Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

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

[Luis Gonzalez]

I thought he told me as much sometime ago.

[Torie]

OK, so your libel isn't malicious. That is only a defense vis a vis public figures, however. Go find a lawyer.

[WOSG]

This is not about homosexuality. get a clue!

This is about Judicial usurpation of democratic processes ... this ruling says there are NO LIMITS on judicial review.
Anything they think the state has no business doing, they just over-rule.

It was a wholly arbitrary application of principles NOT found in the constitution.

Roe was built on the the "innocuous" Griswold decision that merely forbade regulation of contraceptives. who is to say what is harmless??? WITHOUT IT, ROE WOULD NOT EXIST. The Pandora's box has been opened further with this over-reaching ruling.

[Sabertooth]

Thought so, just wanted to make sure and avoid the confusion, of which there is plenty, even on this forum.

Take, for example, this current vanity thread.

Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court
Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

Posted on 06/28/2003 12:38 PM PDT by shred

I think there are many Freepers who are tired of this constant bashing of the Supreme Court for Lawrence v. Texas. I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government.

Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is all about - the individual having primacy over the state. It disturbs me that there are so many who wanted to see the state prevail in its desire to regulate private, individual freedoms.

I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing.

---

Ow.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As a follow up, and the resoning behind the scenario is this bit from the US Constitution:

Article III

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

[Torie]

And here I thought I was the most liberal, and most suspect chap on this forum, that had not yet been banned. Curious.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There's one watching Spongebob with my kids in the living room right now, it's my little brother.

I would ask him, but I can't afford what he charges per hour.

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW, what's your answer to #377?

[tdadams]

Nor should we base them on the whim of the SCOTUS.

This wasn't decided on a whim. The court challenged Texas to justify the law on a rational basis and they couldn't do it.

[Sabertooth]

If this issue is relegated to the State level, where it rightfully belongs, what would happen once California strikes all anti-sodomy laws from the books, legitimizes same-sex marriages, and a couple of married homosexuals from Fresno get transfered by their jobs to a State that still holds same-sex anti-sodomy laws, and does not recognize same-sex marriages?

In that wild-eyed liberal way of ours, California has already affirmed a referendum which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. BTW, we haven't had sodomy laws on our books in decades.

Congress has already passed the marriage defense act, which was signed by that crazy conservative, Bill Clinton. Same sex marriages in one state can't be used to force them onto others.

The only threat to the traditional definition of marriage comes from SCOTUS decisions like the one you're defending.

[WOSG]

You are quite intolerant or the faction of morality arent you. Turn it around:

"You can have all the dissolute, sexualized and homosexualized and depraved culture you want in your own homes and 'churches'. But the government is not your private goon squad for the enforcement of Secular amoral bevahior and undermining of traditional virtues."

Would you accept that or call that "intolerant"?

The agenda of amoralists is not "tolerance", it is the replacement of one set of moral values for another, "politically correct" set of value.
I fail to see how rearranging our prejudices advances society.

[Sabertooth]

This wasn't decided on a whim. The court challenged Texas to justify the law on a rational basis and they couldn't do it.

The Court's first whim was the presumption, contrary to the 10th Amendment and its own 1986 decision, that it even had standing to hear the case.

[bvw]

Why do you not engage in homosexuality?

[Torie]

Sans Lawrence, if sodomy is committed in a way where it is illegal in one place and not another, then in the one place if one makes sure the cops watch you do it, you won't get arrested, and in the other place you will, if you can interest them in it all, which typically you can't. So the answer is nothing. Some places a private act is legal, and some places, not.

But gay marriage is a public matter involving the state, as are civil unions, with attendant property rights. A divided House on this matter cannot stand, for long. That is a whole different kettle of fish. Once civil unions get a bit of seasoning, and become fairly common, SCOTUS will indeed weigh in, if Congress does not. It will really have no choice. Under old tools, it would do so on the grounds of the fundamental right to travel, most likely, although the full faith and credit clause is another available tool.

[HennepinPrisoner]

The sky actually is falling. Yesterday, in Limon, the Supreme Court vacated the sentence of someone who had homosexually molested a 14-year-old boy, on the basis of Lawrence.

That's because if his victim had been female, he would have been set free from jail 21 months ago.

[WOSG]

"It is contemptible for the state to prosecute an 18 year old for having consensual relations with a 14 year old. "

Really? the mind boggles. you think society is better off with (homo)sexualized 14 year olds????!?

What is contemptible is thinkin mentally retarded 14 year olds can be preyed upon by older homosexual predators and some judges think they are doing good by stopping the state from protecting the youth from such incidences.

Homosexuality is one line crossed. the next is pedophilia. you have unwittingly admitted as much. Sad. sick and sad.

"But all the Limon decision did was say the sentences for heterosexual and homosexual offenses had to be equal. "

There is nothing in the constitution that truly requires this. judicial tyranny writ large. If it is better public policy to make the sentences the same, the democratic porcess can and should take care of it.

As it is, the judges have created evil and injust outcomes in the name of a 'principle' that has no coherence or validity.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So then, you praise the violation of the US Constitution as long as it suits your ideology?

"Congress has already passed the marriage defense act, which was signed by that crazy conservative, Bill Clinton. Same sex marriages in one state can't be used to force them onto others."

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Bill must be a hero of yours.

[aristeides]

Congress has already weighed in on the gay marriage issue with the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed by Clinton. Of course, after Lawrence, there's a good chance the Supreme Court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I answered your question honestly, now answer mine.

Do you engage in acts of sodomy?

[tdadams]

Why would it not have standing to hear the case? That's ridiculous. The defendants had standing to appeal, the case was ripe since they had been prosecuted, and the court granted cert. Please tell me why you think the USSC doesn't have standing in this case?