[Cold Heat]

I tend to agree.

These antiquated sodomy laws are not based on sound legal footing, but are the product of human social prohibitions.

The Texas version was particularly bad because it only covered sodomy between two males and nothing else. It was not applied fairly to begin with.

There are but 12 or 13 states that still have these things on the books.

I see this as no big deal and certainly no big win for the gay population either. prosecution of sodomy laws between consenting adult was practically unheard of until this case. I believe there was one other in Wisconsin or someplace.

The court did ok by me and I am far from a gay rights supporter nor do I even think about them much.(except when they get in my face)

[MEGoody]

I can see both sides of this issue. On the one hand, I don't want the government telling adults what they can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. On the other hand, it seems that this is just another step down the slippery slope of immorality. Guess I'll pray and leave it all in God's hands.

[Sandy]

I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC!

Consistent is one thing the Court ain't. This week, they upheld a law using strict scrutiny and struck down a law using minimal scrutiny. That's completely ass-backwards. Personally, I'm no fan of the 3-tier level-of-scrutiny process, and maybe it is time to chuck it or at least overhaul it. But if that's what the Justices want to do, then they need to just come out and say it. I think that's my problem with the decision. They seem to be changing their own rules while pretending to follow them. It strikes me as dishonest and contrived.

[sonofron]

THe SC doesn't speak for me, they are way out of line. The SC telling the states how to run themselves is all about big government. Conservatives like to allow the states to make the decisions that best fit themselves.

[Between the Lines]

I understand your viewpoint, but I am concerned about the wide brush SCOTUS paints with by including all sex acts in private in their decision. I have three questions to ask you in light of the Lawrence decision:

If Lawrence was the law before the Clinton scandals, would he have been impeached and would we have ever known about Monica at all?

What does this decision do to the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy?

Will prisoners be allowed to have consensual sex all they want and will this turn prisons into Gay recruitment centers?

What do you think?

[muawiyah]

Glad you can agree with the Texas case, but what about the follow-up Kansas case where the Supreme Court endorsed the right of an adult male homosexual to attack a minor male?

Then, they turned loose all the Catholic priests who had been convicted of messing with minors in California.

No doubt it will get worse as the pedophiles on the Supreme Court start feeling their oats.

[Sparta]

I oppose the sodomy laws in question. I feel that government has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults. However, I deplore the sodomy decision Thursday. It was a naked assualt on a State's right to regulate quality of life issues. Also, this does open up a slippery slope.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Count me in....

[Diddle E. Squat]

So you are saying that the ends justify the means?

I agree with Clarence Thomas(a true conservative) that the law should have been rescinded by the Texas legislature, but the federal court was NOT the proper venue.

But hey, if I get my way, then who cares if it is constitutional, just, or the will of the people? Who cares about the ballot box? Sounds like a Dem argument from Florida 2000.

[Republican Wildcat]

So you think it is approporiate for the Supreme Court to create new law and cultural standards via judicial fiat. alrighty...

[Scenic Sounds]

I just think that folks should make a choice. If we want the Supreme Court (via the 14th Amendment) to tell the states how to write their admissions policies for their schools, we shouldn't complain when the the Court uses the same amendment to tell the states how to write their criminal laws.

[Drew68]

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

I agree. And it gives me great pleasure hearing all the moral crusaders wail and gnash their teeth over this.

In the words of Nelson Muntz, "Ha ha!"

[spunkets]

"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. The only limits placed on the right to privacy by the Bill of Rights refers to the infringement of that right. Specifically it refers to qualification for search and seisure. Their is no prohibition to create laws regarding acts that are kept private.

Also the State of TX gave valid reason for their law and backed it up with precident. The SCOTUS said they did not and also tossed much of it simply, because it demeaned homos.

This is not a victory for Freedom, because Freedom requires that the truth reign. This is a victory for BS artists and the rule of arbitrary tyrants. It's not Freedom they supported, it's socialism.

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

Look at it this way. If you are right, then I can hire a killer in the privacy of my own home and be free of any legal sanction, because it's a private matter and any law against hiring killers would demean my character.

BYW, the individual liberty you're concerned with, does it involve something for your head?

[ladyinred]

Let me guess. Libertarian right?
You seem to forget that we are a nation of laws as well as freedom.

I for one am grateful we have the rule of law, too bad so few are these days, including the Judical branch of government.

The Supreme Court should only rule on constitutional issues that are actually in the document.

[rabidralph]

I think I agree with you. I saw this ruling more as a victory for privacy, rather than a victory for homosexuals. The media is certainly portraying it as a homo victory, but I never viewed it that way. The larger issue was always about the police invading people's privacy. But what do I know, I'm just a government mule.

[CholeraJoe]

DAMN Straight. Lawrence v. Texas was a victory for individual privacy. Can't stand the gay bashing. Wake up FReepers.

[DAnconia55]

Most of the Ayatollahs who post such Stalinist drivel are so sex deprived they get less women than the gays do....

I can't figure out if they post so for fear or envy.

And honestly, I'd rather not know.

[PhilipFreneau]

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.

Yea, right. Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah. Keep your asbestos suit handy.

[Reactionary]

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

Right. "Sticking a knife in the heart of big government" obviously means that a handful of unelected liberals gets to decide what kind of behavior *all* Americans will be required to tolerate.

"Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is all about - the individual having primacy over the state."

Right. And individual liberty was doing just fine when states had some say in the matter - as opposed to a handful of nihilists.

What a joke.

[egomeimihi]

Do libertarians think that the courts should exercise will rather than judgement? It seems that they have no problem whatever with judicial activism so long as such activism upholds their own values. They claim to want limited government, but fail to see separation of powers as a necessary element of that ideal. The problem that conservatives have with an activist court is that it replaces the will of the the duly elected legislature with that of nine appointed judges. Unless the Texas statute in Lawrence violated the plain text of the Constitution, the SCOTUS had no legitimate right to overturn it. The crux of the matter is not the desirability or undesirability of laws limiting what consenting adults can do in the bedroom (I agree with Justice Thomas on this matter), but whether unelected judges should impose their own subjective values over those of the lawfully elected legisatures of all fifty states. The same interpretive methods employed by the majority in Lawrence may very well lead to the complete elimination of our second amendment rights. Do libertarians really think that the Constitution should be a "living" document? Such "life" can only lead to its death.