[onyx]

Your post is a joke, right?

[Coronal]

I hope you're wearing your flak vest and asbestos boxers.

[ElkGroveDan]

I see then. We don't want to know how you are going to be celebrating this weekend, thank you.

[shred]

In a few years, all the gnashing of teeth and wailing over this one will seem, in retrospect, to be much ado over nothing.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government."

...Uh, by telling the State of Texas (and by extension, 49 other states) they had no right to develop and enforce community standards?

Frankly, Lawrence legalized prostitution nation wide.

[JOE6PAK]

Wasn't this to be posted under HUMOR?

[jlogajan]

Shred, meet the big government conservatives. Big government conservatives, meet Shred.

[Jeff Head]

Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is

amd morality is at the heart of individual liberty.

As John Adams said...

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798

If we are to stay free, we must have both. That was the genius and basis for the entire "experiment" IMHO.

The further we get away from those fundamental principles on either count, the more danger to our Republic, to our way of life and to our liberty.

Just my opinion.

Jeff

[Texas_Jarhead]

let's see...

They decide against equal protection on a 'moral' basis by affirming AA then state that they cannot make 'moral' judgements when applying equal protection

that about right? series

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I agree. I personally do not agree with homosexuality, however, I agree even less with the nanny state telling free men what they can and can't do in their homes.

[kcar]

I'm certainly happy with that decision. The government has no business restricting private consensual activity. That was a big win for freedom.

Now, on the U 0f Michigan decision - whatever were they thinking? Freedom, not diversity, is what we're about. Diversity happens, or doesn't, based upon how people behave, now how government thinks they should behave.

[dinodino]

Are you kidding me?

[TommyDale]

Yep. Now that some prisoners are now being released because of the idiot ruling, such as the guy doing a 15 year sentence for having homosexual sex with a boy of 14, we are just tickled pink. (Pardon the pun.)

If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear. According to the Supremes, now it is okay for statutory rape agains someone of the same sex? The 6 justices who voted for this should be removed forcibly.

[PaulJ]

I think Boortz said it best in his latest:

"My view on this Supreme Court decision is strictly libertarian. No action taken by a human being should be considered a crime by the state unless that action deprives another human being of their life, liberty or property through either force or fraud. Two consenting adults participating in the sexual act of their choice in a private setting deprives no other person of their right to life, liberty or property. Nobody is harmed, nobody is defrauded. I do not want the government in my bedroom. If I don’t want the government in my bedroom then what is the justification for asking the government to go regulate someone else’s sexual conduct? "

[rwfromkansas]

The only freepers tired of it are LIBERTARIANS.

And this is a conservative news forum, not a libertarian news forum.

So, the people who are upset are people that really don't matter.

[rwfromkansas]

By the way, the ruling actually increased big government by telling the states what they can do.

[Havisham]

When the court majority overtakes the legislative process the result is instability. Instability threatens liberty.

Have you read Sowell's 'Vision of the Anointed' or 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice'? I think you would find these at least intellectually rewarding even if you disagree with the analysis.

[Sabertooth]

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.

Then you have no idea what happened. This was a trampling of the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers. This is a naked power grab by the SCOTUS at the expense of the states and of the people.

The reasoning of the decision is based on the broad, vague, and new-found Constitutional principle of the "expression of essential humanity," and will serve as the fulcrum by which the increasing power of the federal government is leveraged in unimaginable ways in the future.

[GrandMoM]

....as I can see by the other posts and your answer to them, you in fact were not kidding, but this is the biggest joke ever,****I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing.....go back to high school and try to learn the difference between a conservative and a liberal this time!!!!

[cake_crumb]

Since gay activist groups are already planning to use Justice Scalia's scathing dissent as a basis for suing for "more equality" I stand by my prediction that this was a BAD desicion which will have repercussions on everything from taxes to health insurance. The laqsuit game has just begun.

"Standing of States to Represent Their Citizens.--The right of a State to sue as parens patriae, in behalf of its citizens, has long been recognized.381 No State, however, may be parens patriae of her citizens ''as against the Federal Government.''382 But a State may sue on behalf of the economic welfare of its citizens to protect them from environmental harm383 and to enjoin other States and private parties from engaging in actions harmful to the economic or other well- being of its citizens.384 The State must be more than a nominal party without a real interest of its own, merely representing the interests of particular citizens who cannot represent themselves;385 it must articulate an interest apart from those of private parties that partakes of a ''quasi-sovereign interest'' in the health and well-being, both physical and economic, of its residents in general, although there are suggestions that the restrictive definition grows out of the Court's wish to constrain its original jurisdiction and may not fit such suits brought in the lower federal courts"