[Ahban]

I agree that due process must be upheld, but THERE WAS DUE PROCESS in this case. The judges are supposed to make sure the arrest and conviction PROCEDURES are the same for all groups, NOT decide which groups activities should be legal or illegal.

For example, if the law said that homosexuals could not testify in court, or that it was ok for vigilantes to beat them up, then that law should be thrown out. They would not be getting due process. WHAT SHOULD NOT be thrown out, is laws against specific behaviors. It is up to each state to decide what should be legal or illegal. Don't give me that hokem about legislating morality. ALL LAWS ARE LEGISLATED MORALITY- that is a primary function of law.

[MississippiMan]

You are of course right. The core of this case is not privacy, nor equal protection, nor due process. It is a stamp of approval that legitimizes homosexuality, plain and simple, an attempt to reverse natural law.

MM

[bvw]

ALL LAWS ARE LEGISLATED MORALITY

.

That pretty much covers it, Except as of last Thursday, the law is how each judge wills it. Legislature? What Legislature? We don't got no filthy steekin Legislature!

ALL LAWS ARE NOW WHAT THE JUDGE SAYS THEY ARE WHEN YOU ARE BEFORE HIM OR HER

.

Please remember the the Judge has children, and need help to go to the kind of schools we *all* want Judge's children to go to, you know. There's a tax-deducatible college fund box there on the table. Can't miss it -- just as you come up to the witness stand.

[DAnconia55]

agree that due process must be upheld, but THERE WAS DUE PROCESS in this case. The judges are supposed to make sure the arrest and conviction PROCEDURES are the same for all groups, NOT decide which groups activities should be legal or illegal

The law was invalid and unconstitutional because it allowed heterosexuals to have oral/anal sex, and made it illegal for homosexuals to do.

This is not equal protection of the law.