Homosexuals Push for Same-Sex Marriage After Sodomy Ruling

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/27/03 | Robert B. Bluey

[elfman2]

"The protections you specify are found nowhere in the Constitution."

Child rape would violate the basic liberty implied the bill of rights.

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” —, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

[RobbyS]

Eight? No. Homosexuals are seldom pedophiles. Pederasts prefer twelve and older.

[elfman2]

"The question was about legal consent, not rape."

As far as I know, the absence of consent in sex is rape. The example given was sex at puberty. 13 might be a gray area, but puberty comes as early as 8 years old now days with dietary improvements. I think the gray is removed in expecting 8 year olds to effectively deny consent.

[elfman2]

"Eight? No. Homosexuals are seldom pedophiles."

You're jumping in without understanding the context. Someone clams this decision precludes the SCOTUS from outlawing a consent at puberty law.

[irish_links]

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” —, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

What does any of the above have to do with the age of consent? The age of consent is determined by legal statute in each of the several states. All of those statutes were put up to the vote at one time or another, so they are predicated on the exercise of legislative power, not God given.

Moreover, they are not intrinsically associated with the age of reason for purposes of entering contracts (18) because the age of consent is, or was, in some states less than 18.

Therefore, the SCOTUS could assert that these laws serve no compelling state interest and overturn them on the basis of the theory that they deprive persons from expressing their love in a meaningful fashion (or however the dimwitted O'Conner put it), therby discriminating against them simply because one of the partners is younger than 16.

If the court refuses to abide by precedent in the Common Law and invents rights that are not imagined in the plain language of the Constitution and its Amendments, then virtually any ruling is possible.

[RobbyS]

The question is what to do about the Court. Will this decision, coupled with that of diversity, energize the conservative base to put pressure in the Senate to act. All they need do, after all, is to require the Democrats actually to filibuster. To make them stand on their hind legs and deliver the protests until they are exhausted.

[RobbyS]

You are right, of course.

[irish_links]

"...As far as I know, the absence of consent in sex is rape. The example given was sex at puberty. 13 might be a gray area, but puberty comes as early as 8 years old now days with dietary improvements. I think the gray is removed in expecting 8 year olds to effectively deny consent...."

The relevant point in this discussion is not the precise age at which SCOTUS will permit consensual homosexual relations. Rather, it is that the SCOTUS asserts the power to determine it if in the progressive wisdom of its members it deems laws prohibiting man-boy love not to be in the state's compelling interest.

I'm not expressing any opinion about what the proper age should be. I only argue that the SCOTUS has falsely seized the power to make such laws from the states.

You may have confidence that the SCOTUS will never conclude that state age of consent laws are unconstitutional. If so, I believe that you are naive.

[elfman2]

"What does any of the above have to do with the age of consent?"

That if a law, elected by the people, enables behavior that blatantly violates the basic liberty implied by the Bill of Rights, it's unconstitutional. Do you think that 8-year-old "age of consent"/rape laws would be included?

[mrb1960]

Good question

[RobbyS]

People forget how much the Common law owes to canon law. Pull out its Christian roots, and the law reduces to a mass of conflicting and inconsistent judgements. Such decisions make a joke of stare decisis.

[RinaseaofDs]

Your logic falls appart if the parties are sterile. Marriage is a state of legal incorporation too. It confers on the parties rights that single people don't normally have.

[RobbyS]

Sterility occurs in about one case in twelve, but in all cases the case amobnf homosexual couples. For there to be fertility among lesbians, a third party has to be introduced.

[RinaseaofDs]

Sterility occurs in nearly 100% of the cases that people undergo medical procedures to become sterile. In that case, what is the purpose of the marriage, if children are impossible.

It goes to the original premise that logic101 had about marriage being established primarily for the raising of kids.

[pseudo-ignatius]

That will not solve the problem. The courts can simply use your new amendment to do whatever they want.

