Homosexuals Push for Same-Sex Marriage After Sodomy Ruling

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

[Stone Mountain]

Thanks - let us know when you decide on an answer...

[pseudo-ignatius]

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.

This was posted by Polycarp on another thread:

As an attorney for the ACLU Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age ("Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102).

The paragraph reads as follows: "Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense.... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person.... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old..)"

[elfman2]

"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. "

You really should read back a post or two before challenging a statement made in the middle of a thread. I didn't bring that up; af_vet_1981 did in post 117

[irish_links]

Ignatius:

None required. I grasped your intent after pushing that infernal Post button.

[elfman2]

"As an attorney for the ACLU Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age ("Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102)."

I can't be sure from what I see on Google, but FWIW, it appears that this was her and the ACLU's opinion on legislative policy, not a judiciary proclamation.

[RobbyS]

Well, as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it, once one accepts contraception and reproduction is no longer part of marriage, then of course, homosexuality becomes acceptable.

[Quick1]

Are you sure you're a conservative? When are you going to start regulating my ingestion of food? After all, that's a public health issue, as well.

[irish_links]

"...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...."

Perhaps you are right. The issue is not protected vs. established, it is whether the Constitution has anything to do with the precise age of consent. Frankly, I don't think the Constitution has anything to say about it, other than it seems to affirm the Common Law rights traditionally granted to children (i.e. that they are too young to consent to sex, therefore a child need not prove absence of consent to win judgement against a partner). Therefore, it is only constitutional protected to the extent that the current sitting judges wish to uphold legal and societal tradition.

Is there another relevant issue that I'm missing here?

The point raised by the sodomy ruling is that the SCOTUS has no respect for the Common Law, tradition or even its own prior precedent. SCOTUS reserves the right to concoct new constitutional rights out of whole clothe.

Conversely, I sense that SCOTUS would as easily take away rights given by Common Law (such as age of consent) if they conflict with an agenda that they champion. This has been well supported by Ignatius above who points out that La Ginsburg is already on record as being prepared to overturn a state age of consent law, presumably because it is insensitive to the NAMBLA crowd.

I'm not sure that af_vet_1981's claim that the current ruling prohibs judges from striking child rape ennoblement laws is worth looking into. I would be shocked if any of the opinions made reference to the issue because it is entirely irrelevant to the constitutionality of sodomy laws.

[RobbyS]

It goes to the original premise that logic101 had about marriage being established primarily for the raising of kids. Marriage law indeed looks forward to the orderly transmission of property from generation to another. That's why they call it "estate planning." A lot of people no longer concern themselves with what happens after their death. The result is like what has happened in Germany, where the German race is disappearing. The same thing seems to be happening among European-Americans, where the birth rate is dropping below the replacement mark.

[tomahawk]

SCOTUS rulings and ACLU positions are merging as one. What Bader Ginsburg advocated at the ACLU is now being delivered by Justice Ginsburg and her help-mates.

[pseudo-ignatius]

I can't be sure from what I see on Google, but FWIW, it appears that this was her and the ACLU's opinion on legislative policy, not a judiciary proclamation.

As far as I'm able to tell myself, you are correct. This isn't a direct statement of willingness to overturn age of consent laws; however, precisely our concern here is that these judges have been willing to ignore the plain meaning of the law in order to bring about their desires, which the democratic process won't yield them. In other words, the legislative recommendations of Ginsburg could very easily translate into a judicial decision--that is precisely what judicial activism would allow.

[RobbyS]

Part of the problem is that all the judges are now lawyers. Judges ought to be specially trained rather than be drawn from among the lawyers, who are, afer all, gubnslingers by nature.

[elfman2]

"Therefore, it is only constitutional protected to the extent that the current sitting judges wish to uphold legal and societal tradition."

I don't see why one needs to go to common law to find Constitutional protection for children from rape. Since it can be demonstrated that they are generally unable to effectively deny consent, sex with them is generally rape (assuming rape is accurately defined as sex without acquiring consent). Rape seems to be a pretty blatant violation of basic liberty, generally implied and protected by the Bill of Rights, irrespective of Common Law.

Getting the high court involved in something like this is of course a mess, and I would only favor it if there were a gross violation like the one af_vet_1981 brought up.

[irish_links]

"...Since it can be demonstrated that they are generally unable to effectively deny consent, sex with them is generally rape (assuming rape is accurately defined as sex without acquiring consent). Rape seems to be a pretty blatant violation of basic liberty ...."

You are returning to your sophistry. Whether sex is rape depends on consent. A child is unable to consent under common law. But what defines a child? That is a question of either the common law or state law. Under the Xth Amendment, the Constitution grants the authority to make such laws to the states or the people, disclaiming any authority over the judgement. It does not give the federal government any power over the issue of defining what constitutes a child.

Therefore, whether or not rape seems to you to be a violation of basic liberty is utterly irrelevant. The issue of how a state chooses to define a child has no federal Constitutional relevance, although its own constitution may apply.

So where is the argument?

[irish_links]

"...As far as I'm able to tell myself, you are correct. This isn't a direct statement of willingness to overturn age of consent laws; however, precisely our concern here is that these judges have been willing to ignore the plain meaning of the law in order to bring about their desires, which the democratic process won't yield them. In other words, the legislative recommendations of Ginsburg could very easily translate into a judicial decision--that is precisely what judicial activism would allow...."

This is precisely the point in question and well worded, too.

[Wolfstar]

If I'm lucky maybe I can snag a Canadian...

Thanks for the great chuckle in an otherwise discouraging news week.

[elfman2]

"You are returning to your sophistry. Whether sex is rape depends on consent. A child is unable to consent under common law. But what defines a child?"

The first time you claimed that I was engaging is "sophistry" it was due to your ignorance of the conversation you entered. This time it's due to you're failure to stay focused on it.

An 8 year old, which was the subject of discussion when you chose to enter this debate, is by all objective or rational measures unable to effectively deny sexual consent (regardless of what common law says). That's the only claim I've agreed to refute.

[elfman2]

" That's the only claim I've agreed to refute."

Actually, "the challenge to" that claim is the only one I've agreed to refute.

[logic101.net]

Exactly their objective, getting thier hands on kids.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Whether sex is rape depends on consent. A child is unable to consent under common law. But what defines a child? That is a question of either the common law or state law. Under the Xth Amendment, the Constitution grants the authority to make such laws to the states or the people, disclaiming any authority over the judgement. It does not give the federal government any power over the issue of defining what constitutes a child.

Exactly! IQ measures the ability to give legal consent for an emaciated individual in every state of the union I believe. A score of 70-75, depending on the state, is the standard for power of attorney (taking over your elderly mother’s affairs when she age 90 for example), emancipated mentally handicapped and in Texas as a condition for the death penalty. It is a fact that many young children can achieve this score on an adult IQ test and therefor should qualify as having the ability to consent to sex. It’s only through local legislature and arbitrary law that children can’t consent and it’s there that the slippery slope begins. The Dutch know this is true, as their AOC law is age 12.