Posted on 06/28/2003 7:08:52 AM PDT by Polycarp
As a matter of fact, we have seen this come out of the closet recently.. Look to internet "sex" sites. Listen to Larry Flynt. (he's a chicken screwer) Look at NAMBLA.
Incrementalism does exist.. The 2A is proof of such.
For you to poo-poo the obvious carries with it an implicit insult to the reader.
Also, when those laws were repealed, they were done so by the people of the States, in a lawful manner... Just as they were enacted int he first place. That's simple and it's fair.
Now however, you have the SC mandating a repeal and forcing their personal biases down the throats of everyone, everywhere, universally and without regard for the Tenth Amendment.
In addition, if copulation is a Constitutionally protected "right" and the Tenth Amendment is null and void, you will be hard pressed to find an argument to prevent gay marriage, homosexual sodomy, pedophelia, prostitution, bestality and so on and so forth..
The margins are eroding and the FED no right to meddle here.
These are clearly Tenth Amendment concerns.. and as such, fall to the states.
Homosexual incest is the probable door through which a general right to incest is discovered. What is the compelling state interest in prohibiting sodomy between two adult brothers, or sisters?
As of Thursday, there is none. From there, we're an equal protection argument away from a general right to consensual adult incest.
The genetic objection to a legalization of incest is already on shaky ground, since most incest doesn't result in birth defects. Those who want to discover a right to sodomy, but hold the ground on incest because of the possibililty of birth defects, will have to cartwheel like a gymnast to explain why there isn't a state interest in regulating all extramarital heterosexual sex, since STDs can also induce birth defects.
Because the priests would have been shown the door immediately.
It was not the nature of the offenses that has caused the scandal (because those offenses exist in other institutions as well), but the cover-up of those scandals by the bishops, and the willingness to tolerate the presence in the priesthood of child molesters.
That was the scandal.
If the bishops of the Catholic Church had handled homosexual molestation the way they handle a cleric who strays with a woman, there would be no scandal.
We know, of course, that those wayward priests are dismissed immediately, and no bishop ever fights to retain a priest who's sinned with a female.
Because rulings like this show that it doesn't need to be amended to change.
No amendment has changed the constitutionality of these laws, it was done by a court.
And, as is shown by the responses to this ruling on FR, that is how many people expect the Constitution to be changed.
Why would we ever pass another amendment...
There is certainly no need to amend a 'living Constitution'.
You are one hundred percent correct. And the Founders even planned for that.
Amendment X
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.
And SCOTUS finished destroying what was left of that Amendment in 1973 and now here in 2003. The Republic is dead, welcome to the Empire
Did Black hold that laws could be ruled unconstitutional because they're "uncommonly silly?" Thomas clearly didn't.
Nope. I'm bigger and badder than your Bubba.
I don't think it's about sex. It's about government (man) deciding what a person should feel guilty about when that is the province of God.
Dream on. If the people passed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Lawrence decision, the Supreme Court could merely interpret that amendment in such a way as to make it meaningless. The 10th amendment states clearly that the courts cannot do what they did in the Lawrence Decision. But the courts have rendered the 10th amendment meaningless by interpreting it in such a way as to give it no meaning at all.
The answer is to impeach these 6 justices for violating their oath to uphold and defend that constitution and replace them all with judges who have respect for constitution.
Frankly I'm not too optimistic. We have gone over the hill on the slippery slope. From here it will only get worse.
Maybe so, but it didn't happen with this case. You can thank Roe for that.
Wrong. Roe was based on Griswold versus Connecticut. But only Catholics care or know about that decision (with a few notable exceptions) and understand the undeniable link between Griswold, Roe, and Lawrence.
Guess again. Of the eleven states to abolish their anti-sodomy laws in the wake of Bowers, ten did so by ruling of the state court.
And as such, it's an internal matter..
It's a far cry from a one size fits all "solution" from the SC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.