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.

[tdadams]

Now your changing what you said.

[hosepipe]

the Constitution Party.. Hmmm
Been going through my mind too, ever since I predicted Bush Jr. would win after the Salon.com article before the primarys. Evidently, 2008 will be Jebs year. Too cynical ?.. maybe, but one thing is for certain Republican in name only is what the entire party represents.

The famous 900+ plus FBI files(blackmail) might be an explanation but with the entire country dumbed down by the public schools and the colleges are almost total ultra far left controled(Socialist) the future looks bleak. And since the 2nd Amendment was given to make revolution LEGAL but America has not got 2 balls to rub to together anymore, revolution is a very remote possibilty. It really looks like the cold war was LOST, to say otherwise would be Orwellian speak.

The Constitution Party looks good to me but I fear its merely a safe house in a negative enviornment. Course Ann Coulters Book might have some effect(TREASON). The effect that it will probably generate is mere clucking and I told you so's among the right, bleeding off effective action since a downright ball kicking by an increaseingly emasulated and effiminate American male public will result in ball sucking instead, I think. The thought of an extemely bloody and deadly and prolonged form of political housekeeping which I believe is what is needed (as Thomas Jeffersan believed) is not going to happen. The Russians won. I have been reading here (FR) for a number of years and I have noticed that the only thing NOT entertained(fear of gov't) is revolution, the very thing required and provided for by the founders. Every other sort of remedy I think has been proffered. For, no doubt, the reasons I gave above....

Its a revoltin' development to be sure and the only thing I can do is be ashamed of my own part in this. For I held on way too long. While bleating about the democrats already totally owned by the Socialists, my party was being dismantled.. as it "IS" already NOW as I write.. The time for words has long pasted.

[tbpiper]

What I said was:

If the vast majority of a state believes it is wrong, why shouldn't they pass laws against it?

You said:

Let's see, other than being a validation of mob rule and being entirely antithetical to the principles of a constitutional republic?

Your implication was that passing of a law was the equivalent of mob rule and that the process was entirely antithetical to the principles of a constitutional republic.

When I said ‘why shouldn't they pass laws’ it was to be understood that they use the political system that is in place as the means of doing such.

You still have weaseled out of answering a direct question. Is sodomy wrong? Surely you are gifted enough to answer a small question in a way that could be understood by such a simpleton as myself.

[Friend of thunder]

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

It may be wrong but should it be illegal?

Actually, according to the Texas law it was only wrong (unlawful) for a man to do it to another man. It was legal for a man to do it to his wife or, presumably, any other consenting female adult. I know many were expecting this to be decided as a 14th amendment issue

…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.…

But they have – if I understand it correctly – recognized sodomy between consenting adults as a right.

I am not sure I see a reason that a state should be able to forbid such actions. I believe that God, on the other hand, is able to, and has forbidden such actions. Perhaps it is because I live in Seattle and have Jim Mcdermott, Patty Murray and, Maria Cantwell representing me, but I am not eager to have politicians interpreting scripture.

[tdadams]

When I said ‘why shouldn't they pass laws’ it was to be understood...

Maybe that was understood by you, but obviously it would be since you're the one making the statement. Maybe you should be clearer and more precise in what you say.

[tbpiper]

Maybe you should answer my question.

[Nowhere Man]

The Constitution Party looks good to me but I fear its merely a safe house in a negative enviornment. Course Ann Coulters Book might have some effect(TREASON). The effect that it will probably generate is mere clucking and I told you so's among the right, bleeding off effective action since a downright ball kicking by an increaseingly emasulated and effiminate American male public will result in ball sucking instead, I think. The thought of an extemely bloody and deadly and prolonged form of political housekeeping which I believe is what is needed (as Thomas Jeffersan believed) is not going to happen. The Russians won. I have been reading here (FR) for a number of years and I have noticed that the only thing NOT entertained(fear of gov't) is revolution, the very thing required and provided for by the founders. Every other sort of remedy I think has been proffered. For, no doubt, the reasons I gave above....

I'm with you, it doesn't make me comfortable to have those thoughts too but I wonder if we are headed that way. I talked to my father about it and he seems to think we are headed that way. Myself, sometimes I do wonder if we would be better off taking some States and Provinces in Canada (I know there are people like us up there, I've talked to them) and break off and form our own nation living up to the freedoms of the Constitution along with preserving a lot of our values. I think Walter Williams wrote several articles on this nature too. If the "rump socialist leaning U.S." and "rump Canada" still want to trade with us and even be part of a defense pact, it would be OK by me but where we will not give in is our core values, freedoms and beliefs.

I sometimes see a widing chasm between conservatives and liberals, there are times instead of fighting each other, it would be better off to "have a divorce." There are times I feel like the Little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike. I don't know what the answer is, but there are times this option is looking good if we get the liberal monkey off our backs.