Do you really think that the judiciary has devolved to the point that they could read into the Constitution penumbras and emanations that absolutely contradict the plain meaning of the words in an amendment, especially in a new amendment where the intent of the authors is not some artifact from the past but a present reality? Our situation is dire, but not *that* dire, in my opinion. I think that maybe the only thing that can counter the growing power of the judiciary is to limit the options of judicial activism (which *are* limited by the judiciary's need to find some tenuous line of reasoning based on the Constitution) through the amendment process. The six justices who joined sides in the culture war, as Justice Scalia so accurately put it, are not *yet* blatantly oligarchic enough that they would directly contradict the plain meaning of a new amendment. Doing so would cause a constitutional crisis that would be as big as the crisis that sparked the Civil War. No, I do not think they have devolved that far, yet, and the only way to keep them from devolving much further is to put to use the amendment process.

This is, of course, a rather sad reality, as one of the things that has made our nation's government stable over the last 200 years has been the very infrequent use of the amendment process; in the past, decisions were left at the state level. When I say that the only possibility for stopping same-sex "marriage" is a Constitutional amendment (something I support), there is also a twinge of sadness that the decision would not have been left where it belongs, at the state level.

All that being said, I don't think there's much of a chance at all that such an amendment will come to be.

[irish_links]

"...That if a law, elected by the people, enables behavior that blatantly violates the basic liberty implied by the Bill of Rights, it's unconstitutional. Do you think that 8-year-old "age of consent"/rape laws would be included?..."

Who knows? The gravamen of the debate here is that the law is no longer what you, I and the eight million other citizens of "our" state agree that it is. Rather, it depends on the modern, progressive attitudes of nine lawyers, of whom six seem incapable of writing a coherent legal argument, say it is.

You asserted that the age of consent is constitutionally established. Apparently, you have backed down from that claim and now simply assert that we all agree that an eight year old is too young to consent.

I'll certainly vouchsafe that. I remain adamant in the opinion that the current court views the concept of the age of consent as a "living" socially constructed idea, one that can change over time. Sure, they may argue, 16 was appropriate in Victorian bygone days, but today's 12-year old is so much more sophisticated than in those times. Therefore, a state law that denies him and his consensual adult partner their opportunity for private pleasure violates their constitutional rights.

What, pray tell, prevents them from overturning any state law of this nature other than conscience? And, as we know the nature of the human conscience is ever subject to change, unhinged as it is from any concept of a supreme being or the traditional practices and views of Western Civilization?

[irish_links]

"..That if a law, elected by the people, enables behavior that blatantly violates the basic liberty implied by the Bill of Rights, it's unconstitutional. Do you think that 8-year-old "age of consent"/rape laws would be included?..."

So the point you are making is what? That should a state pass a law lowering the age of consent to eight, the SCOTUS would find that law unconstitutional because everyone agrees that an 8-year old cannot legally consent?

To call this a sophistry would be an insult to sophists. First of all, I cannot imagine a state promulgating such a law, with the possible exceptions of Vermont and Massachusetts. And should they, I would fully anticipate the Supreme Court affirming, in as much as such laws would be consistent with the gay agenda with which the Court's majority seem so in sync, as noted by Justice Scalia in his dissent.

[irish_links]

"...Do you really think that the judiciary has devolved to the point that they could read into the Constitution penumbras and emanations that absolutely contradict the plain meaning of the words in an amendment, especially in a new amendment where the intent of the authors is not some artifact from the past but a present reality?..."

Perhaps I have been unclear about my position on this issue. We are, in fact, in complete agreement. I will endeavor to be more clear henceforth.

Regards

[pseudo-ignatius]

We are, in fact, in complete agreement. I will endeavor to be more clear henceforth.

No need... I was replying to someone else with my comments. I just added your name to the list of people to whom I was replying, as his comment was a reply to yours. My apologies for not being clear myself.

[elfman2]

"The gravamen of the debate here is that the law is no longer what you, I and the eight million other citizens of "our" state agree that it is…. You asserted that the age of consent is constitutionally established."

You appear to have misunderstood the debate with af_vet_1981 that you entered into the middle of. He told me that the current ruling prohibited judges from striking child rape ennoblement laws. I told him that "Child rights are constitutionally protected", not that "the age of consent is constitutionally established" as you claim.

With respect to your concerns, it will forever be only the character of the Judges, and the culture of the society that elected them that will prevent them from going too far.