't see this is puzzling.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Not to mention property Rights and the Second amendment.

Yep that too. I think this ruling can be very useful for us.

[tpaine]

Can you read? - I asked you a specific question just above:
"Is what kind of sodomy 'wrong' in what context to whom?"

Yes, I can read, but you obiously can't take a hint and since you won't but out (no pun intended), I'll ask you the question, specificly.
Is it wrong for a man to insert his penis into the rectum of another human being?
Additional information to aid in specificity:
The rectum's natural function is to excrete fecal matter.
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.
44 -pipe-

Sorry but you have only specifed 'what kind' of disgusting act you dwell on 'to whom'.. I'll agree it is a nasty form of sex.

Now specify what is constitutionally 'wrong' in that act in what context.

[jimt]

Is it wrong for a man to insert his penis into the rectum of another human being?

Let me give it a try.

Is it WRONG? Yes.

Should it be CRIMINAL? No.