"Arbitrary" and "Unreasonable" are vague terms that activist judges can use to subvert the plain meaning of the 10th ammendment. Their ruling in this case was far more arbitrary and unreasonable than the law in question.
Yet here you are using those same words to castigate "activist judges rulings". Circular argument idiocy.
Our rights are given as gifts from our Creator. It then follows that you don't have the "right" to do what is wrong.
If you followed your Creators precepts, You wouldn't be forcing your version of 'right' upon others.
A nation and society has a right to defend itself from the destructive impluses of its members.
Of course they do. Establish destructive criminality, and write constitutional law to regulate such impulses. You'll have my support.
Take two nations that have equal resources in every other way. In one, the laws of Texas apply, go beyond it even, cohabitation is illegal and there is no such thing as 'no-fault' divorce when children are involved. In the other nation, half the population engages in sodomy and prostitution. The other half is cohabiting. Which nation will be the greater nation 100 years hence? Which people will be happier, freerer, and more prosperous? There is no doubt in my mind that nation whose laws best conform to the actual moral order of the universe will be the nation whose citizens are most blessed.
Prohibitional 'laws' on sin have always bred contempt for the rule of law from my reading of history.
Neither fed/state/local governments were ever granted a fiat power to decree things or acts to be 'criminal'.
IE. - Booze prohibition required an amendment, repealed when sanity was restored.
What are you talking about? Booze prohibition required an ammendment because they wanted to make it a FEDERAL law. Each state could proibit it if they wanted. Heck, I still live in a 'dry' county.
Commercial/public activities in alcohol use can be, and are, severely regulated by fed/state/local governments. - But booze cannot be outright prohibited for private uses. Same 'right to privacy' principle applies..
Yep, harmful criminal acts are the basis for law. What you believe to be 'sins' are not.
Don't tell me what I can have as my opinion for a basis for law. I have just as much right as you do to decide where the lines should be drawn.
I'm not telling you, the constitution is; -- we are all bound to support & defend its principles on where the lines are drawn.
Gay men have a life expectancy about 30 years less than heterosexual men. They take antibiotics by the handful to continue the unnatural acts they ingage in without constant infection. This does nothing but make the petri dishes for resistent strains that are a threat to us all. Most sex outside of marriage is exploitative of one or the other. The state has a vested interest in preventing exploitation.
You are over the line in calling for governmental controls over such individual rights.
Nope. Due process is legal procedure. 17 years ago the Supreme Court decided that laws against sodomy were reasonable, now they decide they are not? Your argument destroys all basis for a fixed standard of law, without which we shall descend into ever increasing chaos.
It is true that some actions of the federal government must be done in a reasonable manner (ie no "unreasonable search and seizure",) but that has no impact on what the state might be seaching for. Could be crack, child porn, moonshine, cuban cigars, whatever. In this case they had a bogus report of a crime when the police burst in, but they had reasonable cause to bust in. You are in error when you claim that every law passed by every state is subject to change as soon as a new court takes over and redefines the law as "arbitrary" and "unreasonable".
Betty Boop quotes from the 14th amendment in #220, with a great explanation, and you respond by saying "14th amendment" witout any reason behind it. Come on. Do you even what to reason, or just rationalize at any price?
All of your so-called reasonings are nitpicking rationalizations. Not one of the founders who drafted the constitution, or those who passed the 14th amendment, would have agreed with your contention that they were trying to stop states from passing laws against sodomy (what the majority of their citizens knew to be sinful behaviors). Not one. I defy you. Show me from their writings that this is what they intended!
The law itself cannot be arbitrary & unreasonable. Government must prove a compelling need, a basis for the laws restrictions on liberty.
Shoving ones penis up the anal chute of another (ugh, I hate even typing this) is not by any stretch of the imagination the founders concept of "Liberty". Again, I defy you to show me in their own words they had that view. Liberty is not license. Every state in the union had what you call 'sin laws' on the books regarding 'private' behavior, including sodomy laws, and NONE of the founders spoke out against them.
If you followed your Creators precepts, You wouldn't be forcing your version of 'right' upon others.
the secularists who want us to shut up try to tell us that is what our religion teaches, but it has no relation to the God of the Bible. Jesus endorsed the whole of the Law, including that against sodomy. Romans teaches that government is God's minsiter to 'bring wrath on evil doers'. I have every right to say where I think the line should be drawn. It is the obligation of every believer, though many shierk it, to uphold God's standard of justice for civil law.
Your version of 'Liberty" would have me locked in my house in fear as bands of crazed druggies and desperate AIDS victims ransacked the crumbling remains of my home town.
Prohibitional 'laws' on sin have always bred contempt for the rule of law from my reading of history.
They didn't during the first 100 years of our history. And if so, Then why have laws against robbery and murder? Those are sins. As long as the laws don't get too far ahead of the culture, such laws reduce the behavior they outlaw. Our one point of agreement is that in a free society, the laws cannot be out of synch with the hearts of the people.
I could impose the most perfect set of laws, in total accord with Nature's God, on a country of tpaines and it would produce rebellion and friction. A country of tpaines must live for a time feasting on the fruit of their own ways. Once they produce the inevitable death and decay, the tpaines look up from the awful muck they find their culture mired in and say , "We must change this". At this point they become willing to turn authority over to a strongman to restore order.
What I am trying to do is get people, maybe even tpaine, to avert disaster BEFORE it strikes. Yet you are unwilling. You steadfastly, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary,"we are all bound to support & defend its principles on where the lines are drawn." This over a decison where the Supreme Court reversed itself from a mere 17 years ago.
How come this principal was not discovered by any of the men who authoured the document, nor even this same court in the 1980's, but only now? THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL. They pulled this from their hindquarters. There never was a 'right' to sodomy, and all the founders knew it.
You're not the real Tom Paine. That much is clear.