Replies

If you consider the sodomy laws to be immoral or unjust, work for the legislature in your state to repeal them. If the people of your state agree with your position, eventually the laws in your state will be repealed. However, using the courts to invent an imaginary all-encompassing "right to privacy" which extends to invalidate any laws against "private acts" is clearly a violation of the principles upon which the country was founded. The Supreme Court should be VERY hesitant to impose the beliefs of a fringe minority upon the several states by overturning the laws of those states, unless those laws clearly violate the EXPLICIT constructs of the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise it usurps the authority of the legislative bodies of the several states.

As for your admonishment for not punishing every sin with criminal law, there are no criminal laws against premarital sex or adultery per se, and you will not likely find any Christians here in this forum that advocate them, so save that straw-man for people of less intelligence (you can probably find them over at DU or The Advocate).

The Supreme Court should be VERY hesitant to impose the beliefs of a fringe minority upon the several states by overturning the laws of those states, unless those laws clearly violate the EXPLICIT constructs of the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise it usurps the authority of the legislative bodies of the several states.

You mean like Roe v Wade? Who's gonna stop em?

If you read my post carefully, I didn't say anywhere that I specifically consider sodomy laws immoral or even unjust, necessarily. What I did was point out the irony of sending them to the homosexual rape insitutions known as prisons. Don't you find anything ironic in that?

I am also suspicious of the Supreme Court's jury-rigged right to privacy, which I fancy I understand a good deal better than you do, as I have actually read the 1894 Harvard Law Review article in which it was invented, and most of the major cases governing. It was originally proposed in a commercial law context, where it worked reasonably well in practice even if the theory was hinky. Where it has come a cropper is in criminal law type uses, such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.

My point about not punishing every sin was not a straw man. It simply points out the fact that the fact sodomy is a sin is not a sufficient reason to criminalise it.

Ad hominem attacks do not advance your viewpoint.