[aristeides]

Kennedy's Lawrence opinion yesterday purported just to be about striking down criminal punishment of the homosexual acts of consenting adults. Its application in Liman today shows that it has immediate implications for cases involving sex with minors, and that Kennedy knew that when he wrote his opinion.

[tpaine]

"Maybe you should answer my question."
-86-


Maybe you should realize that your question has been answered by several of us in the last several hours, and that your manic insistence it has not, -- is getting ludicrous.

[thinking]

Sodomy is a filthy disgusting act, it bears absolutely no relation to what nature intended.

Playing with human feces is a childish development phase that most humans out grow.

[tbpiper]

Scuze me, but you have yet to answer my question. You have spent this entire time dodging and obfuscating. All I wanted was a simple yes or no and that seems to be totally beyond your capability. It shouldn’t be because the answer has no nuances.

Since you’re having so much trouble with a simple matter of right and wrong and it’s relationship to the constitution, I’ll help you a little.

Sodomy is wrong.

Sodomy is wrong because it goes against the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Being thusly antithetical to society, it should rightly be illegal. There is no constitutional protection for such deviant behavior.

Consider these words:

and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

You can find the whole text in the Declaration of Independence. I cite it here because it shows that the founding fathers, you know , the authors of the constitution you lean on, recognize the existence of a natural and divine law and cite them as animators of their actions.

Further in the text is the more familiar:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

I would hardly think that the authors of the constitution, the very same people who prayed as a group daily for God’s guidance in their endeavor, would have considered such abominations as sodomy and abortion as ‘unalienable rights’ that the Creator God would stoop to endow.

[tdadams]

Less clarity???? What could be more clear than a simple yes or no?

You think so, huh?

OK, yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?

[tbpiper]

This was ment for you in the first place, tpaine drops in from the ozne from time to time.

Scuze me, but you have yet to answer my question. You have spent this entire time dodging and obfuscating. All I wanted was a simple yes or no and that seems to be totally beyond your capability. It shouldn’t be because the answer has no nuances.

Since you’re having so much trouble with a simple matter of right and wrong and it’s relationship to the constitution, I’ll help you a little.

Sodomy is wrong.

Sodomy is wrong because it goes against the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Being thusly antithetical to society, it should rightly be illegal. There is no constitutional protection for such deviant behavior.

Consider these words:

and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

You can find the whole text in the Declaration of Independence. I cite it here because it shows that the founding fathers, you know , the authors of the constitution you lean on, recognize the existence of a natural and divine law and cite them as animators of their actions.

Further in the text is the more familiar:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

I would hardly think that the authors of the constitution, the very same people who prayed as a group daily for God’s guidance in their endeavor, would have considered such abominations as sodomy and abortion as ‘unalienable rights’ that the Creator God would stoop to endow.

[tdadams]

So, was that a yes or a no to the wife beating question?

[DaGman]

If the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy them I'm claiming that right for myself regardless of what the constitution does or does not say. The less the government knows about us the better.

[Dimensio]

Sodomy is wrong because it goes against the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

You're stating that you have knowledge not only of the existence of a "God" but also of this "God" thing's nature. Can you provide evidence for the former and the latter?

[Enough is ENOUGH]

I haven't read any arguments here that nullify what is contained in the 10th Amendment:
"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."

[Enough is ENOUGH]

I think the 10th Amendment speaks for itself.

The following "abridged" excerpt is from a liberal legal site which I've edited only to show a history of USSC rulings on the subject and not to further their interpretation on the subject.

United States Supreme Court (USSC) :
Sodomy laws

1976 - Dov v. Commonwealth's Attorney. "The Court upholds a Virginia court's ruling that there is no constitutional right to engage in private homosexual acts."

1976 - Enslin v. North Carolina. "The Court upholds the conviction of a man sentenced to one year in jail for having a consensual oral sex with a man in his ... home."

1986 - Bowers v. Hardwick. In a 5-4 vote the court votes that there is no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy, ...

1995 - State v. Lopes. The USSC court rules that a Rhode Island sodomy law is constitutional.

1998 - Bowers V. Shahar. The court upholds the withdrawal by Michael Bowers of Robin Shahar after he sees her take part in a same-sex ceramony based on the sodomy law that he defened originally to the court in 1986.

Exit morality, enter diversity.

2003 - U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear a Texas same-sex sodomy law case.

[Roscoe]

BTW, that was a deliberate mis-citation he posted.

[tbpiper]

You're stating that you have knowledge not only of the existence of a "God" but also of this "God" thing's nature.

Can you provide evidence for the former and the latter?

Evidence? How 'bout the fact that you're breathing? Have you seen children? How about the marvelously intricate structure and function of a single cell? Or perhaps just the gas transport mechanism across the cell wall? How about the Earth's orbit being in a narrow band that supports life. The evidence is abundant if you really want to look.

I realize that it is absolutely pointless to discuss God with someone who is an atheiest. The absolute truth of whether or not there is a God or a heaven or a hell will be clear to both of us in a hundered years.