Kennedy’s Libertarian Revolution. Lawrence’s reach.

National Review Online ^ | July 10, 2003 | Randy E. Barnett

[lugsoul]

Run from the point a little faster. You said that legal homosexual sex would make the act and its depiction appear everywhere, without being subject to objection. You never address why other legal sex acts are not surrounding us in public. You will only talk about what you perceive gays want to do, not how the legality or illegality of gay sex affects the issue. It seems that you believe criminal law should be used to make sure people don't talk about certain things or that they maintain them as private matters. If that is in fact your view, you are no conservative.

[First Amendment]

Run from the point a little faster.

why so angry? I ain't running.

You said that legal homosexual sex would make the act and its depiction appear everywhere, without being subject to objection.

It will. That's why homosexuals and their promoters are having a field day with their lawsuits and having jubilation parties. Can't object to something that now has Constitutional protection.

You never address why other legal sex acts are not surrounding us in public.

They are. And I'm not overjoyed about heterosexual pornography everywhere and "softcore" porn on TV destroying kids' minds either.

You will only talk about what you perceive gays want to do, not how the legality or illegality of gay sex affects the issue.

, No, I'm discussing the news, what other conservative commentators say, and what the homosexuals and their assistants are saying.

It seems that you believe criminal law should be used to make sure people don't talk about certain things or that they maintain them as private matters. If that is in fact your view, you are no conservative.

Nope, I'm saying that if sodomy is illegal then there is a legitimate reason to have laws against its practice in bushes at the park, in public bathrooms, at beaches, homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, foster parents, its discussion (in a positive light especially) in grade and high school, etc. And it doesn't mean I'm no conservative, it means I'm no libertarian.

[Tribune7]

"What should constrain judges when interpreting the Constitution?" The constitution itself.

Sorry for the delay in the response.

The Constitution says in the 14th Amendment: No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says SEC. 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, . . . be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

On June 23, the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger says go ahead and discriminate. The law doesn't mean what it says in English. It means what we say it means.

They did the same thing with Lawrence

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the criminalization of sodomy and our founders supported rather draconian ones against it. And one does not have the right to commit criminal acts in the privacy of one's home.

If you want to argue that a sodomy law is unwise I might agree with you. In fact, I do agree that a sodomy law is pointless as a means of encouraging "moral" behavior.

If you argue that one is "unConstitutional," however, because judges say it is, you are giving absolute power to unelected persons.

[StriperSniper]

This was not a narrow decision.

No it wasn't. O'Conner's equal protection argument was the narrow ruling needed since it would have struck down the Texas law on the basis of it treating homo and hetrosexual sodomy differently.

[tpaine]

Tribune7 wrote:

"What should constrain judges when interpreting the Constitution?"

The constitution itself. -- But ultimately the people control all the checks & balances in our system to stop a runaway court. -42-

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the criminalization of sodomy and our founders supported rather draconian ones against it. And one does not have the right to commit criminal acts in the privacy of one's home.

There is nothing in the Constitution that enables the criminalization of consensual acts in the privacy of one's home.
Thus, - the state must show compelling reasons to criminalize such acts. - Reasons that do not exist.

If you want to argue that a sodomy law is unwise I might agree with you. In fact, I do agree that a sodomy law is pointless as a means of encouraging "moral" behavior. If you argue that one is "unConstitutional," however, because judges say it is, you are giving absolute power to unelected persons.

I'm not arguing for that reason, obviously.
I'm arguing that states do not have the power to prohibit my liberties or my possessions, just as CA is currently prohibiting "assault weapons" for bogus compelling reasons.

[Tribune7]

There is nothing in the Constitution that enables the criminalization of consensual acts in the privacy of one's home.

Of course there is. Why would you think otherwise?

[tpaine]

There is nothing in the Constitution that enables the criminalization of consensual acts in the privacy of one's home.
-tpaine-

Of course there is. Why would you think otherwise?
-T7-




The entire constitution is designed to protect our individual rights, as is evident by reading it.

Read much? Understand what the 9th amendment says?
- It says ALL rights are retained by the people. - Thus, I am at liberty in my home unless the government can find a compelling reason to restrict my liberty.

Possession of an 'assault' rifle ain't a compelling reason. Doing weird sexual acts with a willing adult partner isn't either. Nor is growing/smoking/drinking some mind altering substance a 'compelling' interest to the state or feds.

Get your blue nose out of my homes bedroom, gunroom, barroom and we'll get along just fine.]

Keep up the un-necessary 'law'-making, and it will hit the fan.