Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter ^ | 6/27/03 | Deal Hudson

[Luis Gonzalez]

Exhibit 1:

Michelangelo's David.

Exhibit 2:

FReeper's version of Michelangelo's David

[FreedomCalls]

Because it's your property. Your private property.

Only during peacetime.

We are not at peace.

[Luis Gonzalez]

LOL!

This is one of those situations where a person could only possibly see a different point of view in an issue if they actually are fully engaged in it.

Do you engage in sodomy?

[dogbyte12]

Civilly, marriage is contract law no? Other than marriage, what contract agreed to by 2 adults over the age of 18 is illegal only due to the gender of the participants, but would otherwise be legal.

Obviously, a contract to ship drugs to one another is illegal on it's face, but for example a law that stated same sex people can not engage in a contract to sell ice cream to one another would be struck down without blushing.

I do believe there does need to be a constitutional amendment on this one.

Let's just forget the ceremony. If two guys or two gals write a contract that states, I agree to reside with you forever. I agree to provide for you no matter what circumstances befall you. If you or I engage in sexual relations with somebody other than within this contract, we both have the option to void this contract. We are also free to void this contract at a penalty of 50% of the joint assets that we have amassed since it's date of existence if we so choose.

Ok, these two gals sign this contract. One with better legal and stylistic language of course. One of these gals hits the lottery, and decides, hey I don't want to share, the country doesn't recognize our relationship, so I will take a skate here.

The other partner petitions the court for the terms of this agreement to be upheld, the defendent uses the argument that since they are lesbians and this is a quasi marriage contract, it is void because of the illegality of gay marriage.

That is how it is going to be decided by the courts I believe. Something along these lines will bring it to the Supremes. Legally, I don't see how they can uphold the Unequal treatment. It is all fine and good to say that this country has moral values, and history in that regard, so you can skip gay marriage, but this is a contract, entered in good faith at the time it was signed.

[Sabertooth]

So then, you don't have an issue with legislated prejudice.

Sodomy is a behavior. To outlaw it, either wholly or in part, or not, is not legislated prejudice.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Everyine has their own opinion.

I am surprised to see you fully engaged in the TLBSHOW model.

[bvw]

The Anti-Temperance people (such as myself) are often anti-Temperance because they like to drink, it is a regualr habit with them. I really don't drink -- perhaps a couple ounces of wine a week. Yet I am anti-Temperance.

So it is a natural and fair question to ask if you engage in acts of homosexual sex?

[Sabertooth]

On what grounds did the people and the legislature of the State of Texas stand on when they abridged the privileges of a minority of its citizens?

They didn't, they legalized consensual sodomy between members of the opposite sex, for everyone.

There is not an equal protection component to the matter at hand.

There is no Constitutional basis for the federal government to extend a privilege of sodomy, or immunity from prosecution of it, to anyone. It's simply not a federal matter. There is no application of the 14th Amendment.

[bvw]

You should photo-shop a homosexual's variant of that statue then. On second thought, no. Please don't.

[jwalsh07]

Bestiality is not included in the definition of sodomy, sodomy has historically been defined as anal intercourse, oral intercourse, and in some cases masturbation.

Well you're wrong but why don't you get to the point. I consider anal intercourse, beastiality, and homosexual sex of whatever kind perverse.

Oral sex between men and women is not something I would put in that category.

Any other questions?

[Sabertooth]

Everyine has their own opinion.

As does the majority in this Supreme Court decision, which does not support your contention that there is a "right to privacy" component in play here.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Sodomy is a behavior."

Sodomy as a behavior was not outlawed for 97% of the population of Texas, it was however outlawed for a minority of the citizens of the State.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Bible draws no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy...why do you?

[Torie]

Well something called civil unions will be adopted in a host of states very soon. If so, perhaps SCOTUS won't feel the need to take on whether the failure to label it "marriage," is a denial of essential humanity. But maybe in due time, after this law becomes common, they will deem it time to slap down the calcitrant states; you know, the usual suspects: Utah, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc. Moreover, if the usual suspects refuse to honor civil unions consummated in the precincts of enlightenment, that is no doubt a denial of the fundmental right to travel as well. All things have their season, when they ripen and bloom.

[bvw]

Yes it does.

[Sabertooth]

What I meant to say is that you don't think they should have the tool, and not only that, but if they do have the tool, they won't be fashioning something as aesthetically pleasing as the Statue of David.

That's my opinion, yes, and it's been my impression, based on your posts, that it is yours as well, even though we disagree on the particulars of where the SCOTUS will prove to be unwise in future rulings. Do I have that accurately?

[huck von finn]

They're not even Christian morals. They are fundamentalist Christian morals, coming from people who believe that Jesus Christ himeself literally wrote the Bible and that the Bible is to be taken only literally, and that the story of Lott had only to do with anal sex.

??

Those aren't the morals of most of the people I know.

[jwalsh07]

Because God gave me free will and I'm a sinner?

[Luis Gonzalez]

The case which was put before the Court revolved around a law which defined sodomy as contact between one person's anal/oral cavity, and another person's genitalia.

It labeled that contact "deviant sexual intercourse", and criminalized it for same sex couples.

By statute, in Texas, heterosexuals are not "persons".

[Luis Gonzalez]

So what then gives you the right of others to equally sin by using the power of government?