Santorum rips gay sex ruling

The Tribune-Democrat ^ | 6/28/03 | Kirk Swauger

[BlueNgold]

Off the top of my head, don't state governments have the duty to regulate commerce?

Yes, and as such prostitution is left to the states under (10). But the verbage of Lawrence may make the issues of sexual morality (adults - consenting) a personal right under (9) and therefore the states ability to regulate under (10) would be trumped insofar as their ability to ban it - their ability to regulate as Nevada does would not liekly be affected. This is by no means a certainty, but I think it is a good bet we will see the issue addressed in our lifetime.

[gcruse]

I agree that the government may regulate commerce,

Here's a little something for you.


Consider the following statements by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in U. S. v. Lopez (1995):

We have said that Congress may regulate not only 'Commerce…among the several states,'…but also anything that has a 'substantial effect' on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a 'police power' over all aspects of American life.

Under our jurisprudence, if Congress passed an omnibus 'substantially affects interstate commerce' statute, purporting to regulate every aspect of human existence, the Act apparently would be constitutional. Justice Thomas went on to state that under the substantially affects interstate commerce test adopted by the Court, "[c]ongress can regulate whole categories of activities that are not themselves either 'interstate or commerce.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I don't agree with everything you said, but I do agree that this is going to be the major culture war.

The shots have been fired.

We shall see how it all turns out. IMHO, this is going to push people to take sides. People who were in the *middle* of this issue (ie, gays are ok, they don't bother anyone) will be pushed to take one side or the other in an extreme way.

Gays are gambling that they will win but imho again, they will lose from being so incredibly pushy.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Aww. Thank you :)

You too! :)

[Diddle E. Squat]

Let me simplify it: In the sodomy case gays were on the defensive, but in pushing gay marriage they are on the offensive. That makes a huge difference if the issue is viewed as changing society via the courts versus changing society by the will of the people(ballot box and legislature).

[gcruse]

they will lose from being so incredibly pushy.

When blacks did it, we called it 'uppity.'

[BlueNgold]

Your argument is the same old cliched liberal one that reads principles into the Constitution that aren't there.

First, I am far from liberal, in fact I am a dyed in the wool strict constitutionalist. Being that as it may I consider it my obligation to study and understand the constitution. The 9th ammendment may be the most underutilized and misunderstood of the original 10. A simple reading will make it clear that there are in fact unnamed yet wholly equal rights not ennumerated.

There's no obligation to accomodate all citizens equally.
Amendment XIV
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; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Defense Rests...

[annyokie]

You're very welcome! Kiss your hubby when he wakes up from his nap.

[billbears]

Who? The Founding Fathers? Their peers? Many of the laws condemning such actions have been on the books since the early 1800s or the men who passed such laws were one or two generations removed. How dare they think they would know what the Founders had in mind? We're so much more enlightened now!! Mind you these are the men whose ideals as a true Constitutionalist I want this nation to return to. But of course it's just the Constitution. We've got to change with the times, eh?

History of Sodomy Laws in these United States

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I will thank you! He's up and working now (on the computer - making a living). :)

[mrb1960]

Finally someone with enough backbone to tell the truth, though if that was me I'd be a bit more direct in my condemnation of the SCOTUS.

[y2k_free_radical]

GO GET'UM RICK

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

So does this mean a rapist can no longer be charged with sodomy because it's a normal behavior (albeit not consensual in rape)?

[varon]

she hit me over the head with a mid-sized novel. But I think she meant it in a nice way.

You came to that conclusion because it was a romance novel? ;-)

[Huck]

The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty

Is that what we do? Exercise liberty? If it is liberty being exericised, I think it goes without saying that it is thus "freely" exercised. But is that what we do? Is that to be the new euphamism? Is a "lewinsky" now to be an "exercise of liberty"? Or is it a whatchacallit? Reductio ad absurdum?

[Camber-G]

So many politicians would have back-pedaled or minced their words after coming under the criticism Santorum did ... I'm glad to see he's sticking to his principles.

[B Knotts]

4 of the 6 that brought you this decision were appointed by Republicans.

[gcruse]

The terms you seem to object to come from the Georgia Supreme Court. I'm afraid I don't quite follow you, though.

[RJCogburn]

There are some people really obsessed about sodomy.

In some respects I find it quite amusing....that is I find their obsession amusing. As for sodomy, I'm not interested.

[Froggie]

Can someone explain how the authorities are going to outlaw prostitution now in light of this ruling which upholds privacy regarding sexual conduct?