Replies

On the basis that you don't own me, nor does the State own me.

If the actions I take are objectionable to you, that is not foundation for imprisoning me or sanctioning the use of my sovereignty over my person. I feel the same way about any act that does not directly violate your rights.

These laws are not only stupid, but they were wrongfully applied in the Lawrence case. No one was really arrested for that crime, but the JBT who was there for something else, decided to arrest them for something.

Let me ask you, does sodomy of any kind(hetero,homo,oral,anal) violate your rights when conducted out-of-sight and between competent adults?

On the basis that you don't own me, nor does the State own me.

If the actions I take are objectionable to you, that is not foundation for imprisoning me or sanctioning the use of my sovereignty over my person. I feel the same way about any act that does not directly violate your rights.

Is there an unalienable right to public sex acts between consenting adults?

These laws are not only stupid, but they were wrongfully applied in the Lawrence case. No one was really arrested for that crime, but the JBT who was there for something else, decided to arrest them for something.
Let me ask you, does sodomy of any kind(hetero,homo,oral,anal) violate your rights when conducted out-of-sight and between competent adults?

I agree with you. Bad laws. But I ask you, which is more appropriate:
1) The people, over time, accept social change and repeal or enact laws in their State to reflect that societal change.

2) States recognize that society has changed and stops enforcing laws that would be unacceptable. If they do enforce unacceptable laws then public reaction can be mobilized to finally repeal it.

3) The people through their States reach consensus over an individual right and pass a Constitutional amendment to ensure the protection of those rights nationally.

4) The justices of the Supreme Court decide to rule by decree and justify their result by creation of a vague new individual right that they can order enforced nationally because they think it would be better.

My opinion is that any of the first 3 are better than number 4. Of course they are more difficult to pursue, take a lot more work, require logical debate in the arena of ideas, and require convincing the American people. Imagine that!

When the court imposes its social engineering it leads to a lot more friction in our society than when the society decides for itself.

The court ruled on abortion and it remains to this day a bleeding scab on our body politic. The court ruled on Dred Scott and it became a bleeding scab that erupted in 600,000 dead. The court ruled on busing and it led to hell for years.

But we PASSED the Voting Rights Act and while there might be grumbling sometimes IT is accepted that everybody votes. We PASSED the 14th Amendment and though there is grumbling sometimes IT is accepted.

We are better off if we convince the American people to change when we want change rather than shrugging our shoulders when it is imposed on them.

Let me ask you, does sodomy of any kind(hetero,homo,oral,anal) violate your rights when conducted out-of-sight and between competent adults?

Irrelevant, as I do not accept your shaky premise, for which you have not submitted a shred of evidence, that there is an unalienable right to homosexual sodomy. Therefore the matter of homosexual conduct is relegated to the purview of the states by the 10th Amendment, and it is up the the individual states to determine through their own governments whether or not there is a compelling state interest in regulating that conduct.