Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 06/28/2003 12:38:52 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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistjudiciary; activistsupremecourt; aganda; barfalert; blahblahblah; buhbye; conservatives; courtlegislation; dontletthedoorhityou; downourthroats; dusrupter; federalizeeverything; freedom; gay; gayagenda; homosexual; homosexualagenda; individualliberty; judicialfiat; lawrencevtexas; lessgovernment; liberty; moron; nakedpowergrab; peckerhead; readtheconstitution; samesexdisorder; strikeupthebanned; tenthamendmentdeath; thisaccountisbanned; troll; vikingkitties; wholecloth; whoneedsfederalism; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-348 last
To: AppyPappy
It would seem to me that state laws are enacted to limit "bad" behaviors that affect society, like sodomy in public parks and restrooms.
340 -sap pap-


Good grief.. After thousands of posts in the last several days you still don't get the point...
The courts issue was prohibiting PRIVATE consensual behaviors in the privacy of the home. Sheeesh.
341 posted on 06/30/2003 10:07:08 AM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weakn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The courts issue was prohibiting PRIVATE consensual behaviors in the privacy of the home. Sheeesh.

The vast majority of sodomy cases take place outside the home. It's a red herring. Once again, what about PRIVATE incest in the privacy of the home? If the court allows normally illegal behavior in the home, where is the limit?

342 posted on 06/30/2003 10:12:56 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
The courts issue was prohibiting PRIVATE consensual behaviors in the privacy of the home. The vast majority of sodomy cases take place outside the home.

So what? The USSC ruled on the privacy issue.

It's a red herring.

Daft. Public displays of sodomy are still illegal.

Once again, what about PRIVATE incest in the privacy of the home?

Consensual adult incest is repugnant, but no more 'illegal' than sodomy is in the same terms.

If the court allows normally illegal behavior in the home, where is the limit?

The behavior itself is not 'illegal'. The public display of such behavior can be 'illegal' as it frightens the horses.

343 posted on 06/30/2003 10:50:01 AM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weakn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Where does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the authority to be the interpreter for the Constitution?

That was his argument. It was jlogajan whom you need to ask that question to.

344 posted on 07/01/2003 8:14:17 AM PDT by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
What compelling reason does government have to regulate the sexual activities between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home?

I see you've boughten the myth that this is about privacy in someone's own home. It's not. The decision did not address the police or government's ability to enter or search your property. The government/police have the exact same power now as before.

This ruling protects gay sex wherever it is: home, public park, public bathroom, parking lot, alleyway, etc. It is not just what goes on in a home. Do you think that this ruling will make more or less likely that a local government will try to prevent homosexuals from turning public places into their new bedrooms?

You ask what business is it of the government? Perhaps the real question should be who decides? A handful of unelected officials in washington who won't have to live with the results of their decision. Or by the people who live in the city or state through their elected representative. the People who will have to live with the results, and the representatives who could be voted out if the people don't like the results. Which way do think will advance freedom most?

345 posted on 07/01/2003 8:52:36 AM PDT by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
In this case they decided that there is a right to privacy IN THE CONSTITUTION......THERE ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, the SCOTUS invoked the right to privacy nearly 40 years ago in Griswald v. Connecticut, which prohibited the states from interfering with the most basic and private rights concerning human sexuality and intimacy. The right to privacy is not new by any means, only its application to gay people.

346 posted on 07/01/2003 9:03:06 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack; JOE6PAK
Nothing energizes our "Joe 6 pack" contingent like this issue. Back to back posts.

347 posted on 07/01/2003 9:07:20 AM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sci Fi Guy
This ruling protects gay sex wherever it is: home, public park, public bathroom, parking lot, alleyway, etc. It is not just what goes on in a home.

The Texas law on homosexual sodomy was poorly constructed and deserved to be struck down. This ruling does not open the flood gate, as you have suggested, to permit gay sex in public places.

Do you think that this ruling will make more or less likely that a local government will try to prevent homosexuals from turning public places into their new bedrooms?

That would depend on the standards of the communities involved, and how much resources they wished to devote to this activity. I would prefer that community standards be applied evenly however, meaning standards on public sexual behavior should not just apply to gays.

Perhaps the real question should be who decides?

No, from this decision it would seem that the judicial branch decides whether government has a compelling interest in regulating the private sexual activity of consenting adults.

Which way do think will advance freedom most?

I prefer limiting the power of legislatures in areas where it does not have a compelling interest. That includes limits on state and local legislatures. Thats a limit on all forms of government, and protects individual liberty.

348 posted on 07/01/2003 11:35:36 AM PDT by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-348 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson